HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 14 88 PC MinutesJune 14, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday.
June 14, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr.
Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Tim Michel;
and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler,
Chief of Planning; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; and Mr. George St. John,
County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Diehl.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a Quorum was present. The minutes of May 24, 1988 and May 31, 1988 were
approved as submitted.
UPS Parcel Distribution Center Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a
44,000 square foot building with a maximum height of twenty-five (25) feet.
The proposed use is a parcel distribution center. This property will have
access from Hunter's Way Road, and be served by 159 parking spaces; 21
additional spaces are proposed as loading spaces. This property is located
in the Hunter's Hall Subdivision at the terminus of Hunter's Way Road.
Tax Map 79, Parcels 4D, 4E, 4F, 4G, 4H, 4J, and 4K (combined). Zoned LI,
Light Industrial. Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from May 24, 1988
Planning Commission Meeting.
The staff report explained that at the Commission's May 24, 1988 review of
this site plan, "the Commission requested that the applicant submit more
detailed information regarding the proposed treatment facility and a
written determination from the State Water Control Board as to the
strength of the material to be discharged as a result of washing vehicles
on site."
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. St. John to comment on "what he believes the limitations
are on this particular request in terms of what the applicant can or cannot
do in terms of discharge, in this case specifically the water and whatever
other materials are included in it as part of the wash facility at the
service bay."
Mr. St. John responded: "When the proffer was originally put on this
property, when it was rezoned to its present zoning ---that's when the
owner at that time put this proffer on it --and I accept as correct
this interpretation that was put on the proffer at that time. 'There
will be no production or manufacturing of anything on these properties that
would require public utilities or produce industrial wastes.' I think
that's correct. There are no public utilities there, that's not at issue
here. ... So the question is whether what the applicant intends to pro-
duce there as a by-product of the washing of the vehicles is or is not
industrial waste. In order to make that interpretation I have consulted
the rules and regulations of the Albemarle County Service Authority; I
have consulted the Health Department, or a Sanitarian within the Health
Department, and the Water Control Board. Unanimously, all of those people
So*
June 14, 1988 Page 2
take the position that they would treat what is going to be produced by this
process of car washing as industrial waste. The Rules and Regulations of
the Albemarle County Service Authority have definitions of domestic sewage
and industrial waste in them, and I believe they are indicative of common
understanding among agencies that deal with this question as to what is
industrial waste and what is domestic sewage. ... All waste is either
domestic sewage or industrial waste or stormwater, one of those three
categories. ... In 1�iy opinion, it's clear, we have only one choice and
that's industrial waste. ... That doesn't mean that the Health Department
wouldn't approve the production of industrial waste; it depends on what
they would do with it. It doesn't mean that the Water Control Board wouldn't
approve discharge of industrial waste. They would lay down requirements
for how it had to be treated before it comes out of the pipe. ... But that's
not the question you asked. We're talking about whether the proffer is being
complied with or not; we're not talking about whether the State agencies
would allow this. ... That proffer prohibits a use that produces industrial
waste, so I have to come down with an opinion that any discharge either
into a septic field or out of a pipe into a stream, even with Water Control
Board approval, nevertheless is the production of industrial waste, contrary
to that.proffer. If the applicant would elect to re -cycle and haul off
this waste instead of producing it on site --I take the word 'produce' to mean
'produce into the environment'either into the ground into a septic field or
into a stream --I don't think the hauling off of this waste to be dumped
into the plant, with Water Control Board approval --I don't think that would
meet the definition of 'production."'
Mr. Bowerman waived the reading of the staff report. Ke stated that the
Commission would like for the applicant to be able "to get under way
on your site plan." He explained that the question is "How is the
industrial waste going to be disposed of?"
In.relation..to this issue, the staff report stated: "Staff has consistently
suggested to the applicant a Suter recycling facility with no discharge."
The report stated that both the County Engineer and the Watershed Management
Official supported this type of facility and that recycling systems are not
unique to this area.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by 'Mr. Joe Breslin. He explained that the
applicant had employed the Cox Company* (Engineer.$).to design a holding tank
system for the industrial waste which would then go into some type of
recycling system. He explained that any residue from this system would
then be trucked away to the treatment plant.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any consideration had been given to the amounE of
ground water that would be used if a re -cycling system was not used, i.e.
groundwater withdrawal vs. recycling. Mr. Bowerman indicated 4,000 gallons/day
was what had been mentioned for water usage. Mr. Breslin replied that it
was anticipated that 100% of the water would be recycled and that the
water would be able to be used 5 or 6 times before it became unusable.
Mr. Bowerman calculated this would reduce water usage to possibly 1,000 gallons/day.
Mr. Breslin further explained that the best recycling systerms use 70%
recycled water with 30% fresh water added to it. Mr. Breslin explained
the water usage further and concluded that the engineers had been instructed
to design a system that would produce "0" discharge. Mr. Bowerman asked
June 14, 1988
Page 3
if Mr. Breslin was saying that the applicant would initially haul all the
waste water away and then eventually switch to a recycling system. Mr.
Breslin's response was unclear.
Mr. Bowerman explained that the Commission would have to place a condition
on this approval addressing the concern about industrial waste disposal
and it was desirable that it be a condition that both the Commission and
the applicant could live with. He added that the Commission would be
in favor of a system which would recycle as much as possible. In consideration
of the concern about groundwater depletion, Mr. Bowerman asked how long
it would be before the applicant was on a complete recycling system.
Mr. Breslin did not give a clear response. He stated that it was more
a matter of economics than time frame. He stated: "Running the tightest
ship in the shipping business is going to force us to minimize the expense
that we're going to have with the "0" discharge.
Mr. Stark pointed out that it still was not clear when the system would
be completely operational.
Mr. Jenkins pointed out that the applicant indicated there would be no
discharge "from the very beginning" so he felt the remaining question was
how much groundwater would be used if a recylcing system were not used.
Mr. Bowerman felt his question had been answered, i.e. "in terms of
economics, as soon as we can." Mr. Bowerman indicated it was his under-
standing the applicant was "going to do it immediately." Mr. Breslin
commented: "As soon as I can get going on the scheme." Mr. Bowerman asked:
"Are you contemplating occupying the building with this system in place?"
Mr. Breslin responded: "Yes."
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any problems with a condition
requiring that the recycling system be in place before the certificate
of occupancy was issued. Mr. Breslin indicated this was not a problem.
Mr. Keeler suggested that condition 2(b) be dropped and replaced. with:
"Inspections Department approval of recycling system for truck washing
facilities, such recycling system to have no discharge on site." Mr.
Keeler added that Mr. Horne should send a memo to the Inspections
Department to clarify this issue.
It was pointed out the Health Department would still have to make the
determination that the waste that was eventually hauled away was
acceptable for the treatment plant. Mr. Keeler added that the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority would have to issue a discharge permit to
the hauler. Mr. Keeler also pointed out that it would be easy for the
applicant to make sure the hauler was actually discharging at the
treatment plant by requiring that he submit his receipt.
It was determined that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority would make
the determination as to the acceptability of the waste, not the
Health Department as was suggested previously.
,AA 4.
June 14, 1988 Page 4
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the applicant could contact Mr. Gene Potter
with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority crho.would be able to supply
the requirements for the treatment of the waste in order for it to be
acceptable and this would also effect the design of the system used on site.
Mr. Bowerman stressed that the Commission would be satisfied as long as
there was a holding tank to contain the industrial waste and there would
be zero discharge into either a stream or a drainfield.
Mr. Michel asked where the septic system, for the domestic waste, was
to be located. Mr. Pat Ford responded and pointed out it would be
"along 250."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
It was determined staff was requesting staff approval of the final plan.
:sir. Michel moved that the UPS Parcel Distribution Center Preliminary Site.
Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A Final Site Development Plan will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations;
b. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and calcu-
lations;
c. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Virginia. Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations and commercial entrance;
e. Planning staff approval of landscape.plan;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition is met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval;
b. Inspections Department approval of recycling system for truck
washing facility, such recycling facility to have no discharge
on site;
3. The site shall be limited to 135 employees, without further Health
Department approval;
4. The final plan may be administratively approved.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Keeler pointed out the final site plan is not accepted until tentative
approvals from various agencies are received. He explained there is
about a 17-day lapse between the acceptance of the plan and the signing
of the plan for a building permit. He explained that once all the
tentative approvals have been received, the staff will issue the grading
permit.
jolt
June 14, 1988
Page 5
Kenneth Smith Waiver Request - Proposal to create a lot of 3.50 acres which
will have frontage on two internal easements (a waiver of Section 18-36(f)
of the Subdivision Ordinance). The property is located approximately
one (1) mile south of Carter's Bridge on Rt. 20. Tax Map 112, Parcel 18D.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff felt approval of the request was
appropriate.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, Mr. Pullen explained the letter
of complaint received from Mr. Bowls. Mr. Bowls was concerned about
sight distance problems.
Mr. Stark asked how the applicant had acquired the easement. Mr. Pullen
explained that all the properties had been subdivided in 1976 and the
easement has been inexistence since that time.
Mr. Bowerman stated there was no change in the use of the existing
easement, but Mr. Bowls' letter was arguing that with the creation of
the new easement the use of the current easement should be reduced.
It was determined no dwelling currently exists on parcel 18D1.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Willie Watkins. He felt the staff
report adequately represented the applicant's request.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Smith, purchaser of the lot (i.e. the lot which will have the additional
side yard), addressed the Commission. He pointed out that his usage of the
road would be only minimal residential usage. He pointed out that there
is an existing maintenance agreement for the road.
Mr. Watkins explained that Mr. Smith's house is already under construction
and the road has been constructed in order to give Mr. Smith access to his
parcel. He objected to Mr. Bowls concern about inadequate site distance.
He stated there was no difference in sight distance between the two
accesses. He explained Mr. Smith's house would be the only user of the
new access. He also stated there was "no way to use the new access
for the existing house in an appropriate manner."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Michel stated he had no problems with the request because the situation
would basically remain the same and there was nothing to be gained by the
County in denying the request.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he had no problems with the request.
Mr. Michel moved that the Kenneth Smith Waiver Request be approved.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
June 14, 1988
Page 6
Mr. Keeler asked that the record show that by approving the Kenneth Smith
waiver, the Commission was "in effect, reducing the number of units that can
have access to the 50-foot access easement." He continued, "It now brings
these new lots under the private road ordinance and they can only have one
dwelling on each of these new lots, unless you give further approval to it,
whereas if this subdivision hadn't taken place on the existing tract where
the existing dwelling.is located, the ou ner could have built another house.
The action of approving this the way you did effectively does the same thing
that Mr. Bowls asked you to do,.that's reduce the use of the 50-foot easement."
Mr. Bowerman asked 'Mr. Keeler to explain briefly the staff's role in coor-
dinating septic system approvals between the Health Department, Zoning and
Planning.
Mr. Keeler explained that the Health Department issues an approval for
septic systems anticipating domestic discharge only. Sometime after that
when building plans are submitted to the inspections Department, the
Inspections Department has approved the discharge of floor drains into the
septic system. This has been done without the knowledge of the Health
Department. He stated that staff intends to send letters to the properties
where that has been approved to say that this is not really consistent with
the Health Department approval and the septic system can be damaged if
this is done. He explained that in the future when the Inspections
Department gets anything other than domestic plumbing proposed to go into
a septic system, then they should immediately notify the Health Department
and not issue the building permits.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that this would be a consideration for these
types of uses from this point on, i.e.. whenever such a use locates in the
County in an industrialarea that is not on public water and sewer.
Mr. St. John added that there was a provision in the LT districts which
addresses this issue. He explained.it requires a special use permit for any
use that uses more than 400 gallons of water per day, per site acre, if
it is not on public water or sewer. He stated: "This is a special condition
that says where you have light industrial zoning without public utilities
then any use, even those that are listed by right; rust have a special use
permit if they consume more than 400 gallons of water per day, per acre,
or if they discharge anything except domestic sewage. It doesn't say you
can't do it." Mr. St. John reminded the Commission that the UPS proposal
involved a proffer.
Referring to an item on the Consent Agenda, the Terrae Land Trust Final Plat,
Mr. Michel asked if the Commission would no longer be seeing by -right
subdivisions.
TM1r. Keeler responded that this was a subdivision that the Commission had approved
o
June 14, 1988
Page 7
and the approval had been extended because the attorney had failed to
record the subdivision and as a result it expired. He stated staff
saw no change in circumstance that.would warrant further consideration.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms
John Horne, Secretary
140
ti�