Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 11 1997 PC Minutes2-11-97 FEBRUARY 11, 1997 1 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 11, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle, Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Tice. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of January 28, 1997, were unanimously approved as amended. Work Session Groundwater Section of the Comprehensive Plan Ms. Scala briefly summarized each part of the proposed Groundwater Section. 4*1a- Commission comments, questions and suggestions were as follows: Introduction --Referring to staff resources needed to implement the groundwater program, Mr. Finley asked if there is presently a specific program, with time frames, objectives, goals, etc., or will a program be designed from this document? (Ms. Scala replied: "I think the Strategies comprise the program we have in mind. We will follow through on those. A lot of the initial work will have to be done by the Water Resources Subcommittee. Initially, I think, we won't need staff as much as we will need to have the Subcommittee working. They may come up with specific staffing needs." Mr. Hirschman said he believes staffing will need to be addressed in order to implement this plan. He estimated it would require at least one more full-time position to implement the program envisioned in this plan.) Mr. Dotson said he believes there should be a discussion of what resources currently exist. He said such an assessment is the foundation for a recommendation. --3rd Strategy: Mr. Finley asked if there is any overall coordination of agencies, and if so, by whom? Mr. Dotson said he believes there should be included a discussion about the "relevant agencies." Mr. Finley agreed saying there should be a discussion of "who is involved in groundwater studies, what type of overlapping exists, and what type of exchange of data occurs?" --Referring to formatting, Mr. Dotson commented: "I wonder if, in a section called 'Introduction,' before we've said anything, whether it is wise to begin with an 7 t9 2-11-97 2 Objective and then at the bottom of that same page, Strategies. It seems like we need an introductory explanation before we get into recommending things." Mr. Nitchmann agreed. --Mr. Dotson felt the statement about the importance of groundwater and the extent of groundwater utilization was very important and could be made stronger. He suggested the "43% of households" would have more impact if the actual number of households was used-- 1 2,500--or how many people are actually accounted for in those households. He felt it was important to state that many of those households are long-time county residents, not new subdivisions, and many of the residents are elderly and lower -income and do not have the financial means to replace a well. It is also important to say that it is not just homes which are effected, it is also schools, farms, restaurants, tourist attractions, historic resources, etc. --2nd paragraph: Mr. Dotson said: "The point we would want to make is that we want to balance the regulatory and the voluntary and maybe begin with voluntary first and see how far that takes us." He suggested the following information -based approaches: education and outreach; best practices and advice; a special permit for certain kinds of activities or locations; and, at the "top level" allowed and prohibited uses. He felt it was important to point out this "graduated scale," and "to look out for groundwater doesn't mean we instantly come in with a heavy-handed approach and start telling people they can't do this or that, rather, (tell them) there are a lot of things in between." ' Regulatory Authority --Page 3: Noting that the Code allows the County to require testing for water quality, but not quantity, Ms. Huckle asked how quality can be tested prior to the existence of a well. Ms. Scala agreed that a well would have to be drilled to allow testing for quality and, at that same time, information about quantity could be obtained also. Ms. Scala said this has never been done in Albemarle County because "we don't have an ordinance to do that yet." Ms. Huckle concluded: "I think we need to do something about that." She raised a question about the County's liability if "they approve something that is not approvable," i.e. they issue a building permit for a piece of property which later is found to have an inadequate or unsafe well. Mr. Kamptner responded: "I don't think there would be any liability on the County's part. Looking aside from the sovereign immunities, when the permit is issued --if the facts that exist at that time show that there is adequate water supply and the permit is issued --the County certainly has no responsibility or control over water quality in the general sense nor does it have control over the amount of groundwater. It may be a farfetched argument that by continually approving development (the County) is increasing the demand on the groundwater. But the acts themselves in approving development --the approval of building permits that allow the construction of the houses --those are ministerial acts which, provided they satisfy the statutory requirements, they have to be approved." On the question of who has the authority to determine standards for water quality, Mr. Hirschman said localities can probably develop their own lists for what type of things to test for. He stressed, however, that it i77 2-11-97 3 NNOW is his understanding that the enabling legislation does not allow a building permit to be denied based on the results of water quality testing. He noted that the Health Department already requires bacteria testing. Mr. Kamptner interjected that before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued there must be proof of a reliable source of water. Mr. Loewenstein suggested it would be helpful to follow-up on which of the counties which have enabling legislation have actually enacted an ordinance and what have their experiences been. Groundwater Sources --Page 4, No. 1: Ms. Huckle asked for an explanation of the term "prevents condemnation," which she found to be confusing. --"County Designated Central Well": Mr. Dotson questioned the use of the word "requires" in the sentence beginning "The current policy requires..." After staff explained that it is a requirement in the County Code (not the Subdivision or Zoning Ordinances), Mr. Dotson suggested the County Code section should be cited here. --Item No. 3: Mr. Dotson asked what "allowing parcels to be developed at a higher density" means. He couldn't tell, from the language, whether it is an advantage or a disadvantage. Ms. Scala said it is cited as a "concern," because it might encourage higher density in the rural area, but it has been more of a problem in the past than it currently is. Recalling that concerns about central well systems have been related to reliability, maintenance and long-term care, Mr. Dotson said there may be instances where a central well system is preferable, such as in a rural preservation development. Mr. Nitchmann agreed. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that all the regulations, testing, etc. which are a part of central systems make the expense of the system prohibitive for small systems. Mr. Dotson said he thinks the Safe Drinking Water Act included some exclusions for smaller systems. The reporting and testing requirements were decreased substantially. He suggested staff research this issue. Ms. Scala said, historically, central well systems have had problems, and those problems should be considered when contemplating central well systems in the rural areas. Ms. Huckle recalled problems in an Ivy Subdivision and cautioned that the County needs to heed the lessons that have been learned from "bitter experience." Mr. Dotson summarized Commission comments: "I think what we're saying is not that we're deciding tonight, but that it is an issue we need to think about further and it is more complicated than it might seem at face value." Mr. Loewenstein wondered if recent technological advances might prevent some of the problems with central systems that have occurred in the past. Mr. Hirschman could not answer this question. He said different problems seem to arise from time to time. --Page 8, "Top Priority, five potential sources": Mr. Dotson wondered if there is any data on these sources in Albemarle County, e.g., "to what extent do we have underground fuel storage tanks, oil tanks, waste lagoons, septic tanks, pesticides, etc." He felt it would be useful to include this information, if it is available. He said it is important to give this section visibility "so that people take it seriously." --Page 9: Mr. Dotson asked why the "DRASTIC map" had been removed. He said TJPDC has these maps for a couple of counties in this area. He said: "I'm not 2-11-97 4 sure that --unless there is more to it than just 'the State's not doing it for us,' --we shouldn't retain that." Mr. Loewenstein agreed that some type of mapping related to "vulnerability to groundwater protection" is a good idea. --Page 11: Ms. Huckle suggested that the Hardware River be added to the North Fork / South Fork Watershed Pilot. (Staff said this had been omitted in error.) --County-wide well testing program: Ms. Huckle asked how staff explains the inconsistencies of the Cooperative Extension study and the Pilot study in North Garden. Mr. Hirschman said they are actually "quite similar in terms of for each constituent relative to the other constituents --those levels were all consistent with each other." There were some inconsistencies in the absolute numbers, with the highest one being on the acid water. He said that is related to geology. Ms. Huckle concluded: "So it related to location rather than method." He felt the studies supported each other. County -wide database --Page 13: Mr. Dotson suggested an explanation should be added describing what "management objectives" are. --Mr. Loewenstein thought the addition of some language which will explain what is being done with the data after it is collected would be helpful. --Page 12 - Cooperative Extension Study: Mr. Dotson said it would be helpful to know what type of information was gathered from the 280 forms which were filled out and returned. ,*Iftw, --Page 14, 4th paragraph: Mr. Dotson expressed support for "setting priorities and targeting certain areas" which might make the study feasible. Because of the costs associated with a blanket -type study, it might never get done. --Page 15: Mr. Finley expressed concern about what will happen if certain properties, or areas, are restricted from development because hydro -geologic testing labels those properties as having "inadequate water or unsuitable water." He asked how this will impact those property owners. Groundwater Education --Ms. Huckle suggested informational flyers about groundwater and stewardship principles should be included in County tax bills. Mr. Loewenstein thought the information might be too extensive to include in all tax bills. However, some type of publicity to let the public know this information is available upon request would be helpful. Perhaps that type of notice could be placed in tax bills. Wellhead Protection --Mr. Dotson suggested that the map be provided not only to Emergency Personnel, but also be included in the Comp Plan. Standards En Y/ 2-11-97 5 --Mr. Dotson asked what is meant by this category. He asked if it is a "wish list." He said: "It almost invites confusion as to what it is." Ms. Scala suggested an explanation at the beginning of the section might be helpful. --(i): Ms. Huckle pointed out that everyday, household cleaning products are often toxic and can damage a septic system. She suggested giving some examples of these types of products. --Page 18 (n): Mr. Loewenstein wondered if a specific time period should be specified for inspections, instead of just "periodically." MISCELLANEOUS --Ms. Huckle and Mr. Loewenstein asked the County Attorney's office to research the question of whether or not the County has "implied authority" to require water "quantity" testing. --Ms. Huckle asked if there is a standard description of "hydro -geological" testing? Public comment was invited. Ms. Katie Hobbs, representing the League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission and read a prepared statement which is made a part of these minutes as Attachment A. Ms. Babette Thorpe pointed out that at least four nearby localities (Loudon, Faquier, Orange and Rappahannock) believe they have the authority to test for both water quality and quantity before approving subdivision plats, even though they have no special enabling authority beyond what Albemarle County has. They base their position on (1) Section 15.1 of the County Code which allows local governments to impose reasonable restrictions related to groundwater protection; (2) From another section which allows local governments to regulate hookups to public water supplies as part of the subdivision plat approval; and (3) The Water Quality Section referred to earlier by staff. The next Comp Plan work session was set for March 4th. Staff confirmed the following dates: February 26th - Dark Sky Tour March 4th - Comp Plan Work Session. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. . a LOL4V�(,�,� V. Way e Cilimberg, cre l y c�