Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 16 1995 PC Minutes5-16-95 MAY 16, 1995 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 16, 1995, in the Auditorium of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Vice Chair (7:05); Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. A quorum was established. (The approval of May 2nd minutes were moved to the end of the agenda.) CONSENT AGENDA SAP-94-036 East Rivanna Fire Station - Request to allow off -site parking in accordance with Section 4.12.3.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. SAP-95-041 Microaire Minor Site Plan Amendment - Request to allow curvilinear parking in accordance with Section 4.12.6.5(c) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. SUB 95-029 Ivy Springs Preliminary Plat - Request for private roads in accordance with Section 18-36b of the Subdivision Ordinance. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that the Consent Agenda be approved. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. The motion passed (6:0). [NOTE: Ms. Imhoff had not yet arrived.] SP-95-09 Darton Greist III - Petition to permit a stream crossing in the floodplain [30.3.5.2.1(2)] on approximately 36.3 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 133, Parcel 31, is located on the east side of Route 722 approximately 1.25 miles south of Route 723 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 4). Deferred from the May 9, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. on FSM- 01-1 2 The applicant was represented by Mr. Robert Knight. He offered no additional comment. There being no public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann noted that both the Planning staff and the Engineering staff had reviewed the request and were recommending approval. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that SP-95-09 for Darton Greist III be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Water Resources Manager approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment. 2. Albemarle County Engineering approval of the final culvert crossing plans. These plans must clearly show the before and after construction one hundred (100) year flood elevations and boundaries. 3. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses. The applicant is encouraged to contact the Federal and State agencies in the early stages of the design process. 4. Albemarle County Engineering approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations. The computations must demonstrate compliance with sections 30.3.2.2 and 30.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan or a single family erosion control agreement. The motion passed (6:0:1), with Commissioner Imhoff abstaining. SAP-95-029 Ivy Sanitary Landfill Preliminary Site Development Plan - Proposed plan of future activities at the Ivy Landfill on 307 acres zoned RA, Rural Area. Property, described as Tax Map 73, Parcel 28, is the location of the existing Ivy Sanitary Landfill site on the northern side of Route 637 approximately one mile west of the Route 637/708 intersection in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (RA III). Mr. Steve Chitsey, representing the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA), addressed the Commission. He said the RSWA was seeking input from both the Commission and citizens "that we can take back to the RSWA's Board and then come forth with a 5-16-95 3 proposal based on the input and the final decision by our Board." He explained that the current plan calls for the "maximization of the site (and) is part of the comprehensive approach to waste management that the RSWA is implementing in the area." His comments included the following: --The RSWA has met with many citizens and recognizes that many issues identified, such as site lines, buffer zones, and alternative methods, are "very valid" and are being "evaluated closely." Some alternative waste methods are hindered by the fact that "a flow control is necessary for certain funding levels." [Ms. Imhoff asked for a clarification of "flow control." Mr. Chitsey responded: "Flow control means you can dictate where the waste generated within an area goes to its final point of disposal. That is necessary, when you capitalize something like a waste energy facility or something involving high capitalization, because there must be a certain amount of flow for payment of the bonds over a long period of time. He said: "We don't currently have an obligation on any flow except from the City."] --One approach being evaluated closely is "waste to compost." Mr. John Robbins, representing Joyce Engineering, consultants for the RWSA, addressed the Commission. He presented a series of slides showing the proposed development of the site, from different site lines, up to an elevation of 910 feet. Also included were slides showing groundwater surface maps, a cross-section of a liner and capping system, and a cross-section of the leachate interceptor systems. Comments made during the presentation, including answers to Commission questions included the following: --The trees around the site are a mix of evergreens and deciduous and will not screen the site year round. --There are 13 groundwater monitoring wells on the site, and 11 surface water sampling points on the site. --An interceptor trench is proposed for the construction demolition fill area, which is presently "unlined." This is "to try to collect leachate before it leaves the site." --Another interceptor trench will soon be installed in "an old municipal solid waste cell" which will be used to collect leachate before it leaves the site. --The areas of new expansion, outside the current footprint, are predominantly on the northern portion of the site. These are all new expansions and will be "lined cells." - If we would try to do would be to intercept leachate that would be escaping the unlined landfills and try to treat it before it gets off site." --"We are in the process of setting groundwater protection standards --standards that we need to measure against. There are groundwater monitor wells and if we exceed those (standards) we'll be kicked into the assessment of corrective measures, the rate and extent study, which means we will put in additional wells and track where the contamination is going and try to map it out, so we know how and where to clean it 11 up. In 5-16-95 4 -"At this point we are in assessment monitoring, and we're setting groundwater protection standards at this time. There is a cleanup action that can be required under State and EPA programs." "No one in the State has, at this time, set any groundwater protection standards. We are working with the State to go through that process in an orderly fashion." The final two slides were taken from Malvern Farms property (from Ms. Webber's driveway). The present landfill was visible in the first slide. The second slide had been colored to show the visibility of the landfill at an elevation of 800 feet. Mr. Robbins pointed out the height of the 910 feet elevation. There was a strong audience reaction to this last slide. Ms. Imhoff asked why 800 feet was depicted on the slide, rather than 910 feet. Mr. Robbins responded: "Right now, the Board (RSWA) has not directed us to go below 910 feet. ... We picked a middle range elevation to show, figuring we would leave some of the background as a reference, and then we could show you roughly where the maximum elevation would be. It was more a logistical thing than a recommendation at this point." Ms. Imhoff asked Mr. Robbins to elaborate on his statements about the compliance process and the fact that, presently there are no standards. She asked: "I'm trying to understand how you can be working towards compliance if there is no standard '*taw towards which you are working." Mr. Robbins explained: Last year there was a compliance agreement involving most all the municipalities in the State. That was to adjust how the state requires you to implement the groundwater monitoring program. That's what the compliance had to do with. The groundwater protection standards -- nobody has set those in the state. We're working very closely with DEQ (Division of Environmental Quality) to set those." em Referring to comments made in citizen letters, Ms. Huckle asked why the springs and streams which are on this site, and which drain into the Mechums River, were neither shown on the maps nor mentioned in the RSWA's presentation. She asked about the plans for that portion of the property on which these springs and streams are located. Mr. Robbins said that one spring, on the southern portion of the site, is under a cell that will be developed. He explained: There is a spring that originates there that feeds over to the stream that goes by Mr. Booth's property on the western side of the site, and then that goes down into the Mechums River. What we are planning to do, at this time, is to pipe that stream, using a stone drain and pipe, out underneath the proposed construction. That is what is currently planned in our proposed site plan that we have submitted. At this time we are borrowing soil from that area for the cap of two of the cells. We're working in there, but we're not working to build a cell at this point." Ms. Huckle asked when it was anticipated that land would be needed for a cell. Mr. Robbins said it would depend on cQ/ 7- 5-16-95 5 sequencing. He predicted that area would be used in 7-10 years. Referring to one of the cross-section slides, Mr. Dotson asked if it was possible for trees to be planted on a closed section of landfill. Mr. Robbins responded affirmatively. He said a species of poplar is being considered. Mr. Chitsey said other types of plants are also being looked at. Mr. Nitchmann asked how often the sample wells are monitored and who is advised of the results of that monitoring. Mr. Robbins said the wells are monitored a minimum of twice yearly; some are monitored more often. The results are given to the owner, the RSWA. RSWA's engineers also review the results. The results are also sent to two offices of the DEQ, the central office in Richmond, and the regional office in Culpeper. Mr. Nitchmann asked if there have been any problems to date. Mr. Robbins responded: "Yes there are. That's why we are assessment monitoring at this point. There is contamination in several of the wells." Given the original opening date of the landfill and the lack of protection measures in those cells, Mr. Nitchmann asked if they are presently capped, or, if not, will they continue to be used and can measures now be taken to "rectify a bad situation?" Mr. Robbins said a portion of the site is capped— "part of the construction demolition debris and part of the old municipal solid waste area." Approximately 16 acres are presently under construction for capping and another 10 acres of 2 lined areas. Thus, approximately 26 acres of the 80 acres will be capped by the end of this construction season. Two areas will still be operating --the eastern side of the site with construction demolition debris, which is completely unlined, and the western side of the site with the same problem. It is in those areas that the interceptor trenches, described during the slide presentation, will be constructed. In addition, consideration is being given to adding a "rain cover." This would be placed in all areas but the area being filled in at "that particular 3 or 4 month stretch." These covers will shed rainwater off the area and move it off the area before it can move through the waste and become leachate. He said this runoff would be handled through the stormwater detention system on site before it goes into the adjoining creeks. Mr. Nitchmann asked: "Does that mean it is deficient now?" Mr. Robbins replied: "I think as we develop the site, as it becomes larger and larger, we are going to need more stormwater control structures out there." Mr. Nitchmann asked how dust is controlled during the dry summer months. Mr. Chitsey explained that a "flusher" unit is used to control dust. It sprays water over the landfill area. Mr. Nitchmann asked how often the road is patrolled to pick up trash which blows off independent haulers' trucks. Mr. Chitsey said it is on an "as needed" basis, but is at least once a week. Mr. Nitchmann asked how the 910 feet had been arrived at. Mr. Chitsey said it was based on the width of the fill area. "You can build up at a 3:1 slope. That was the Vftw maximum point reached." 5-16-95 6 Ms. Imhoff asked if the master plan referred to by both Mr. Robbins and Mr. Chitsey was actually a "physical plan" which includes a description of the future plans for the site. Mr. Chitsey responded: "This is the master plan." Ms. Imhoff responded: "Then the master plan is in a diagram format. It is not in a policy, written document format." Mr. Chitsey replied: "Yes. We have an Operations Manual which talks more about day-to-day type filling and compaction and covering type issues." Ms. Imhoff asked: "At what time does it get nailed down as to exactly what other uses will be on other portions of the landfill? Is that part of your future planning document?" Mr. Chitsey responded: "That will be part of what comes out of this process. The RSWA Board will make a determination as to elevation of the final site. Elevation dictates, to a certain extent, the final use. At a 3:1, 910 feet, you are peaking out at a pyramid -style design. At lower elevations, you begin to flatten out and there are more uses available to you at lower elevations." Ms. Huckle asked what plans the RSWA has for the hazardous materials which are presently on the site. Mr. Robbins said the "paint pit" is located in the heart of the landfill. He said: "It is in the current contract for closure. The plan at this time is to encapsulate it; put a cap over top of it; minimize additional infiltration of surface water into the paint which will minimize the leaching out of any contaminants from that site. The EPA and DEQ have investigated that site and have generated a report (1988)." Ms. Ingrid Stenbjorn (Joyce Engineering) added: "The document stated they didn't find the paint pit to pose an imminent threat to human health and the environment and recommended no further action." Ms. Huckle asked: "Is that in an area that is not lined?" Ms. Stenbjorn responded affirmatively. Mr. Robbins said the current plan is to "cap it off." Mr. Nitchmann asked how technology has changed today which will make the compression of waste more possible, thereby extending the life of landfills. Mr. Robbins said he was an advocate of "recirculating leachate back into the waste, over lined areas only." He explained that this accelerates the biodegradation of the material. Some sites have claimed a 50% reduction in the volume of waste, using this process. Mr. Chitsey explained methods being used to maximize the use of space. Ms. Imhoff asked about combustion as an alternative. She also asked how mandatory recycling has effected the landfill. Mr. Chitsey responded: "Unless you get into commercial recycling the impact is fairly small. If the County went to a mandatory program, it is estimated it will save 10 days/year of landfill capacity. Commercial recycling is where a big impact is made." He felt the "waste to compost" approach was one which should be considered aggressively. Ms. Huckle asked about the major component of trash. Mr. Chitsey said it is 40% paper. In 5-16-95 7 Mr. Dotson asked at what point this plan would begin to move into the 100-year floodplain area. Mr. Robbins responded: "I think we've been talking about getting into that area in less than 5 years." He explained a crossing will be needed to permit access to a borrow area in the floodplain area. He said that would be the initial use for that area, but it will also be used as a cell later on. Public comment was invited. The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the expansion of the landfill: Mr. David Booth, representing the neighborhoods of Broad Axe Road, Peacock Hill, Tattershall Farm, and Dick Woods Road (He presented a petition of opposition with 475 signatures.); Mr. Jim Pollock (a resident of Peacock Hill); Mr. Sal Palumbo; Mr. Dale Bunding; Mr. Larry Batton; Mr. Steve Deupree; Mr. Ed Strange; Mr. Jeff Corwin; Ms. Gertrude Webber; Mr. David Noble; Mr. William Clark; Mr. Mike Wholley; Dr. Munsey Wheby; Mr. Rick Thomoson; Mr. James Wagner; Ms. Linda Scanlon; Ms. Claire Lawson Monia; Mr. Rick Hall; Mr. Sanford Wilcox; Ms. Dee Schwagle (President of Rosemont Subdivision); Mr. Paul Fisk; Ms. Alison Campbell; Mr. Larry Fielding. Their reasons for opposition were based on the following concerns: --Contamination of the reservoir. (The landfill is in the headwaters of the Charlottesville reservoir. The RSWA site plan does not show the headwater streams.) --Devaluation of personal property. "The value of neighboring properties is directly linked to the life, magnitude, operational excellence and a final use plan for this site." --Continued failure of leachate containment systems. --The plan maximizes the capacity of the cells to the limit of the 100-year floodplain. (The County has a history of much larger storms. At a minimum, greater setbacks from the streams should be required.) --Contamination of groundwater - Wells are at risk. (Wells already show contamination. The test results can be understood only by water quality experts. An interpretation of the test results is needed.) --The landfill was established on a temporary emergency basis to relieve pressure on Charlottesville's overloaded Avon Street landfill. There has never been any type of environmental impact study done for this site. A study should be begun immediately. --"The County Health Department regulation that disallows the placement of a homeowner's septic system upgrade from his well, should also apply to placing a 300 acre landfill upstream from, and in, the watershed that serves thousands of individuals and businesses, including hospitals." --The County made "assurances to the citizens of Ivy" that this use was instituted as a "temporary measure." This site was never granted a special use permit. The County has an obligation to protect citizens who purchased homes in a PUD. 5-16-95 --It will be 30-40 years before the landfill is "green", and at a height of 910 feet, it will block many citizens' views of the mountains. --The landfill is in close proximity to several historic structures. --The RSWA has stated it will "try" to contain leachate. --What will the County do once citizen wells have been contaminated? Many residents of the area have invested their life savings in their homes. The citizens made the following suggestions and requests: --An annual failure report should be required, prepared by an Engineering firm, which will address erosion control, monitoring controls, surface stream impacts, windblown debris containment and odor control. The report should include input from a neighborhood committee. --At a minimum, a 250-foot forested buffer zone should be required around the entire circumference of the landfill site. The buffer zone should be defined as an area that is to remain untouched and is to receive no work or entrance in any way, other than to allow water outfall. --Require submittal of plans for Planning Commission approval which indicate the nature of proposed screening at individual locations. Screening proposals should provide thoughtful barriers for adjacent neighbors. --As an ultimate use, the site should be developed as a combination county - service area and park. The area should not be developed as an industrial site, nor should it be allowed to become useless due to the steep topography. --A final use plan should be required "which begins immediately", to close out portions of this site which have reached their end use and return the remainder of the site to uses that are in keeping with the rural and agricultural nature of the area. --A schedule should be required showing the shortest time possible to get this site into a "final use condition." --Suggested final uses: continuation of the mulch stockpile for citizen use; shrubbery and greenhouse facilities for the city and county gardens using space and energy sources available at the site; an educational facility to study the long-term effect of this landfill on the county and city watershed; a county police or fire department substation, as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan; a permanent site for the County fair; stables for Charlottesville's mounted police, with access roads becoming riding trails; opens sites for events such as soccer, polo or music festivals. --The RSWA should be directed to proceed immediately to find a suitable alternative to the expensive and risky direct burial method of solid waste disposal. --The order and priority of waste disposal should be: (1) Source reduction; (2) Reuse; (3) Recycling; (4) Product manufacturing; and (5) Regional disposal of any residual materials. --The hazardous materials' pit (in the "heart" of the landfill) should be excavated and removed. --The height should be modified and an "end date" set for final closure. 013 5-16-95 9 --"in summary, we strongly suggest that you do the wise thing and remove this landfill, this encapsulated, entombed, ecological time bomb, from the headwaters of the watershed that serves Charlottesville. We ask that you disallow the dramatic 200 foot elevation change and the 50-year life extension that is proposed. Twenty-seven years of service by the Ivy community, after assurances made to the citizens of Ivy, when this use was instituted as a temporary measure, more than qualifies as a interim use. Ivy has paid it's dues." Public comment ended at 9:15 and the item was discussed by the Commission. The Chairman explained that the purpose of this meeting had been to receive public comment. No action would be taken by the Commission. Ms. Imhoff posed the following questions to the RWSA: --What are the parameters we should be looking at for a new landfill site? --What are some of the alternate methods of waste management? Ms. Imhoff asked staff to be looking at identifying potential landfill locations. Mr. Nitchmann said some issues had been raised which should be looked at seriously and quickly. He said it would be easy to continue to use the landfill because it already exists, but he did not think that would be fair to the people in Ivy. Though he could not say what the end result would be, he felt the matter deserved a lot of study. Referring to comments made by some of the citizens, he made the following statement: "If there are buffer trees being cut down, I would like to ask the RSWA to stop immediately until this study is complete. I would also like to know, immediately, what is the existing contamination problem with the wells? We need to know that now. We need to have an environmental impact study done." He pointed out that an environmental impact study is now required on any piece of commercial property sold. "Here we're talking about a 370 acre piece of property that we are going to expand, and no one is talking about an environmental impact study. I think that's wrong." He repeated Ms. Imhoff questions and added a request that the RWSA provide information about the cost of closing this landfill. He felt there were too many unanswered questions to proceed with this plan at this time, and though it will cost money to get those questions answered, "it is money well spent." Mr. Dotson said all the methods of handling solid waste have "down sides," and it is a real dilemma which must continue to be wrestled with. He questioned whether a height that would last for 50 years was the correct solution, or one which he could support. He said there was an advantage in not giving the "go ahead" for 50 years, because "there is some value in maintaining a creative tension --in keeping our feet, as a community, to the fire." He said: "I am afraid if we approve a 50-year plan we will then relax because it has been decided for 50 years. I think, probably we are going to need to extend it some. I don't know how long." He said he would like for the RWSA to come back with 5-16-95 10 "some different ranges of possibilities," and what the consequences of those ranges would be. He favored less height and some type of landscape buffering. He wanted to see a landscape plan for the entire site that "mimics the natural topography" so that the site would not look like astro-turf when it's finished. He was not sure that it was necessary to pin down an exact final use, but he did feel it was important that the site be "finally useable." He questioned whether the slopes which would result from a 910- foot height would be "finally useable." He said he would like the RSWA to "consider changes to (address) each of the citizen concerns." He felt the citizens had raised significant issues. He listed the following themes as guiding principles for the creation of another draft plan: (1) minimum impact; (2) maximum conservation; (3) betters ways and locations; and, only after those 3 have been done (4) perhaps, then, a conditional approval for continued use. Mr. Dotson hoped that before this matter is before the Commission again, there will be a clearer understanding of what the Planning Commission can do and what the State Department of Environmental Quality can do. He said he thought the Commission probably had the greatest control over the visual impact, but the Commission has only a limited ability to address water quality concerns. Therefore, a better understanding of what the DEQ is doing is needed. Ms. Huckle said she felt the County has "a moral commitment to the landowners who were given to understand the finite life expectancy of the landfill." She hoped all the citizen's concerns and suggestions would be taken into consideration by the RSWA and staff. She favored a time limit being placed on the life of the landfill and also a limit of 750 feet on the height. She expressed particular concern about the streams on the site. She hoped the land in the area of the springs and streams which drain into the Mechums River would not be disturbed for any reason. She felt one of the most important factors in waste management is "source reduction." There was no further Commission comment. Miscellaneous The minutes of May 2, 1995 were unanimously approved as amended. Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the May 3rd and May 10th Board of Supervisors meetings. The Commission asked to receive a copy of the Board's action letter for the May 3rd meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. 5-16-95 K' m 11