HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200400011 Review Comments 2004-07-21 (2) Amelia McCulley
From: Glenn Brooks
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 8:45 AM
To: Amelia McCulley
Cc: Mark Graham; Bill Fritz
Subject: RE: Central system questions
I recall these limitations when they applied for the site plan for those buildings They were well informed, but pushed
ahead anyway. I think we anticipated they would come in for a variance eventually, trying to get around the limitations
placed on the site plan.
I hesitate to guess what Jack might comment in this situation I have read through Chapter 2 of the Design Manual, trying
to glean what might be the thinking on this topic, but as usual, I find nothing of use, only general sketchy requirements for
submittal, review and approval.
My guess is that the main concerns are threefold, (1)the environmental impact of a more intense sewage disposal system,
such as for a mass drainfield or alternative pressurized system, and (2)the inevitable request to make the system public
when maintenance becomes too difficult, and (3)the land use implications of allowing more intense use in the non-
development areas of the county.
Of the above concerns, I judge the second to be more pressing, with the third a close second Perhaps a planner would
judge the third to be the most pressing The first is under the review of the health department. Regarding the second,
ACSA may be able to comment on public maintenance of small independent systems, which I'm sure they would
discourage as inefficient and comparatively expensive. Regarding the third, if enough residents or businesses rely on a
system, it might require public rescue, meaning the public system would have to be extended to cover it after it fails (most
have a service life around 20-30yrs). The County has some experience with system failures. I can recall a mass drainfield
in Deerwood, a water system in Key West, wells in Peacock
I hope you find this helpful
Glenn Brooks
Senior Engineer
Albemarle County
From: Amelia McCulley
Sent: Tuesday,July 20, 2004 10:51 AM
To: Glenn Brooks
Subject: FW: Central system questions
Importance: High
Just got Jack's out of office message. Do you have any comments on this you could provide?
From: Amelia McCulley
Sent: Tuesday,July 20,2004 10:50 AM
To: Jack Kelsey
Subject: Central system questions
Importance: High
I'm reviewing a variance for the Shadwell antiquaries site at Rt. 250 and 22. It was previously
approved for an antique store and also for a vet office. The new owners want relief from the
zoning ordinance req'mt which limits the number of "establishments" for properties served by
private well and septic (Section 4.1.3). This reg requires 60,000 sf per establishment. They have
just over 80,00 sq ft in the property. basically want no limits and have asked for 15
establishments, or a variance of 811,000 sf or almost 19 acres. I'm asking you for comments on
this. My staff report is due on Friday. There are 2 existing bldgs and 1 existing well and septic.
The defns of central water and central sewage system are alittle problemmatic in a few ways.
1
' For one, only one of the defns talks about "being capable of serving 3 or more connections."
Their system may or may not be capable of serving multiple connections. The number of
connections seems somewhat arbitrary as a measure. Could they get approval as a central
system with only 2 connections? What do you suggest I do with this variance/
2