Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 29 1997 PC MinutesEn 4-29-97 APRIL 29, 1997 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 29, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were. - Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice, Vice Chairman; 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; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager, Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. Absent: Commissioner Nitchmann. A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.. The minutes of April 15, 1997 were unanimously approved as submitted. [NOTE: Because of problems with the recording equipment and individual microphones, some of the tape for this meeting is difficult to understand.] WORK SESSION -.Pilot Groundwater GIS Database System Mr. Nick Evans (Division of Mineral Resources) described in detail how groundwater data is being collected to create a GIS database system and how this information can ultimately be used as a planning tool. At the end of the work session public comment was invited. Ms. Kathryn Hobbs, representing the League of Women Voters, read a statement which urged the County "to cooperate with the Division of Mineral Resources to provide the necessary money and staff to continue this important project." (Her statement is made a part of these minutes as Attachment A.) WORK SESSION - _Cooperative Extension County -wide Well Testing Results Mr. Hirschman called the Commission's attention to the report which they had already received on the well testing project. He said the report includes responses to the survey, about which Commissioners had expressed an interest. (Because of time constraints, there was no discussion of this topic.) WORK SESSION - Water Resources Section of the Comprehensive Plan Ms. Scala reviewed changes made in this section of the plan. Commission comments and suggestions were as follows: /_5- 4-29-97 2 --Loewenstein: He thought it would be helpful if quantitative data on the individual watersheds could be included in this section. --Huckle (pg. 4): She questioned the accuracy of the statement that the County "can require verification of adequate quantity and quality for new development." She said she has asked for verification for water supply quantity many times and has always been told that the County cannot require it. Ms. Scala said she thinks there are times--e.g. for special permits or rezonings--when a condition can be imposed, but, for a single family dwelling, the County cannot require proof of water quantity. Mr. Kamptner confirmed there is presently no enabling legislation to allow the county to require verification of water quantity at the subdivision stage. Ms. Huckle said she understands Clark County does require such verification and wondered if they had some type of special allowance to impose this requirement. Mr. Kamptner was not familiar with Clark County's procedures but said he was not aware of any other enabling authority which they may have. Ms. Huckle said she feels it is very important that the County have the authority to require verification of quantity of water supply. She said: "But I don't know if we should put it in here if we don't have it, but if we do have it we ought to know it." Mr. Dotson said it would be useful to have a written report from the County Attorney's Office on this particular question. --Huckle (pg. 9): She asked why Jacob's Run and Preddy Creek are not listed here. (Mr. Hirschman explained Jacob's Run was not listed because it is smaller than the other watersheds shown on the map, but he said it could be added.) --Finley (pg. 1 - Introduction) - He thought watershed protection should be broader than just "drinking water." He listed "domestic water supplies, industrial, agricultural and commercial." He said there are "other interests to protect" under the heading of watershed protection. --Finley (pg. 8): He felt a "glaring omission" to the Water Resources Committee was representation of the rural agricultural community. (Mr. Hirschman said the Albemarle County Farm Bureau is one of the civic organizations which has been invited to participate and could be considered as a representative of the agricultural community.) --Tice (Chesapeake Bay Section): He suggested a statement be added about the Bay program's focus on tributary strategies, perhaps summarizing the status of this program at the time this Water Resources Section is finalized. He also suggested a statement be added about the work the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council has done. Specifically, it would be helpful to include the indicators related to water resources. --Tice (pg. 6): Add a bullet under the Virginia Department of Forestry which relates to that department's role in the enforcement of the Forestry Water Quality Act. --Tice (section on stream valleys): Add a statement linking this to the Greenways Plan. He noted that the language here says to "preserve stream valleys in their natural state," and some of those same stream valleys are identified in the Greenway Plan as potential recreational corridors. He cautioned that care be taken so that the language does not conflict. --Huckle (pg. 12): Referring to the South Rivanna Watershed Study, she asked about the status of the recommendations. Mr. Hirschman said the Study has been completed. The adoption of the Consolidated Ordinance will be the first item recommended for implementation. --Tice (map of water supply watersheds): He asked if the county also has land which lies within water supply watersheds of other communities. He felt it is important that people 4-29-97 3 understand that even though their land might not be within an Albemarle County water supply watershed, their actions still impact downstream water supplies. --Finley (Buck Mt. Creek): He noted that though there are some statements (pg. 20 and 21) about a possible Buck Mt. reservoir, "it sort of vanishes until page 22." He wondered if this is a sufficient explanation about the Buck Mt. Creek basin. Ms. Scala said a major revision to this section had been the de -emphasis of Buck Mt. as an alternative. In the past Buck Mt. has been considered a "definite alternative," but recently it has been less definite. Mr. Finley said that though the Commission is aware of the reasons for this de - emphasis, the public is not, and it should be more clearly explained here. --Huckle (pg. 42): She felt the development of a hydrogeologic testing process should be a top priority. --Tice (Surface Water): Should there be a cross reference to the Mountaintop Protection Plan in relation to the impact of debris flows? Ms. Scala said it could be cross- referenced either under Surface Water or Flood Plains. --Tice: He felt water conservation techniques should be emphasized more strongly because they are a critical component in dealing with water supplies. WORK SESSION -.Consolidated Water Resources Ordinance Mr. Hirschman explained the history of the development of the Ordinance and how the new ordinance differs from existing practices. Commission comments and suggestions were as follows: --Huckle (Article 1, General Provisions): She felt Groundwater should have its own "letter" under General Provisions. She suggested: "Protect groundwater from pollution and facilitate recharge of groundwater." --Huckle (Article 1, General Provisions, E): She suggested a change: "Maintain the integrity of existing stream channels and their networks for their biological functions, drainage and the natural recharge of groundwater...." --Huckle (pg. 22, re: management of stream buffers and removing fallen trees): She called attention to a book entitled Stream Habitat Improvement Handbook which shows different types of devices which are placed in streams to enhance their health by providing ripples and pools. She suggested it might be helpful to make this handbook available to the public. --Huckle (pg. 23, no. 3, re: removal of trees): She was afraid too much emphasis on trees "6 inches in diameter" might leave the average homeowner confused. She suggested adding language similar to the following: "In order to brunt the force of raindrops and thus prevent erosion that there should be an understory consisting of medium height bushes and groundcover which should not be cleared and should be added if missing." (Mr. Hirschman pointed out those three layers are addressed on pg. 22, B, 1.) --Ms. Huckle commended staff for their work in the development of this ordinance. --Huckle: She asked for an explanation of the difference between the exemptions for silvaculture--in one place BMP's are required and in another place (pg. 19) it is exempt. Mr. Hirschman explained: "Page 19 is exemption only for water quantity stormwater detention. The other exemption is related to stream buffers." The Virginia Department of Forestry has a /7 4-29-97 4 program of BMP's for silvaculture and BMP's are mandatory for silvaculture operations within resource protection areas and for property which is in the land use assessment program. Public comment was invited. Mr. Don Franco (an engineer) expressed the following concerns: --"There are a lot of procedural things, as well as design techniques and methodologies that are in an ordinance that belong in a design manual. So those should be pulled out of there, mainly because of flexibility. There is more flexibility in a design manual than in an ordinance, i.e. it is more of a living document and is easier to amend. Getting a design manual out to the public is important." --There should be included a "recognition of what the goals are." "Erosion control may have different goals than water quality goals.... Erosion control drives more of what I do than anything else in terms of design." --It is presently easier to develop in rural areas than in growth areas. This Ordinance has made the "gap smaller," but does not close the gap. --Referring to the Mountaintop Protection Ordinance, "Should staffing requirements be your yardstick for saying we're going to write off the rest of the rural areas?" Mr. Franco said he felt the development community had been fairly represented throughout the process of the development of this ordinance. There was discussion about the anticipated time line for the completion of the Ordinance and the scheduling of the public hearing. Mr. Hirschman said there are a few "housekeeping" items yet to be completed. Also, the County Attorney's office has yet to review this most recent draft. Mr. Kamptner noted that the Consolidated Water Resources Ordinance will cause the need for some amendments to the Zoning Ordinance provisions related to erosion and sediment control and stormwater control. He envisioned the Ordinance will be ready to come back to the Commission in its final form in about two months. Mr. Cilimberg questioned the need for the Ordinance to come back to the Commission after the County Attorney's office has completed its final review. It was finally determined that the Commission was in "general agreement" that the document could proceed to the Board if the staff determines that there is no need for it come back to the Commission. Mr. Dotson hoped --if there is another Commission work session on the Ordinance --the staff report will respond to some of Mr. Franco's comments about "unintended consequences." There being no further business, the meeting Adjourned at 10:OOp.m. s: ne 911imberg, /F