HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 20 1998 PC MinutesN' 'AR,; 20 ; gg8
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing ; �n Tuesday, January
y
lding, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
20 , 1998, in the County Office Bui
were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms.
Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Finley; Mr. Dennis Rooker; and Mr.
Will Reiley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. Glen Brooks, Engineering Department; Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources
Manager; Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant
County Attorney.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m
CONSENT AGENDA
Brownsville Elementary School Additions & Renovations Minor Amendment - Request for
one-way circulation.
and
Woodbrook Elementary School Additions & Renovations Minor Amendment - Request for
one-way circulation.
No concerns were raised by the Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that the Consent Agenda be
approved. The motion passed unanimously.
SUB 97-044 Rivancrest Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Request for preliminary plat
approval to create five lots and use a private road on 26.42 acres of land along the south
side of Woodlands Road [Route 676]. The property, described as Tax Map 45, parcel 5,
is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This property is located approximately
250 feet from the intersection of Route 676 and Route 1050. It is zoned RA and is
designated as a rural area in the Comprehensive Plan. This plan has been modified from
the version reviewed by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
Modifications reflect certain recommendations made by the Planning Commission and
Board.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. She explained how the original proposal had been
modified to reflect the concerns raised by the Commission at the previous hearing. (See
staff report filed with these minutes.) Staff believed most all the concerns had been met
by this modified plan. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat, subject to
conditions, and also the use of a private road. Staff felt a private road would cause less
environmental degradation than a public road.
M
After the preparation of the staff report a Commissioner had asked staff if the applicant
would be willing to restrict the building sites to those higher on the hill. To address this
request, the applicant agreed to the addition of a note on the plat as follows:
"Construction of houses shall be limited to the building sites shown unless an owner can
demonstrate to the Engineering Department that house location, construction, and
treatment of runoff will be done in such a way as to have a minimal effect on slope
integrity and water pollution."
Mr. Loewenstein asked staff to comment on the statement in the staff report that "the
applicant has not extended the water protection buffer an extra 100 feet." Mr. Hirschman
explained there is a 200-foot building and septic setback along the banks of the reservoir.
(This is just a "distance" requirement and does not include the requirement that
vegetation be protected within that 200 feet.) There is also a 100-foot buffer (i.e., of the
200 feet, the 100 feet closest to the reservoir) where the vegetation is supposed to be
protected. It was staffs recommendation that the entire 200 feet be a "buffer," but the
Ordinance only requires a 100-foot buffer.
Mr. Tice commended the applicant for the measures which have been taken to address
the Commission's concerns.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Rick Carter. He restated the modifications which
were made to the original proposal. He said the applicant's engineers have determined
that a private road will cause less degradation than a public road. As reconstructed, the
private road will be 150 feet shorter than originally proposed. He stressed that the Water
Resources Manager has determined that, in regards to stormwater management and
water quality, this plat meets all the requirements of both the Subdivision and Water
Quality Ordinances. Mr. Tom Muncaster, the applicant's engineer, addressed the
question raised about the additional 100-foot buffer. He said vegetative filter strips, in
order to be effective, must be on a moderate slope (no greater than 5%). On slopes
greater than 15%, they are completely ineffective. The area where these strips would be
located is greater than 25% slope. He concluded that an extra 100-foot buffer would be
of no benefit.
Mr. Carter stressed that this plan meets all the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance
and the Zoning Ordinance.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. David Cerzilias (?), a landscape architect, addressed the Commission. He disagreed
with Mr. Muncaster's statements that buffers are ineffective on slopes.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Referring to the proposed note to the plat about building sites, Mr. Tice asked if the
building sites will appear on the final plat. The applicant confirmed that the building sites
will be in the same locations on the final plat as they are on the preliminary plat.
OR
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Rivancrest Preliminary
Subdivision Plat be approved, including the use of a private road, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the
following conditions are met:
a. Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan,
b. Engineering Department approval of final road plans and drainage
computations;
c. Roads built or bonded in accordance with the approved private road plans;
d. Engineering Department approval of final stormwater management (BMP)
facility design and supporting computations,
e. Engineering Department receipt of a completed stormwater management (BMP)
facility maintenance agreement and the required recordation fee.
2. Note on plat: Construction of houses shall be limited to the building sites shown
unless an owner can demonstrate to the Engineering Department that house location,
construction, and treatment of runoff will be done in such a way as to have a minimal
effect on slope integrity and water pollution.
The motion passed unanimously.
SDP 97-110 Ivy Landfill End Use Final Site Plan - Proposal for improvements to existing
landfill to effectuate "end use" plan including establishment of municipal solid waste
%w, transfer station, waste -to -compost facility, passive gas venting system, and improvements
to recycling/reuse facilities. Construction demolition debris (CDD) would continue to be
disposed of on site. In addition, initial grading and other improvements for conversion of
a portion of the site to public recreational use is depicted on the plan. Property,
described as Tax Map 73, Parcel 28, consists of 297.2 acres zoned RA Rural Areas and
EC Entrance Corridor. Overlay District, situated on the northwest side of Dick Woods
Road (Rt. 637) about one mile east of Taylor's Gap Road (Rt. 708) in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated development area.
Mr. Loewenstein explained the issue before the Commission and the actions which the
Commission is being asked to take. He explained the Commission is being asked to
make a recommendation to the Board as to whether or not the Recreational Use is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission's action on this issue is a
ministerial, not a legislative, action. The Commission is also being asked to take action
on (1) The site plan for the recreational use; and (2) On certain aspects of the Ivy Landfill
End Use Plan (i.e. the landfill entrance and circulation, encore center improvements,
composting area, and MSW transfer station). He asked that the public comments focus
on those items. The Commission is NOT making a recommendation as to whether or not
there should be a transfer station, nor when the Ivy Landfill should be closed. Option 7A,
calling for transfer of MSW (municipal solid waste) to another landfill, and continued on -
site disposal of CDD (construction demolition debris), was discussed and approved by the
Board of Supervisors in November, 1997. He asked that public comment not address
those issue which have already been decided and are beyond the scope of the
Commission's review at this time. He noted also that though soccer fields are shown on
-�T
1-20-98
4
the plan, the Planning Commission, tonight, is not absolutely approving those fields
though it will be taking action on the location of that area on the site plan.
Mr. Reiley disclosed that though he has had some past involvement with the landfill
conversion project (a member of his firm consulted with the Ivy Steering Committee when
she was working on a graduate degree project in 1995), and his firm had been one of
those interviewed in 1996 for the Landfill Final Use Plan. His firm was not selected for
that work. Also, his firm has done consulting work on an adjoining property (Malvern
Farm). His firm has worked on projects with both the City and County. He concluded:
"This past experience notwithstanding, I have no financial interest in this plan and no
current contracts with any interested party. My only interest is in the county's best
interest and I feel a responsibility to participate in the discussion and the vote."
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He described the plans which were on display.
The report concluded:
In summary, while staff has been mindful of public concerns in development of
recommended conditions of approval of the site plan, not all issues of concern
can be addressed through site plan review. The Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality and the County Department of Engineering have been
and will continue to be involved in the review of the landfill for some matters not
addressable by the site plan regulations. The issue of continuance of various
activities of the landfill have been discussed by the RSWA Board, City Council
and the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors reaffirmed its
commitment to "Option 7A" in early November, 1997.
Commission action was required on the following four items:
--A determination as to compliancy with the Comprehensive Plan for the
Recreational Use.
--Approval of curvilinear parking for the Recreational Use.
--Recreation Area Site Plan.
--Ivy Landfill End Use Plan (Entrance and Circulation; Encore Center
Improvements; Composting Area; and MSW Transfer Station.) Note: The CDD and
other fill cells do not require site plan approval.
Staff answers to Commission questions, prior to applicant and public comment, included
the following:
--The staff recommendation that "no expenditure occur for recreational
development until the gas venting system has been approved by DEQ," is addressed by
condition No. 2 in the Recreation Site Plan which states that "construction shall not be
begun until approval has been obtained from the Board of Supervisors as required by
Section 5.1.14 of the Zoning Ordinance." The second part of Section 5.1.14 covers the
gas venting system.
--Referring to Attachment J (Mr. Kelsey's memo dated January 8), Mr. Tice asked
how cells are treated in calculating total impervious cover. Mr. Brooks said the
calculations count the cells as "pervious" so they are not counted in the total 2.5% total
impervious cover. Generally, only compacted gravel or pavement is considered
169
1-20-98 5
impervious. Approximately 2 feet of soil (18" compacted, plus 6" top soil) will be on top of
the cells.
--Any outdoor lighting for the recreational use will require Commission approval.
No night lights are planned for the recreational use at this time. Mr. Tice asked if the
note related to lighting on the site plan refers to the existing lighting ordinance or the
proposed lighting ordinance. Mr. Keeler said the note will refer to the existing ordinance.
--Some aspects of the End Use Plan will require DEQ approvals, (waste -to -
compost facility, MSW transfer facility). Mr. Rooker asked if there should be a condition
requiring the DEQ permits. Mr. Keeler said that was not needed unless the Commission
wants staff to have those permits in hand prior to signing the site plan. Mr. Kamptner
added: "Imposing that type of condition may just be duplicate data; that's already
required by law. They can't perform their operations without the permits. The plan before
you really deals with the land element and the development that's going on there, not the
actual use, which is addressed in part by the DEQ permits."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Jack Marshall, Chairman of the Board of Directors
of the RSWA, Mr. Art Petrini, Executive Director of the RSWA, and Mr. Steve Chitsey.
Mr. Marshall's statement is made a part of these minutes as Attachment A. Mr. Petrini's
answers to Commission questions included the following:
--He described how the transfer station will work. Trailers, with extended end
sections, will allow trash trucks to back into the inside of the trailer to dump their loads.
The trailers will have "walking floors." Generally, MSW will not be located on the site for
longer than 24 hours (slightly longer if it arrives on a Saturday). Accommodations will be
provided for private citizens who haul their own trash.
--Mr. Finley asked if the proposed playing fields will be located over closed cells.
Mr. Chitsey responded affirmatively. Mr. Finley asked how cap maintenance will be
performed. Mr. Chitsey responded: "Most cap maintenance associated with those areas
will be gradual subsidence of those areas. It is mainly an in -fill type thing where you have
to bring dirt in where there is settlement. Of course you have to manage the gas
collection system also." Mr. Finley asked if the required 20-year waiting period, "unless
otherwise approved for recreational fields over the cells" is a part of the Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Chitsey said it is a county regulation and he was unsure of the reason for
the regulation.
--Mr. Tice asked for an explanation of stormwater management plans. A
representative of Joyce Engineering, Ron deFrancesco, answered this question. He said
the site is currently regulated by a General Stormwater Discharge Permit, meaning all
stormwater basins on site are regulated and sampled for a set of parameters, to check for
pollution and things entering the stream. As part of that permit, a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan is required. That plan identifies potential pollution sources, what to
sample for, and when to sample, in all the basins. The plan was prepared and submitted
to DEQ and the County. The plan has been revised and is back in the review process.
The applicant is working to implement BMPs and provide more than what is required by
the State. Mr. Tice asked how the cells are treated --as permeable or non -permeable
surfaces? Mr. deFrancesce said "as soon as grass grows it is treated as a grassed area.
There is several feet of soil over top of any synthetic materials that are used to close
cells.... All stormwater calculations are based on the cover material." Presently, under
the Stormwater Permit, sampling is performed every six months, according to certain
g
1-20-98 6
criteria --there must be 1 inch of rainfall and the sample must be taken within the first
hour. Tests are made for a number of parameters which are kept on file. If there are
exceedances in any of those parameters, BMPs come into play. The existing permit
expires in 1999, at which time it will be reviewed.
--Mr. Finley asked where polluted groundwater is coming from. Mr. Chitsey said
some of the old unlined areas of the landfill are effecting groundwater. The RSWA has
made a commitment to manage that problem by extracting that groundwater and treating
it and then releasing it, after it has been treated, back into the surface water." Ms. Carey
Phillips (Joyce Engineering) explained the aeration treatment system which is being
considered. There will be a network of extraction wells. She said this is a long term
issue. The system that is proposed is designed to intercept the groundwater as it moves
toward the property boundaries. "That system will remain in place as long as analytical
results indicate that the goundwater pollution is at concentrations above the regulatory
limits. We anticipate that to be on -going for many years." Mr. Chitsey added: "in theory,
that (groundwater pollution) may decrease to the point where that will no longer be
needed." The pollutants causing concern, in the western drainage area, are primarily
"volatile organics." Different alternatives for disposing of the effluent from the treatment
plant are being considered. In the summer it may be used on site for irrigation or dust
control. More typical discharge is directly to a receiving stream, which would require a
Virginia Pollutant Elimination Discharge Permit. It could be used for irrigating the soccer
fields, though there is a cost associated with such a use. (In response to Mr. Rooker's
question, staff confirmed that the method of leachate treatment is not an item which is
before the Commission.)
--A landscape plan has not been prepared for the parking area at the recreational
use. Mr. Stan Tatum, landscape architect, said the parking area is over a cap so DEQ
limits the type of landscaping. Concern is about the root systems. Small plants are
allowed, though even those are limited to some degree. The recreation area will be
administered by the County Dept. of Parks and Recreation.
--Mr. Loewenstein asked if there have been any studies about the impact of truck
noise on the use of the recreational fields. Mr. Tatum said no studies have been
performed but it is believed noise will not be a problem.
--Mr. Finley asked how the implementation of Option 7A will impact the RSWA
costs. Mr. Petrini said all expenses will be met by revenues generated by the Landfill
activity. "We will not look to anybody but ourselves to match our expenses. Revenues
will be mainly from tip fees and other service charges." The RSWA has bonds for capital
costs which are paid over a period of time. It is anticipated expenses will decrease.
--Mr. Rooker asked if the studies of other landfills which have closed revealed any
problems which have occurred. Mr. Petrini said the RSWA hopes to learn from mistakes
which have been made. One problem is settlement. He said: We are going to design
our facility mainly for recreation and it is over a mainly CDD area. That type of waste
does not settle with the same proportion. It settles less than an MSW site. We don't
expect the same settlement problems to occur." Other problems include a methane
explosion caused by the lighting of a match. The RSWA has a "double gas prevention
system" and the system will be maintained.
In response to Mr. Reiley's request, Mr. Petrini, using the plan on display, pointed out
the location of several areas:
C, o
1-20-98 7
--The five proposed playing fields.
--Unlined cells 1 and 3.
--Paint and varnish disposal area.
--Asbestos disposal area.
Note: All these were located in the same general area.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Katie Hobbs, representing the League of Women Voters, spoke in favor of the Plan.
Her statement is made a part of these minutes as Attachment B.
The following people spoke in support of the recreational fields for soccer use: Mr. Bill
Mueller (representing SOCA) (Attachment C); Ms. Laura Aust; Mr. Gary Owens
(representing SOCA Parents Association); Ben Walters (Attachment D); Mr. Bob Colley,
Co -President of the Hollymead PTO. All those who spoke stressed the need for more
soccer playing fields.
Note: Mr. Mueller asked all those present who supported his statement to raise their
hands. ( Approximately one-third of a standing -room only crowd responded.)
The following persons expressed opposition to, or raised concerns about, the plan:
--Mr. Ed Strange, (adjoining property owner, and a member of the RSWA Citizens
Advisory Committee, and Chair of the Facilities Advisory Committee, a sub -committee of
the CHC) - He questioned the sincerity of the RSWA's representations. He expressed
concern about a cemetery located on the property (White family - DB 292, pg. 143) and
about off -site groundwater contamination. He urged the County to make sure that all"
details which you are not clear on --nail them down, and to require that the RSWA submit
to the County its plan for capturing hazardous gases. He urged that the County make
sure the site is safe before allowing any playing fields. He asked there be no outdoor
lighting of the recreational use.
--Mr. David Booth, Tattersall Farm (representing the Ivy Steering Committee and
himself) - He described existing problems with the operation such as mud on Rt. 637,
dust, odor and visibility. He viewed this as an "expansion plan." He felt the transfer
station should be inside a building and should be farther back on the site. He had
concerns about stormwater runoff. He said there is existing documentation of chemical
contaminants in the streams. He said the existing Cell #2 has a history of leaking to
surface water. He urged the Commission to look seriously at the list provided by the Ivy
Steering Committee. He said the RSWA responses to the Ivy Committee report contain a
lot of "half truths."
--Ms. Susan Bacik (Peacock Hill resident) - She stressed that the playing fields are
only a small part of the issue. She noted that it would not be possible to have drinking
water (from this site) available for these fields. (Later in the meeting Mr. Mulaney said
there are no plans to provide either bathrooms or drinking water for the fields. Many of
the county's recreational fields do not have these provisions.) She thought Option 7A
was a "Catch 22," i.e. "a polluted site in a terribly ill -suited location, so we have to keep it
going and make it worse to get the money to someday make it better." She reminded the
Commission the landfill was opened 30 years ago, on a 6-month, temporary, emergency
�1.
OR
1-20-98 8
permit, with no environmental impact study. She stressed this area is zoned agricultural
and residential, not industrial. She said it is up to the Planning Commission "to ensure
the integrity of all the neighborhoods in the county, and to ensure the protection of the
water resources in all the neighborhoods of the county...." She asked for "no expansion,
no CDD's and no composting."
--Mr. David Noble - He asked that the RWSA be asked to describe its definition of
groundwater and point out those areas where they plan to treat the groundwater. (The
Chair did not ask the RWSA to respond to this question at this time but said it could be
addressed later in the meeting.)
--Ms. Cynthia Dupre (Tattersall Farm resident and a soccer mom) - She said she
supports the recreational fields but not the transfer station or other activities. She
stressed the current odor problem.
--Mr. Andrew Wyndam (resident of Peacock Hill) - He found it difficult to believe
that consideration is being given to the construction of children's playing fields in close
proximity to contaminated areas. He also thought a final use plan should include "the
ultimate element of final use--remediation." Remediation is ignored in this plan. He said
pollution which is already beginning to seep off site, and is going to prove to be a
economic disaster, and a public relations disaster, for the County and the City. He
asked that the Commission require that a final use plan address the potential realities we
have in a landfill that was begun unlawfully and that we are now looking beyond,
pretending that we can create another landfill over it --not addressing the original problem-
-in the hope that ultimately it will either go away or we will have enough money to deal
with it."
--Mr. Rick Morton (speaking as an individual member of the former Citizens
Advisory Committee) - He said of the 13 specific recommendations in the Committee's
report, the RSWA plan begins to address 4 of those, partly addresses 2, and completely,
or in part, ignores the remaining 7. He called attention to No. 8 of the recommendations:
"A Master Plan for the final uses of the Ivy Landfill site should be developed now to
ensure the site is managed in a way that will allow for the planned -for uses." He said this
is "nothing more than an excerpt from the EPA's planning guidance to bodies such as
ourselves." He stressed that "final" means "the end," yet this plan does not address final
uses for cells 4 through 7, the date of final closure, nor the final elevation, which is
already in violation of the proposed mountain protection plan for the County.
--Mr. Michael Webber (representing his mother, a neighboring property owner to
the east of the landfill) - He described his mother's property (Malvern Farm) as "a historic
property, one of the gems of the county." He said before the RSWA took over the landfill
there was never a problem with odor, nor was visibility or noise a problem. He said even
when the landfill was sited here 30 years ago, "everybody in the environmental
community knew this was not the place where a landfill should be placed." He said strict
requirements must be enforced to make sure it will not be seen, heard or smelled, but "if
left up to the Authority, that's not going to happen."
--Mr. Jim Coffman (resident of Peacock Hill) - He said everyone supports the
playing fields, if they can be constructed safely. However, he described the existing
operation as a "series of many big messes which go back 30 years." He urged the
Commission to consider this plan carefully to ensure another mess is not created.
No
1-20-98
9
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission at
9:25 p.m.
Regarding concerns about noise and odor, Mr. Tice said he feels having hundreds of
soccer players and their parents on the site will result in one of the best monitors for
those concerns. He said he has two main concerns, the first being about stormwater
management. He was pleased to know there is a regular monitoring system and some
mechanism to address future problems. In addition, he said he believes the Commission
has a way to address stormwater issues which goes beyond DEQ requirements, i.e.
Section 32.7.4.2 of the Site Development Plan section of the Zoning Ordinance. He
quoted: "In addition to the provisions of Section 4.14, and other applicable law,
provisions shall be made for the minimization of pollution of downstream water courses
and groundwater where such measures are deemed warranted by the Commission due to
the peculiar character of a particular use. He said if any site in the County is "a peculiar
character of a particular use," the landfill site qualifies. He said this may be one of those
areas where the County has a responsibility which goes beyond DEQ responsibilities in
ensuring the minimization of pollution. To address his concern he suggested the addition
of the following condition to both the Recreation Use Plan and the End Use Plan:
"Engineering Department approval of a Stormwater Management Plan consistent with
Section 32.7.4.2." He acknowledged that the Engineering Department is already
reviewing and providing input on the Stormwater Prevention Plan that has been provided
by the applicant, but asked that "in doing that Engineering take a fresh look at this issue
of whether it's appropriate to consider the capped cells as simply grassed areas for
purposes of the engineering calculations and whether that is truly adequate in terms of
meeting of these conditions of Section 32.7.4.2 of the Ordinance." His second concern
was with the landscape plan. He understood this was the responsibility of the County
Parks and Recreation Department but he feared it could get overlooked. He said he has
had personal experience with designing a landscape plan for a landfill facility in another
part of the state and he is certain DEQ will allow a considerable number of landscape
plants on capped cells. He realized this is a somewhat unusual situation with the County
being responsible for the landscaping, but he wanted to be certain the record reflected his
concerns. He hoped the Board would look at the landscape issue. (He suggested no
additional condition related to landscaping.)
Mr. Kamptner addressed Mr. Tice's comments. He said: "There may be some
duplication because DEQ is currently reviewing the plan. The stormwater management
plan that is required by DEQ will ultimately be controlling as to the waste disposal activity
that is going on. We will have to look to see whether or not that supersedes any ability of
the County, for example, to deny our plan, or impose requirements that would prevent
them from executing their permit. The State may have superseded us on that issue. We
will look at that."
Mr. Rooker asked if it is the applicant's intent to implement BMPs for the entire
stormwater management plan. Mr. Petrini responded: Yes. We are not singling out the
site plan. We use BMPs on the whole site." Mr. Rooker asked if that intent can be
reflected in a condition. Mr. Hirschman said he could see no reason not to add a
1-20-98 10
condition, because "the more eyes on it we would probably get a better product in the
'*.. end. Mr. Kamptner noted the existing Ordinance already makes this requirement.
Mr. Finley asked if there will not be considerable improvement in the quality of runoff as a
result in the closing of the landfill. Mr. Hirschman explained that stormwater basins are
designed to treat surface runoff. He said a lot areas now function as erosion control and
our previous recommendation was that "as the sites get closed out and the caps get
completed, the erosion control facilities get retro-fit as permanent Best Management
Practices for stormwater with particular attention paid to water quality treatment, because
the erosion control and sediment removal function won't be as great as it is now. The
facilities are currently designed to the erosion control standard of a 25-year storm. They
are quite large for erosion control purposes. We envision some conversions going on into
the future as land uses in each of the drainage areas change." (Note: Mr. Rooker's
suggested additional condition was not made a part of the final action.)
Mr. Reiley asked if the County's prohibition against fill on critical slopes pertains to those
areas adjacent to the site but outside of the boundaries of this site plan, on newly
constructed parts of the land. Mr. Keeler responded: "No sir, I don't think they do.
There are provisions in the Ordinance --fill is a permitted activity in all districts. Borrow is
restricted in certain cases.... In the rural areas forestry is a permitted activity, so you can
remove the trees and fill on critical slopes. Whatever review of that exists would be
under the Soil Erosion Ordinance." Mr. Reiley said: "What would be prohibited for a
shopping center, would be permitted in the landfill." Mr. Keeler responded: "Yes, or for a
farmer. The other side of that is there are limitations on the volume of borrow area that
can occur in the rural areas."
Mr. Reiley said a site plan offers the opportunity and the responsibility to look at a plan in
its natural physical and cultural setting. He found the comments of Ben Walters (whose
8th grade class had conducted a survey about the landfill) interesting in that most
respondents to the survey had favored the conversion of the landfill into a park with
recreational facilities. He supported such a use for the landfill. However, he said he feels
this present proposal "is a plan to insert soccer fields into an ongoing landfill, and that is
a very different proposition." He said "locating children's playing fields in an active landfill,
adjacent to waste that is of undetermined composition, next to a transfer station, is
pragmatism on a really majestic scale." He understood the constraints on the
Commissions review, i.e. I don't think it is within our authority to say there can be no
transfer station or perhaps even soccer fields." He expressed concerns about the
proposed arrangement of the site in that the soccer fields are much too close to the
transfer station. He asked: If they are compatible adjacent landuses why do you have
to put a berm between them?" He said he feels the transfer station is too open and too
visible and there needs to be adjustment. His main concern was the feeling that "we
don't really have a final use plan here that addresses the final extent of mitigation
measures, and, above all, the shape and limitations of the land." He recalled Mr.
Marshall had said there is a finite, functional life of the landfill. He said the applicant
needs "to tell us what it is." He said there should be a clear picture of what that
functional life is for the entire landfill. He said: I think this is backwards planning. We
are looking at a piece without looking at the whole (and) the next thing is to try to figure
out the mechanism by which we can effectuate that. I think it is clear that this plan is not
6Y.
1-20-98 11
in strict compliance with Section 5.1.14 of the Ordinance that requires the prior Board
approval for construction before the 20-year waiting period and requires proof of
adequate Best Management Plans. It seems to me if we reject this application, or at
least defer it until conditions are met, that is conditions that have to be approved by the
Board, it will give the Board the opportunity to insist that a complete end use plan be
prepared for the entire landfill prior to giving their approval. I think this will give the
opportunity to develop an end use plan that the neighbors can live with and that RSWA
can be proud of. So I really think we have to work on the whole picture first. We're not
going to have consensus on it, but we need to know what the picture is and then, and
only then, do I think we should approve a piece of that."
Mr. Finley thought Section 5.1.14 dealt primarily with an application, whereas this facility
has already been in use for 30 years. He asked if 5.1.14 applies to what is proposed
now. Mr. Reiley quoted from Section 5.1.14: "Except for improvements necessary for the
operation of the landfill, no improvements shall be constructed in or upon any landfill for a
20 years after the termination of the landfill without the prior approval of the Board of
Supervisors. No such approval shall be granted unless the applicant demonstrates that
(1) any residential post -construction settlement will not effect the appearance or structural
integrity of the proposed improvement, (2) the nature and extent of corrosion producing
properties, the generation and escape of combustible gases and potential fire hazards of
the constituent material considering its state of decomposition has been provided for
adequately and will not create an unsafe or hazardous condition in or around any of the
said proposed improvements." Mr. Reiley said that is a determination the Board of
Supervisors, not the Commission, has to make. Mr. Finley's believed this section would
not apply because it speaks to "after the termination of the landfill," and this landfill has
not yet been terminated.
Mr. Kamptner commented: "The way we see Section 32 of the Site Plan provisions and
5.1.14 fitting together is that they really are two separate processes and two separate
approvals. When you are considering the site plan you are determining whether it
complies with the requirements of Section 32 and the other requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The approval that is required under 5.1.14 is solely with the Board and there
is some discretion there. As you know, the site plan approval process is ministerial. If
they satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance, then it has to be approved. The other
think that comes into play here is that there is a time limitation in which you have to
approve a site plan. Theoretically, you can approve this site plan tonight and once it is
signed it is valid for five years. So, the approval that is required under 5.1.14 really
wouldn't have to be made until they want to construct. They have up to five years to do
that, piecing together Section 32 and this section. So, you don't have to make that
determination tonight as to whether or not the requirements of 5.1.14 have been made.
The RSWA has to make that showing to the Board of Supervisors during the time their
site plan is valid, if they want to execute this particular plan."
Mr. Reiley continued: "And we could make that a condition of approval, if we wanted to,
if we wanted to close the conversation. But if we wanted to keep the conversation open
and let the Board of Supervisors take a look at what we have had the opportunity to take
a look at and make a decision about whether that is and what they had in mind for
615
1-20-98
12
7A.... If we say we accept this with a condition, the conversation stops. If we defer it or
deny it because it does not meet that ordinance, then I think we keep the conversation
open, and that can only be healthy."
Mr. Kamptner added: "5.1.14 doesn't require that its requirements be satisfied at the time
of site plan approval. It only requires that they be satisfied prior to any construction of
improvements." Mr. Rooker commented: "It seems to me it would be extraordinary to
impose a requirement prior to the approval of a site plan for a matter that doesn't have to
be taken up by the applicant until such time as he is ready to construct. It seems to put
the cart before the horse." Mr. Reiley said he is trying to get the "horse in front of the
cart."
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the review for consistency with the Comp Plan (for the
recreational use) will be forwarded to the Board for their action. (The site plans do not
require Board review.)
Mr. Keeler said the RSWA wants to be able to begin the transfer operation in July. The
permitting for the gas management system is estimated to take place in March. He said
staff would not be taking this to the Board until that permit has been obtained.
Mr. Cilimberg offered the following suggestion: "There is a finding that you would need to
make with the finding of consistency with the Comp Plan for the recreational use. That
finding could be made along with the statements Mr. Reiley has mentioned about the
concern about the overall plan of the entire facility and its relationship to recreational
activities as well as the broader question of its relationship to the overall area. That
report, we must, by law, forward to the Board. The Board could then choose, in getting
that report of compliance with the Comp Plan from you --if you take such action --to have a
review of the whole plan. The Board could do that without hearing a word from you, but I
think, in either case, they would need to make that decision. They would still have to
take up 5.1.14 at some point and I am not sure the will be ready to do that in a month or
two. The findings required by 5.1.14 are probably going to require more information than
is currently available, but we have conditioned the site plan on those conditions having to
occur before the site can be developed. So I think there is a tie there. I think there is an
opportunity to both have the Board of Supervisors make a decision whether or not it
wants to review the full plan in light of what you might take as your action on the Comp
Plan compliance, as well as to make sure that nothing is going to happen here until
5.1.14 is satisfied, and that is, I think, covered by the conditions. That is a route you can
take. The issue of the site plan gets decided by you here tonight, up or down, and then,
of course, it can be appealed, in and of itself to the Board."
Mr. Finley pointed out that if a site plan is denied, the Commission must cite specific
requirements which the plan fails to meet, as well as identify what changes the applicant
needs to make in order for the plan to be approvable. The State Statute requires that
those items be stated in the Commission's action.
Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that the Board will see both the Commission's action letter
and the minutes of this meeting.
6�
1-20-98 13
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the time frame for the operation of the transfer station was
imposed by the RSWA or the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Petrini responded: "We have
followed the County Board of Supervisors and the City Council, and our own Board --who
voted after those separate Boards voted. In that option 7A, it was committed that July 1,
1998, we would enter into a mini -transfer station at the landfill and municipal solid waste
would otherwise go to a private transfer station in Fluvanna County. Those contracts
have been signed and we have agreements with two private contractors to fulfill option
7A." Mr. Nitchmann said: "And that step is really the first step in the closing procedure
of the landfill --to get the transfer station up and working and that process working." Mr.
Petrini responded: "That's correct. We cannot stop the deposition of CDD in the
proposed recreation area until we proceed with the new CDD cell #4. The solid waste --if
we don't have a transfer station, we would have to direct all the haulers to go either to
Fluvanna or to wherever they could. They would be on their own."
Mr. Reiley recalled a Zoning Administrator statement in some of the staff report materials
which said the transfer station is an ancillary use of the landfill and is something the
RSWA could do with its current permit. All that is needed is a way to do it. Mr. Petrini
said: "I think the issue was we were proposing to change the traffic pattern and if we
move the MSW transfer station to where it is proposed now, we could construct an MSW
transfer station over the CDD area which is in the proposed recreational area, and I
believe, if I am interpreting the Zoning Administrator correctly, we could just do it there
and eliminate the recreation areas and have the transfer station there." Mr. Reiley
thought a "very temporary form " of a transfer station could be achieved fairly easily. Mr.
Petrini disagreed saying, "we would have to disrupt the plans and use the recreation area
for the transfer station."
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Petrini how this plan will change the problems with dust, odor
and mud. Mr. Petrini said these problems would improve significantly because most of
the existing MSW truck traffic will be eliminated with the implementation of the BFI
transfer station in use." Also, the CDD will be relocated to a site served by a paved road.
Noise associated with the existing compactors will no longer be a problem because there
will be no compactors. He said the odor should be almost totally eliminated with the gas
management system.
Mr. Nitchmann raised the question of whether or not connection to public sewer had been
considered as a way to deal with removing the contaminated water from the site. Mr.
Keeler said cost estimates had determined such an approach would be seven times more
expensive than an on -site treatment system. (Mr. Petrini corrected that the expense
would be five times greater, not seven times greater.) Mr. Nitchmann asked if was better,
for the benefit of the citizens, cost considerations aside, to treat the water on -site or use
the public sewer. Mr. Keeler said for those properties adjacent to the landfill, it would be
better to transport it "down south to the city." Mr. Reiley said it would also take it out of
the drinking supply watershed. Mr. Petrini said there is presently no impact to the
reservoir and will be no impact to the reservoir as result of the groundwater treatment
system. Virginia water quality standards would not allow a discharge that would
negatively impact the reservoir. Mr. Petrini said another issue which should be looked at
in terms of benefit to county citizens is the impact to the Crozet Interceptor. He said
67
1-20-98 14
pumping to the interceptor would use capacity which is not presently planned, so it would
have to go to the Moore's Creek Sewage Treatment Plant which is not designed for
industrial sewage. Upsets at the Moore's Creek plant could impact all the citizens on the
sewer system. Mr. Rooker pointed out the issues before the Commission do not include
a determination as to what method should be used to treat the groundwater. Mr.
Kamptner noted that connection to public sewer would require that a determination be
made that service is reasonably available and the items considered in making that
determination are primarily capacity and cost.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's request, Mr. Petrini pointed out on the plan the route
trucks will be taking and described how tires will be washed. He also pointed out the two
access points which will separate truck traffic from recreational use traffic.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if consideration had been given to enclosing the area where the
transfer trailers will be located. Mr. Petrini responded affirmatively. Conceptual drawings
of such a structure were on display to show its visibility. He said there is no functional
need for such a structure, but it could be built. More revenue would have to be
generated to fund the building and it would be visually objectionable.
Mr. Nitchmann asked how debris which blows off of trucks is handled. Mr. Petrini said
this should not be a problem because the trucks will drive inside the trailers before
dumping their loads. If any trash does escape, landfill employees will handle it on a daily
basis. Mr. Nitchmann asked if there are any county requirements that trucks must be
covered. Mr. Kamptner said such a requirement would fall under "the rules of the road"
and could be enforced by any law enforcement officer. Mr. Rooker asked if the county
can require that the landfill turn away trucks which are not covered. He noted that there
is a condition requiring a sign about covering vehicles. Mr. Nitchmann feared debris
could blow onto recreational fields, causing a safety hazard. Mr. Kamptner said signs can
be required because there are county sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, but
actually requiring that loads be covered is getting into the operations part of the RSWA.
He said it is not inappropriate, however, to suggest that the RSWA Board adopt it as a
policy. Mr. Keeler cautioned that making it more difficult for small haulers, or
individuals, to use the landfill could result in indiscriminate dumping throughout the
county. (Mr. Petrini said he would make the RSWA Board aware of the concern.)
Because of the possibility that debris could blow into the streams, Mr. Tice said he feels
this concern can be addressed under Section 32.7.4.2, which says provisions can be
required for the "minimization of pollution of downstream watercourses, that the
Commission feels are warranted due to the peculiarity of the use. [Note: Mr. Rookers
suggestion resulted in an amendment to condition 1(e) later in the meeting.]
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Mulaney why there were no bathroom facilities planned. Mr.
Mulaney said many recreational fields use portable facilities. Water and refreshments are
provided by soccer parents. Mr. Mulaney stressed that the County is going to look
carefully at the final proof that the proposed recreational area is safe before any fields are
constructed. He stressed the pressure his department is under to provide additional
fields. He said five soccer fields for $330,000 is "a good deal, if it can be done safely."
(The $330,000 is the cost of the access road.) He concluded: "It may not be the ideal
1-20-98 15
situation to have recreation space in a landfill. But I don't know that we can wait for the
ideal, or that we can afford the ideal if it comes along. We are under that kind of
constraint. Mr. Nitchmann said he had been impressed by the number of those present
who supported the playing fields because he thinks parents would have thought long and
hard before considering placing their children in a potentially harmful situation. He
suspected those parents are depending on DEQ and the County to ensure that the
situation is monitored closely.
In response to Mr. Finley's request, staff described the actions which are being sought
from the Commission:
--A recommendation as to whether or not the Recreational Use is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan; (22-32 Review, formerly 456 Review)
--Action on the Recreation Area Site Plan, including a request to approve
curvilinear parking; and
--Action on the End Use Plan in terms of landfill entrance and circulation, encore
center improvements, composting area, and MSW transfer station.
There was a brief discussion as to the time schedule for the Commission's required
action. Mr. Nitchmann asked if the Commission recommends approval of these items,
does the Board still have to act on Section 5.1.14 before anything can actually happen on
these plans and once they act on 5.1.14, then can if this procedure is already in place
can they proceed more quickly.? Mr. Kamptner responded: "Yes, assuming they can
satisfy all the conditions you are imposing tonight. Your action on the site plan won't
necessarily go to the Board. It will go to the Board only if it is appealed. Your
recommendation with respect to compliance with the Comp Plan, will be referred to the
Board."
Mr. Nitchmann asked the applicant if all the hazardous materials sites have been closed
(paint, asbestos, etc.), and no additional materials of this type will be accepted. Mr.
Petrini responded: "That is correct."
The Chairman called for a motion on the Recreational Use Consistency with the Comp
Plan.
Mr. Reiley said he was willing to attempt a motion which would be in the "framework for
the development of a full End Use Plan that would include the final extent of the final
grades and mitigation measures, for the entire site." He thought the simplest way to
accomplish that would be to include the Task Force Item # 8. After hearing a re -reading
of # 8 -- "A Master Plan for the final uses of the Ivy Landfill site should be developed now
to ensure the site is managed in a way that will allow for the planned -for uses" --Mr. Reiley
said it might be a little vague. He suggested the language could be used and appended
to it that this plan will include the final extent of mitigation measures and stormwater
control and the final grades for the entire property, not just those subject to site plan
approval."
Mr. Rooker wondered if Mr. Reiley's recommendation would fit better into the action on
the End Use Plan. Mr. Reiley said his proposed motion was based on Mr. Cilimberg's
6%
cm
1-20-98 16
suggestions for a possible way to move this forward. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "We're
getting back into the limitations of the site plan when you try to apply that to the End Use
Plan approval. Because compliance is a more discretionary or open-ended finding, if you
find it is compliant as a recreational use for the reasons stated by staff, and with the
understanding that for full compliance you need this other part. I think that is the place to
do it and that goes directly to the Board and they can address it if they so choose."
Mr. Finley asked if Mr. Reiley's motion envisioned a new plan entirely, a "master plan,"
and the plan presently being reviewed would be a component of another plan. Mr. Reiley
responded: "That's correct --a subset of a larger plan that includes a broader range of
issues. As I said I hope there will be some amendments to what we have before us. But
the most important thing, I think, is that we see the relationship between the parts and
see how this works as a component of a plan for the entire site. It seems to me to be the
responsible way to go. For instance, they will show whether or not Cell #4 will look like
something that belongs in western Albemarle County or will it look like Cell #37' Mr.
Reiley felt Cell #3 "is totally unacceptable as a pattern to continue to replicate." He felt
this issue is central to the long-term success of the conversion of the landfill to other uses
and it is also central to the conversion of the property to a recreation site.
Mr. Petrini was allowed to comment. He said a full grading plan for the area under
review has been submitted to the county. A full grading plan for the entire area is an
entirely different issue. Though that could be provided, it could cause a problem if the
solid waste transfer activity is delayed pending approval of the entire site. He said cells 5
and 6 have not yet been designed. This could put the plan into next year or later and
"we'll be in a lot of trouble."
Mr. Reiley pointed out that a recommendation was made by a Board of Supervisors
member a year and a half ago that a Final Use Plan that shows what this property is
going to look like be instituted. This has not happened recently and "there is no reason
we should not have before us right now a full vision of what this site is supposed to look
like. To put us in the position of saying 'you're putting us behind the Eight Ball --we're
running out of time,' doesn't seem to be fair to me." Mr. Petrini asked who had given the
RSWA direction that a final site plan was to be submitted by this time. Mr. Reiley said:
"I didn't say you had direction." Mr. Petrini responded: "That is what it takes for me to do
something. I need direction. My Board has not given me direction to implement a full
final site grading plan." Mr. Reiley said: "This has been labeled as an End Use Plan and
my view is it doesn't meet the definition yet."
Mr. Reiley quoted from a newspaper article dated July 3, 1996: "Albemarle County
Supervisor Sally Thomas also emphasized the need for a final use plan at the site. The
Planning Commission, earlier this month, rejected a proposal to build additions at the site
partly because of the lack of such a plan and uncertainty over the site's future." He
agreed "that was not an order from your boss but it was a clear signal that all of us have
a right to know what this property is going to look like and I think it should be a part of
this specific thing we are looking at tonight."
M
1-20-98 17
Mr. Tice understood Mr. Petrini was concerned about delaying the implementation of the
transfer station, but he felt Mr. Reiley's proposal was related to the recreational use, i.e.
"you would be asserting that the recreational use was consistent with the Comp Plan
once that bigger plan is done." He did not think that would have any impact on the
transfer facility, assuming approval is given to the other items before the Commission.
He said the transfer facility is already in compliance with the Comp Plan because the site
is designated as a landfill site. Mr. Petrini responded: "If that is the case, then that does
not interfere; I misunderstood."
Mr. Kamptner said he interpreted Mr. Reiley's proposed motion as being "we think that we
can recommend approval of the recreational use being consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, but that determination can really only be made if we can see the
whole piece of property." Mr. Petrini responded: "Then I don't see a problem because
we can certainly develop the grades for 4, 5 and 6--the final cells to be developed --but it
would not occur within a month or two, plus it would not be approved by DEQ because
we are only applying for cell 4 now. So there would be conceptual grades for 5 and 6,
and we can certainly supply those."
Staff once again confirmed that the finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
applies only to the proposed recreational use.
MOTION: Mr. Reiley moved that theCommission find the Recreation use to be in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, with the understanding that it will be within the
development of a Board -approved Master Plan that addresses the final extent, the final
mitigation measures, the final grades, and the stormwater management plan for the entire
property, and includes all future uses for the entire property. ( Though Mr. Reiley's
original motion used the term "final use plan," he explained that he did not envision
calculations at the level required of a final site plan, so he agreed to change the term to
"Master Plan.")
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Tice asked that the record show his hope that the landscape plan for the recreational
facility would not be overlooked. (Mr. Cilimberg said that could be a condition of the site
plan; it is essentially the County imposing a condition upon itself.)
Mr. Finley said a Master Plan would normally be conceptual and would not include
stormwater or grading details. Mr. Reiley responded: "I wanted to make sure of that and
that is why I specifically said stormwater and grading because I think those are critical
issues to understand before we go ahead with this."
Mr. Rooker asked what the motion envisioned in terms of "future uses," does it mean all
future uses for the entire property are to be designated on the various parcels? Mr.
Reiley responded affirmatively.
1-20-98 18
Mr. Finley asked what the next step will be if the motion passes as stated, i.e. "what has
to happen before something can happen in terms of this option that the Board of
Supervisors has agreed to?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "in suggesting that you take this
approach, my thought was that this goes to the Board as a finding and the Board can
then decide how they want to deal with that finding. As mentioned earlier, the Ivy Landfill
End Use Plan, which applies particularly to the activities around the transfer station, you
can still take an action on that site plan, which is a part of the site, but is not the whole
site. You can also take an action on the recreation area of the site plan if you so desire,
with conditions, with the understanding that not only does the finding of the Board have to
be made in regard to 5.1.14, but somewhere along the line that if this is going to be a
recreation area which complies with the Comp Plan, they must finish their Master Plan.
That is further out in terms of time."
The motion passed unanimously.
The Commission then took action on the Recreation Area Site Plan and curvilinear
parking.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the Recreation Area Site
Plan be approved, including the use of curvilinear parking [Section 4.12.6.5(c)], subject to
the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the
following conditions are met:
a. Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan;
b. VDOT issuance of a commercial entrance permit to include a taper and right
turn lane;
c. VDOT approval of planting agreement for any landscape materials within the
public road right-of-way;
d. Note on the plan that no outdoor lighting will be installed without Planning
Commission approval.
2. Construction shall not be begun until approval has been obtained from the Board of
Supervisors as required by Section 5.1.14 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Based on concerns raised during the Commission's discussion, Mr. Finley and Mr.
Nitchmann agreed to the following two additional conditions:
--1(e): Engineering Department approval of Stormwater Management Plan
consistent with Section 32.7.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Staff approval of final landscape plan for recreation area.
Discussion:
Mr. Tice wondered if a condition should be added requiring Board approval of a Master
,. Plan. Mr. Finley said this approval would be "under the umbrella" of the action just taken
on the Compliance question. Mr. Kamptner explained: "If your action on Compliance
7A
1-20-98 19
with the Comprehensive Plan was approval --you found consistency --and the condition of
the Master Plan is really an expression of desire that at some point they need to come in
with full Master Plan that shows everything that Commissioner Reiley identified, then we
are fine as we are." Mr. Cilimberg added: "I think what that is implying is that the
Board's approval of a Master Plan is a part of the finding of Consistency and, as I would
view this, the site plan for the recreation area can be approved with its conditions, but for
it to be actually developed, that consistency will have to be satisfied, and the Master Plan
does that."
Mr. Finley said: "If the Board rejects the Master Plan idea, we will have already approved
the recreation plan and it can proceed." Mr. Cilimberg said: "No. They won't be able to
proceed without a finding under 5.1.14 in the Zoning Ordinance by the Board, so I don't
think the Board will be able to make that finding if they don't approve a Master Plan." Mr.
Kamptner added: "I don't know how 5.1.14 has been applied in the past,... but it speaks
to the landfill and not just particular little sections, so when the Board does its review
under 5.1.14, they probably will be looking at the whole thing."
The motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner Reiley casting the dissenting
vote.
The Commission then took action on the Ivy Landfill End Use Plan
To address Mr. Rooker's earlier suggestion that uncovered loads not be accepted at the
landfill, It was agreed that condition 1(e), could be made stronger by some additional
wording. The wording finally agreed upon is as shown below in the action.
Mr. Tice asked that the same language be added requiring a stormwater management
plan as was added to the previous action on the recreation use.
Mr. Reiley explained that his negative votes on both the Recreation Use Site Plan and the
End Use Plan were because he wanted to "send the strongest possible message that
individual site plans like this, of this public importance, should be within the perspective of
a larger overview plan."
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Ivy Landfill End Use Plan
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the
following conditions are met:
a. Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan;
b. Engineering Department approval of the location, design and operation of the
tire wash facility to prevent off -site tracking of mud from unpaved roadways;
c. Engineering Department approval of leachate containment measures for MSW
transfer station;
d. Engineering Department approval of method of MSW transfer to ensure that
transfer activity is enclosed so as to reduce wind-blown debris and exposure to
precipitation, thereby minimizing the volume of leachate;
7J_
1-20-98 20
e. Planning staff approval of strong measures to prevent uncovered vehicles from
entering or using the landfill, including, but not limited to, approval of a sign regarding
state law applicable to load covering vehicles. The sign shall be approved as to location
and wording by the Planning Staff and shall be considered as a sign as required by the
Planning Commission under Section 32.7.8.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
f. Planning staff approval of landscaping/buffering measures of landfill
improvements from Rt. 637;
g. VDOT approval of a planning agreement for any landscape materials within the
public road right-of-way;
h. Demonstration to the County Attorney of compliance with all applicable
provisions of the Code of Virginia as related to cemeteries and places of burial of the
dead;
i. Engineering Department approval of a Stormwater Management Plan consistent
with Section 32.7.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The Board of Supervisors has reserved re -consideration of the transfer of CDD after
2 1/2 years. The Board may require installation of a left turn lane to serve the site at that
time or at earlier date upon determination by VDOT that warrants have been satisfied.
The motion passed 6:1, with Commissioner Reiley casting the dissenting vote.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Keeler briefly updated the Commission on the status of the North Fork Business Park.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
M
cm
-7y