No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutACSA199900003 Executive Summary 1999-10-06 • COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: Peacock Hill - Request to Amend the Albemarle County October 6, 1999 Service Authority Jurisdictional Area for Water ACTION: INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Consider holding a public hearing to amend the ACSA CONSENT AGENDA: Jurisdictional Area to provide Water to property ACTION: INFORMATION: X described as Tax Map 73A Sections 1 through 7 Peacock Hill Subdivision (see Attachment A, amendment application) ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(SI: REVIEWED BY: 74r------/ Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, B+ Isl Hirschman BACKGROUND: In July 1999 the Peacock Hill Community Association submitted an application to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)jurisdictional area, for provision of public water(Attachment A). Planning staff previously met with representatives from the association to discuss the policy set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan regarding circumstances under which public water and sewer can be provided in the Rural Area. Subsequently, the Water Resources Manager convened a meeting with representatives from the Peacock Hill Homeowners', Virginia Department of Health, Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, Albemarle County Service Authority, and County Planning and Community Development. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the history of the Peacock Hill water situation and develop strategies for possible solutions (see Attachment B, minutes). One outcome of this meeting was that state and private geologists would work with the homeowners to further explore the opportunities for groundwater development in and near the subdivision. The consulting geologist's report has been submitted, and is included as Attachment C. The purpose of this worksession is to provide the Board with an opportunity to discuss this issue with the applicant and staff, and provide direction as to any further information needed and/or desired by the Board before proceeding with the jurisdictional area amendment process. DISCUSSION: In the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, the County initiated a policy regarding extension of water and sewer to properties outside of the growth area which stated: Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Growth Area boundaries in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and, (2) public health or safety is endangered. The Utilities section of the current Plan reiterates the 1989 policy cited above, and provides the following additional guidance concerning water/sewer service in the Rural Area: General Principle: Utilization of central water and/or sewer systems or the extension of public water or sewer into the Rural Area is strongly discouraged except in cases where public health and safety are at issue. AGENDA TITLE: Peacock Hill — Request to Amend the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area for Water AGENDA DATE: October 6, 1999 Page 2 of 2 In reviewing other requests for provision of public water and/or sewer in the Rural Area, the Board has also considered the availability of private source remedies. Generally, the Board has wanted assurances that all other reasonable remedies have been exhausted to provide water/sewer before granting extension of public water and/or sewer service to the site. This issue is addressed in the consultant's report. There is no public water infrastructure located adjacent to Peacock Hill, the first criterion identified in the Land Use Plan for extension of service to the Rural Area. The water supply limitations encountered by Peacock Hill may constitute an endangerment of the public health or safety of the residents, the second criterion in the Comprehensive Plan policy. The problems encountered at Peacock Hill are surely indicative of a larger trend. In fact, this past summer alone, County staff was contacted about water quantity and/or quality problems at Glenair, Langford, and another small system in Ivy. Earlysville Forest also experiences water quantity problems over the summer. It is apparent to staff that any discussion about solving Peacock Hill's problems will lead naturally to broader issues of small, groundwater-dependent systems in general. With regard to Peacock Hill, the land use implication of extending a public water line is that a large number of small residential lots —developed and undeveloped — lie between the closest existing water line (in the vicinity of West Leigh) and Peacock Hill. If a water line is built, future requests from other property owners to hook onto the line will be inevitable. In summary, the Peacock Hill community must have access to a safe and reliable source of water. It is clear that the current system is not capable of providing this. Whether the solution involves developing additional "on-site" or "off-site" sources, increasing the system's efficiency, or extending a public water line, the outcome has implications for the well-being of the Peacock Hill community and the integrity of the County's rural area policies. RECOMMENDATION: This item is for an informational work session. Staff is currently reviewing the consulting geologists' report received September 14, and has no recommendations at this time. Under the jurisdictional area amendment process, the Board will ultimately need to decide whether to hold a public hearing on the request. Attachments: A—Jurisdictional Area Amendment Application B —June 4, 1999 Meeting Minutes C— Consulting Geologist's Report D — Land Use Plan section Cc: Bill Brent, Albemarle County Service Authority David Hirschman, Water Resources William L Hobson, Peacock Hill Community Association 797 Gilliams Mountain Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 C:IPLANNINGICURRENT\Peacock Hill JAA BOS ex sum 10-6-99.doc 99.184 '''' ''-', if 61-04- / Albemarle r % p� ATTACHMENT A zi4SV 1. ,1 , y r" ,: PEA • ,•4�. f r .„., .N.N ir ks,T, i 1,,,_ , ., 0vIi l,lpi 410- /h,7, Ak\''.I°p,,\A' ,. Y ! ,7 v f . ) �• f `, P t „,., ,... # 41;: ip____, c‘1 i i 4,, ,...,--- Ahh, , , ) '1 ! -wog 11$ * I' s e' ,i.. - 0 , - e . - _ harlottesviI e �. Yi. Reservoir ;; 9 .• , _ ., • RD ..>t ..e -.... Air -' 4, /4... 2 11-4. ( ..---! APPLICATION TO AMEND '' A l f THE SERVICE AUTHORITY JIURISDICTIONAL AREAS R i i VI - , 3_ rii , (;\ . .N/ . ,:'';' ...../'-c .....1\ / i. c APPLICATION TO AMEND THE ,0 County of Albemarle III 1 i Department of Planning and Community Development SERVICE AUTHORITY a �'®- 401 McIntire Road :I R - Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 JURISDICTIONAL AREAS 1-, ,�,.• 804 296-5823 • APPLICANT ame: PEAC C HILL COMMUNITY�/ ASSOCIATION Signature: / _ /"/ Phone: ( 804) 296-2484 Address: P.O. BOX 11 , IVY, V RGINIA 22945 CO-APPLICANT Name (or agent, if any): Signature: Phone: Address: JURISDICTIONAL AREA DESIGNATION REQUESTED: ❑ Water and Sewer 0 Water Only ❑ Water Only to Existing Structure(s) 0 Limited Service (Describe in Justification below) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address) ROUTE 708 (Dry Bridge Road) Tax Map(s)/ParcelNumber(s): TAX MAP NTTMBFR 7 3-A. SFCTTClNS 1 . 7 . 3 . 4 . 5 . fi . & 7 ALBEMARLE COUNTY — PEACOCK HILL SUBDIVISION CURRENT SERVICE AREA DESIGNATION (If any): ❑ Water and Sewer 0 Water Only • ❑ Water Only-to Existing Structures 0 Limited Service JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST: SEE ATTACHED • • For Staff Use Only DATE SUBMITTED: DATE S130 FEE PAID:_ _ ____ ______ PROPERTY IS LOCATED (Check Appropriate): ❑ Inside or 0 Outside a Growth Area? 0 Adjacent to SAJA? ❑ Inside or 0 Outside a Water-Supply Watershed? ❑ Adjacent to a Growth Ama? Location and distance of water/sewer line proposed to provide service REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT ADOPTED: 0 Yes 0 No Date of Actio7+ _•_vq _! PEACOCK HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST JULY 1, 1999 Individuals and even communities as large as Peacock Hill cannot move into the new millennium by themselves. Albemarle County Supervisors are tasked with the responsibility to begin the planning for water needs for all the County for the year 2050. The Peacock Hill Community was established in the early seventies when the long term availability of water may not have been fully thought out. Peacock Hill constituents, like others in the County, "Visualize our community as one that balances natural and built environments and that has a vital urban core surrounded by a rural area that remains predominately green and open....one in which each individual is valued and where all can live affordably and safely....one that has open and accessible governments which cooperate to provide quality economical services." So, as citizens and taxpayers, we now need your understanding and help, because 180 property owners placed their faith in the government years ago when the development was first approved. In good faith, they believed that adequate water existed, that their health and safety was considered, and that they would reap the same rewards as all other citizens because of government oversight. Our quest for Public Water, rather than drilling more and more wells, is based on the constant fear that eventually our water system may become contaminated, or that we will soon run out of water. An objective analysis will show that County water for Peacock Hill is the right thing to do. We realize that the County has not included Peacock Hill in its preferred development zones, but the development came with the County's approval. It places an unreasonable burden on residents and taxpayers when government moves in a new direction without making allowances for past commitments. We believe that the message to the citizens should be that, "we will honor our past as we move toward the future." To address our fears, we believe that we need to be included in the growth plan for Albemarle County. The residents of Peacock Hill wish to work with the Board of Supervisors and its capable staff to find a solution to the Community's water problem, and to discover the correct pathway to implementing that solution promptly and economically. PHCA 1-7/1/99 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Peacock Hill, established and approved by County Planning and the State Health Department in 1973 under developer, Frank Folsom Smith, included 180 home sites and be served by a multi community well system. More specifically: • Peacock Hill is serviced by five wells, located throughout the community on its common grounds. • Peacock Hill consists of 180 lots. 145 are improved lots, the remaining 35 are unimproved (empty lots with no houses). Two homes are under construction and will come on to our water system very soon. We have one outside customer, who is not a community member of Peacock Hill. • Total number of customers on Peacock Hill Service is 148. • Peacock Hill's lots are surrounded by acres of common grounds. Community drain fields are located on much of this land. • The Peacock Hill Service Company was purchased in 1991 by the Association for the sum of$10,000. • Sales of lots and existing homes in Peacock Hill have risen substantially in the last year. The popularity of the school district (V. L. Murray Elementary, Henley Middle School, and Western Albemarle High School) have made this area the second highest in demand, next to Stone Robinson School District. See Attachment A. Its close proximity to the University of Virginia and access to the Interstate Highway(164) also make it very popular. • Peacock Hill is growing at a rate of 1-3 houses per year. • Two additional sites for well drilling were approved by Jim Moore, State Health Department. However, Mr. Moore withdrew one of these sites because it was too close to a drain field or a home owners property line. Mr. Moore again reviewed the mapped areas in search of another site, but could find none because of proximity to drain fields. • We are currently hauling in an average of 30,000 gallons of water per week. At least once a week we must transfer water from our upper storage tank to the lower one so that the burden on the wells can be eased. This requires the purchase of even more water. PHCA-2-7/1/99 ZONING HISTORY OF PEACOCK HILL ( With an emphasis on county water requirements): 1973: Peacock Hill was approved as a planned Unit Development (PUD) by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors under Special Use Permit SP-253. Total development was limited to 195 dwelling units. Condition# 1 of this permit required that "A central well system and sewerage disposal system be approved under separate permits." 1975 Special Use Permit SP-499 was allowed by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. This permit included the following conditions relating to water: • Well output of one gallon per minute per dwelling unit; • Well output to be reviewed and approved by the County Engineer; • Any additional units served by this well(s) will require an additional special use permit. • This Special Use Permit granted to serve Sections 1&2 of Peacock Hill and a maximum of ninety-nine (99) dwellings based upon the capacity of the five wells tested which report a capacity of 29, 38, 11, 1/2, 7 and 15 gallons per minute [ total: 100.5 ]. 1985 Zoning Map Amendment ZMA-85-22 was approved by the Board of Supervisors, adding 2.5 acres to the existing Peacock Hill, PUD, and updating to current county regulations the requirements for water, roads, and septic fields. The planning staff report included this statement: " The Albemarle County Service Authority Board has requested that central water systems be designed in accordance with Service Authority standards in the event the same are submitted for Service Authority operation/ownership". Conditions of approval of ZMA-85-22 included the following: • All lots to be served by one or more central well systems designed in accordance with Albemarle County Service Authority standards and approved by the County Engineer including witnessing of well testing. PHCA 3-7/1/99 1987: Frank Folsom Smith, developer of Peacock Hill, requested that the County amend condition# 1 of SP-499 from one gallon per minute (GPM) to one half gallon per minute (1/2 GPM)per dwelling unit, presumably to allow the construction of more homes on the existing well system. In a letter dated September 24, 1987, Ronald S. Keeler, a senior member of the County planning staff wrote that: Conditions of ZMA-85-22 supersede and replace conditions of SP-253 including condition 1,which became SP-499. While no specific language was included in ZMA-85-22 to repeal SP-499, repeal and replacement of Condition 1 of SP-253 had the same effect. No further action is necessary by applicant to vacate SP-499. Through this series of actions, Albemarle County approved the development of new sections of Peacock Hill with an overall water requirement of one-half gallon per minute per home. Well drilling tests exist for at least some of the wells. County records reviewed do not include written documentation of the County Engineer's witnessing of all well tests, but it is presumed that this was done. History of Peacock Hill Water System In 1973 North American Exploration, Inc. studied the area of the proposed Peacock Hill Planned Unit Development for well sites for the central well system. In their report that year, to John McNair and Associates, they stated, "A rather severe constraint was imposed on the selection of potential well sites by the restriction that the potential well sites had to be located up-drainage from the numerous planned septic fields". The developer had twelve wells drilled in seven distinctly different areas in late 1973 and early1974. Of these twelve wells, our wells 1,2,3, and 4 appear to be the only ones that were worth developing. The two best producing wells (1&2) were brought on line first and adequately supplied the early development of the community(Turkey Ridge Road, Big Oak Road, and Gilliams Mountain Road). By the mid to late 80's the developer opened sections which included Heron Lane, Apple Lane, and Goose Neck Lane. It appears from our research that wells 1 &2 were having trouble satisfying the demand of the rapidly increasing number of dwellings. Residents were unaware of the problem, however, since the developer still controlled the water system and did not share this information with them. The developer brought well number 3 on line in late 1990. It was rated at 17.5 GPM. In 1991 the developer divested himself of the development and turned the management over to the Peacock Hill Community Association. The last two sections at Peacock Hill ( Shady Lane and Peacock Drive Extension) were sold by PHCA 4-7/1/99 the developer to a builder who built "spec houses". In December 1991, the Peacock Hill Community Association(PHCA) purchased the water system from the developer. By the summer of 1993, well 3 had been worked so hard that it was producing only 5-6 GPM when it was operational. A break in a water main emptied the lower tank and, afterwards, the three existing wells could neither satisfy the demand nor could they fill the lower storage tank. It was during this first crisis that the water system was shut down daily from 10 AM until 4 PM so that the lower tank could refill. Filling the tank under these conditions was impossible and required the purchase of more than a quarter million gallons of trucked in water. During this emergency one of the original wells was pump tested and found to be an inadequate producer. The original drilling company directed us to another of the original twelve wells. After re-drilling and other benefactions, well 4 rated at 9 GPM was brought on line. The fifth well was begun in early 1994. Mr. Thomas M. Gathright II, a geologist with the Virginia Division of Mineral Resources was consulted. He drew traces of potential fracture zones on a sketch map of Peacock Hill and prioritized a group of potential drill sites. The drilling of the fifth well was completed in May 1994. The well was activated on January 12, 1995. Throughout the last half of 1994, positive tests for bacteria were traced to well 4. When well number 5 came on line, well number 4 was shut down; a well house built and chlorination equipment installed. (Attachment B - Fracture Zones & Well Locations) Other than some periodic breaks in the distribution system, PHSC operated smoothly from 1995 through 1997. The drought of 1998 caused the community to declare drought management conditions on September 10, 1998. A more stringent declaration was issued on March 6, 1999. (Attachment C) Early in 1999 the process of drilling two additional wells was begun. Mr. Gathright (now retired) was again consulted to locate drilling sites for wells 6 &7. The drilling of the sixth well is complete and tested at 12.5 GPM, but not currently online. The seventh well was not drilled because the site was disapproved by the Health Department for being too close to a drain field. The problem continues to be that the existing well system can not meet the demand of Peacock Hill customers. As a result, we continue to purchase water from a hauling company. Peacock Hill Water Usage As charts 1-3 on the next page show, water use in Peacock Hill rose slowly over the years, as may be seen on the following charts. The 1987 approval of the Developer's request to amend Condition#1 of SP-499 from one GPM to V2 GPM per dwelling set the stage for our present difficulties. PHCA 5-7/1/99 I 1:!'1<.vt.I11. I 1 1 La ►7EdIli V 1 k...Er l.lJ1VIrh111 I • WAT . PUMPAGE/SALES 1988- A PR I L 1999 WATER WATER WATER YEAR # CUST. PUMPED PURCHASED SOLD # WELLS 1987 65 5,058,000 4,016,598 2 1988 71 4,762,910 4,152,720 2 1989 84 4,089,400 4,675,932 2 1990 100 5,240,800 5,518,826 3 1991 112 5,759,100 6,810,018 3 1992 119 6,1 12,600 7,046,965 3 l 993 120 7,029,000 266,000 7,758,826 4 1994 134 8,033,000 8,41 1,000 5 I995 143 8,087,000 9,728,000 5 19% 143 8,699,000 8,166,000 5 1997 145 11,107,000 10,424,000 5 1998 146 9,707,280 8,428,000 5 1999) (1.lN-WRy 147 2,043,960 81,600 oI:1K-:U'R) \.A 5 DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN WATER PUMPED AND WATER SOLD CAN BE DUE TO WATER LEAKS/ MAIN METERS STUCK RESULTING IN DIFFERENCES IN WHAT IS Pt 'MPFD AND SOLD l HAVE ONLY BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE FILES THROUGH 1987 FOR PUMPAGES, I HOPE THAT THIS INFORMATION IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE TIME BEING. I AM STILL TRYING TO LOCATE DOCUMENTATIONS FROM 1975-1986 CINDY PERFATER Chart 1 WATER PUMPED(Millions of gallons) 121 4rIN CI\ 8 - I --*—WATER PUMPED(Millions of gallons) 4 2 - U + ► + 4 I + I F 1 I cn rn t Chart Z Peacock Hill Water System 200 — - - - -- -- 90 - 160 140 - 120 j-♦-Water per Customer(gpd)j 100 _ I-a-No. of Customers 80 - 40 -- 20 - 0 r 4 F ; i 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year Chart3 WATER SOLD(Millions of gallons) 12 -- —— _ — — — --_ --- — - _ --- — —� 10 - 1 /4N-- 8 i I 6 (— --� WATER SOLD(Millions of gallons)I 4 2 — 0 I f I 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Droughts over the past decade have resulted in declining ground water availability. Since 1973, 14 wells were drilled. Well output was insufficient to meet the demand in 1993 and again in 1999, and water continues to be hauled from Brownsville Water Treatment Plant to Peacock Hill Several times each week. Sustained conservation efforts by residents contribute to a moderate use of less than 200 GPD per household averaged over a year. Outdoor watering and washing is prohibited. Peacock Hill homeowners now pay very high water rates and surcharges (Attachment D), both to encourage water conservation and to provide capital for maintenance and operation of the water system. In 1999, the community voted to assess each property owner for the drilling of an additional well. Indications from the Health Department are that well locations within Peacock Hill are limited, and the 1999 well(well#6) may be the last which can be drilled. A number of years ago, a community in the county, experienced water problems similar to those of Peacock Hill. In fact, West Leigh's water system went dry and is now supplied water by the County. According to data furnished by ACSA, West Leigh's average water usage is 320 GPD per household. Using this number as normal conditions, Peacock Hill's need, therefore, is 181 units times 320 or 57,820 GPD. Our water system is currently able to produce 22,000 GPD (based on a yearly average). Water systems should ordinarily be designed for 30 years hence. Fire flow governs system design. Fire flow requires 200-500% of average annual demand. Average consumption for domestic purposes is only 100 GPD per capita. (Volume 1, "Data Book for Civil Engineers" by Seelye, pages 20-22) In summary, the Peacock Hill Water System, intended, originally, to serve 195 homes can no longer supply even nominal household demand for 147 units. Two new homes are nearly complete, and lots are available for 32 additional homes. It is the considered opinion of the Peacock Hill Board of Directors that water must be obtained from other sources. We are, therefore, seeking solutions that will provide 58,000 GPD. The design basis as outlined by the Health Department in 1994 was 54,400 GPD. PHCA 9-7/1/99 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES Accessibility of water storage tanks Peacock Hill has two water tanks, an upper tank (15,000 gallon capacity) at the top of Gilliams Mountain and a lower tank (25,000 gallon capacity) at Deer Crest. When the need to purchase water first arose both tanks were evaluated for accessibility by C &D Water Hauling, a water provider recommended by the County Water Department. The lower tank is not accessible by large tank trucks and it can not be made accessible without drastic revision of the road system and severe destruction of surrounding forest area. The upper tank is accessible in normal weather conditions. A significant problem arises, however, in winter weather conditions. While a fully loaded tanker might have sufficient traction to drive safely up to the upper tank, it is the opinion of the water provider that it would be dangerous for the empty tanker to drive down the hill in such conditions. It is likely that the descent would endanger the truck and driver, pedestrians, and property located all along Gilliams Mountain Road. For this reason a water company would probably decline to deliver water to the upper tank in snowy or icy conditions. Since the average requirement of Peacock Hill is to purchase one truck load of water per day, there is a risk that the community might be left with no water at all in an extended period of winter weather. Water Quality In July of 1998 the Virginia Department of Health notified Peacock Hill that total coliform bacteria in its water supply exceeded the primary maximum contaminant level set forth by federal law. (Attachment E) The United States Environmental Protection Agency has determined that the presence of total coliform is a possible health concern. In 1994 a similar problem occurred with bacteria. The past necessity to shut off all water usage for several hours per day gives rise to additional dangers. When the water supply is cut off a negative pressure usually develops in the distribution system which can cause infiltration to the system from ground water to the potable water system. This is particularly true if there happens to be a break in the water line. PHCA 10-7/1/99 Fire Suppression The Crozet Volunteer Fire Company would be the first to respond to either a structural or a grass land/forest fire call from Peacock Hill. Response time by Crozet is three to seven minutes for assembly of the firemen and dispatch of equipment plus the time required to travel from the fire station to the scene in Peacock Hill. This measures between 10 and 12 minutes under normal driving conditions, but would be significantly longer in winter, after a major storm, or if impeded by traffic congestion. If dispatched to Peacock Hill, Crozet would send one pumper truck and one water truck. The pumper carries 750 to 1000 gallons of water on board and the water truck carries 2,000 gallons. The water truck is less maneuverable than the pumper due to its length. Back-up assistance from adjacent units, if called by Crozet, would normally dispatch both a pumper and a water tanker. Water tankers can be replenished onsite. Back-up assistance can be obtained from Station 8 on Seminole Trail,North Garden, Earlysville, Rockfish, and the City of Charlottesville. Back-up for brush and forest fires can be obtained from the State Forest Service as well. The rate of fire water usage depends on the number and size of hoses deployed. Pumpers are capable of delivering 750 to 1,000 gallons per minute through 2 %2 inch hoses. At this rate, water supply aboard the pumper and accompanying tanker truck would be exhausted in as little as three minutes. A fire requiring this effort would involve back-up units, so tankers would rotate between servicing Pumpers and replenishing their supply from Peacock Lake. Ice equal to or less than one inch in thickness should not affect water withdrawal beyond the time penalty required to break through and insert the strainer unit. For fire insurance purposes, residences at Peacock Hill are classified at risk level 9. If piped water and reasonably spaced hydrants were available, the risk level would drop to 5. On a$250,000 home, the difference in annual fire insurance premium would be approximately $140. PHCA 11-7/1/99 ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS Adjacent Properties Jay Gillenwater and Nursery Dr. Jay Gillenwater, a neighbor on Dry Bridge Road, has three wells to the north of Peacock Hill on State Route 708. He uses the water for a nursery . According to Dr. Gillenwater the wells produce 50 GPM or 72,000 GPD. However, the wells only run about 100 hours per year and never for sustained periods. Dr. Gillenwater is willing to provide assistance, but we would need to drill a new well on his property and connect to our system which is about 2,000 feet from his property. We would need to explore water cost, long term flow rates, and certification by the Health Department. Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) The Waste Authority recently drilled a well in the median of I-64 in proximity to our community. Reports are that it is a high producing well and could satisfy some of our needs. Discussion with Art Petrini, RSWA Executive Director, suggests that our hooking onto the well would not be legally acceptable. The well is a monitoring well required by DEQ as an early warning system for possible contaminants moving toward Peacock Hill. Gertrude Weber Land The Weber land is located across Dry Bridge Road (SR 708) from Peacock Hill. According to Ms. Weber, there is an excess amount of water on the property. There are approximately 130 acres which she is selling. (Attachment F) The list price is $950,000 and she would prefer that it not be developed, but rather turned into "Green Space". Purchase by Peacock Hill would satisfy Ms. Weber's desire and provide Peacock Hill a buffer zone and water. Peacock Hill would need the assurances that the area could produce the needed water for a sustained period. The well(s) would become our major source by producing a minimum of 58,000 GPD. Financing would be a major obstacle for Peacock Hill and require much discussion and innovation. However, discussions with Ms. Weber should include Conservation Easement, Tax Reductions, and Quid Pro Quo for reduced value. PHCA 12-7/1/99 Dowser Report A Dowser has been retained to provide recommendations for well sites within Peacock Hill and in the surrounding area. The Dowser was also asked to search for water on unimproved lots. A full report will be submitted as an addendum to this application. Geological Report Nick H. Evans, Ph.D., Senior Geologist for the State of Virginia has been asked to perform a geological survey within one half mile radius of Peacock Hill. This is an attempt to enlarge our circle of search. Dr. Evans will ask us to contract for the service. This will be expensive so the circle was limited until the process is further defined. The first meeting with Dr. Evans and Mr. Thomas Gathright was held on June 29,1999. A full report will be submitted when complete as an addendum to this application. Other Possible Solutions Moratorium on Building in Peacock Hill Peacock Hill has 180 lots with 145 improved and houses presently being built on 2 lots. There is a possibility that 33 more houses will be built. The water system will not be able to furnish water to 180 homes. The County could refuse any additional Building Permits. The Peacock Hill Service Company could also prohibit any new customers. Both of these options would breach previous understandings with land owners. Land owners of undeveloped land would experience large devaluation of their property, which could expose the County and the Association to litigation. Albemarle County Service Authority Water When Peacock Hill was approved as a planned Unit Development in 1973, the Albemarle County Service Authority ( ACSA) was allowed to provide water anywhere that there were enough customers to provide an adequate revenue stream. Although Peacock Hill was approved for development using a community well system, there was then a possibility that public water could be obtained if it became necessary. PHCA 13-7/1/99 In later years, as a legitimate growth-management tool, the ACSA was limited by action of the Board of Supervisors to providing water to customers within "jurisdictional areas," which areas included existing and planned growth areas of the county. This change removed the rights of Peacock Hill and other rural county subdivisions to use public water. Several of these subdivisions that were on well systems have already suffered well failure, and are now served by the ACSA. Peacock Hill is no different from these aforementioned subdivisions outside growth areas which are now being served by public water, except for the distance and the costs of providing water to it. Because of the anticipated cost of providing public water, Peacock Hill and its residents have survived for a quarter century by drilling 14 holes in the ground, by imposing on themselves substantial water fees and charges, by undertaking conservation measures, and by the enormous dedication and work of a few citizens. Despite all of these efforts, it now appears that additional wells will not provide the long-term solution to an adequate supply of water to this community. If the Board of Supervisors and the ACSA agree to examine the possibility of providing public water, Peacock Hill pledges itself to work with both bodies in seeking ways to solve this critical problem. PHCA 14-7/1/99 ._ram„ /CO'/ / 19 Albemarle County Lot Statistics 1998 Price Range #Transactions •/. Elementary #Transactions % Month # Closed •/. Closed School District Closed <$20,000 73.45% Broadus Wood 20 9.85% Jan 15 7.39% $20,000-29,999 16 7.88% Brownsville 8 3.94% Feb 8 3.94% $30,000-39,999 10 4.93% Cale 2 0.99'/. Mar 11 5.42' $40,000-49,999 16 7.88% Crozet 11 5.42% Apr 17 8.37% $50,000-59,999 6 2.96°/. Greet 3 1.48•/. May 17 8.37% $60,000-69,999 13 6.40% Hollymead 4 1.97°/. Jun 29 14.29°/. f 70,000-79,999 9 4.43°o Meriwether Lewis 25 12.32% Jul 21 10.34% 180,000-89,999 15 7.39% Murray 35 17.24% Aug 22 10.84% ;90,000-99,999 18 8.87% Red Hill 8 3.94% Sep 13 6.40% f 100-119,999 23 11.33% Scottsville 3 1.48% Oct 23 11.33% $120-149,999 • 18 8.87% Stone Robinson 59 29.06% Nov 9 4.43% $150-175,000 19 9.36% Stony Point 14 6.90% Dec 18 S.A7°/ t175-199 999 ° 3.45/o Yancy II 5.42°,4 Total 203 100% 1200-249,999 12 5.91% Total 203 100% 1250-399,999 9 4.43% >$400,000 ,2 2.46% Total 203 100% - - - Nl, 59 21. . , .. ! - `' �T ` s1 v,1_1 _IPy4 , A �., " E x /fE -` -'' ' 3.1111TV . 4. .. .0„ if,...... ... „, . .....:,:.,_ .,. ::... t i .r. r / . . , , , ,„,,, .. : ..;.. 86 // k,... -- - .....; '-:I" ._;_, Y: ..- ir _ .... .. �� I . i . 4 . 4.: .,:„.,.;,;4: 4, ,t,....A...- ,, ,47,•, ,s, „ . ,) ,:.4, ,ff- ••• tfr-'--::,`-' -. i 1 t - t w ifs. „di • ......._(--- ..,, V i i Q. / r r ' '• ____,...-.i •V, .. ' • ' .-; 7 • r/7hr art \ t'f' '',./ -7 '..„... ..-....4 . 1:. , II. , , ..•.:.,:t;',If.eil My: Y,,-:_ ....0..-r idol; ,w, -airt ,...:, •'f of ; ,..._, ...,_ , . . . . ,Ati ., , , . • 6,,,,,,,„„, . , ....„ „.„,:,. ,_. . .,, „,,,,,„ _ � .,.. l'al;P2 ' r • ( 1 3--- . ' "311111.'- 1W.\.........z...z.. _.."/ i - 4 • , „N. ,_ t7 $ •& \`` _ pt . _ ° � ��� � • iS�' i• il' ~ r f= '^ �, �,k Z pry/ s , • ' ---• \, �� .�... " �;� ", — ��, /" i o ,/ate ., 1<a e'../j "•-• 40 s.e----ss., rir— -; igr___;___ ,x..--,..,___ 4 ......., :, , 11,.......,,.., A .„...----1'.... V WI T )110Dtql 1(...1,) �\/� ' , . -• `ft,� -- �" -' t- —, �►� if .1,1� ^r \ •fir /. ‘V‘ml..- I C J 6 ;_ ,, disci .wsl�l' —. --- .4k Or- 4ep --Apne fk cd7— w,// _ ... 'i 11 ...(2) Peacock Hill , , ` AL- • , , �.. �, gillE:=WRSOC3. i 'NNW rielp;1110';.... - ......=;"-__--- . ___---3 if' digek .-r, -\, too / r-r--'--‹: ' ,),. - ....- --..„ Al 1., t _....... - .....- -- V, lei ,, q _ __— yaw .��. xi-'�a `m%,.f:t -T`i/"''.-�I •_t J 26n r 1 74 -. law - _\ '-111111* 4 ( f i • - ----*/ishill . , i 41 ji......,,,,. /... - __ ' _ , 0 i',--..sit. 'i 0, '4 t114)i!l t,P,":.',..,.V_.--„..::._h. . 7 1 ,.\ YP r .r, {r i I,}t,,ll, I.,- . 1 / � t ' „ 1 4 ,...„.. . i "yt. �' 1 future \ / :„...... 414 ' 1 t ' ' > - 9e - . i /'•r ...„ ,-., „ ,/ / / ii : r x 1 12 ' 1 . ( c ( L-7 k i ,....-- 7 ,- ....., • t....--.. _ �..,L.- LL4 4, ..,........,.....„2.............„‘,..,,......44.,,,,----.4-- ••.-- ---- - ;4114 Dlrectioos: Take IM Wes to Ivy Exit.Left on 637. Right on 708.Peacock Hill on left.1 lve minutes from town. ,iiie‘rsiovidgia.............,. 1.._.,1141.7'11.'757fteciatro9e1116'.:A/slik-,..:-"Il __,,______ _‘-- - ,.,4 5 i?,e ei i 4,9 riJeiZs- P.,11' 'f ',nip/ igkis •„ / toewiteogdw€44104 2., rafrzy4,rit.44-- -67('-'in'i q. - ilt,41%%orsif4-74N. , . ri571_ p)27„„ exelz Peacock Hill . ir %.--,.-.-...........____ _... ,. .. Pillir::::,111:Rcio• 8130' _et. tr-,i if—, __.,• :,`2....:....„...0,3":t:,.:.:!*,..,.*(-::::.:.i;..ti.s§l::.:.;.':::,V• ierl/I#DA,. -'\.Wfte-w-Ti-;-W.1\/„1P Wt_•,_.-..:„w•_r4§::::A•, -,iA , --/-...25- 7v-t'------of1_- -, rt ',.. FDirriee a5 i ledelr veA4 - o • _ ..... 0144 `..N 7.--''14111 1111:!..111.Z.:,,,..,,;.--<,' :.•:.•:r...- -70:v,iiiit i • i i Illr II ,..2=,__.# . _ _____ .. .:•::•':::!•:ii:,4,i, ... ki."- s...:,,,,..• • .. ... , ...:..• •....,i'd7rAili A'. ':,:ir ( .:*:.i:-..\ , . "---, ..,...::::',..40111w .-, i::! ... '!5,i:H:•; 41.0 :::•::'•:':.:-:•,;;:',•-':::'• , ... .. :•.'s.,:laiii; , ia:4 k , •'i:i*:':,-,.': .:::*!'':::;:agiglIN • 4Lik . . qb „::,::: :::;. app...at -:17-10 ''''.: . • .'..:- 40, ....._, „,.:.7,-:.,. ::,Ai . -,;:;,::i.::, .. 89.,,:-.:,;.:'•::.'. ...ft , , .,..„. , .. .: ,,.,.::: . ,::.,.. 4g - - *, ,:.: . .:.:::1 'sl)FCK /N.,,,: _ . -. .i. - ,, ''. illift ::,,':i ,:,,: i ) o:i ,,s .i...... ..i::.!::::.yoUSe ,:ia::, i (ilqiiir A. • ':; ' • . .4i*:iii:.:Mi: '-' ,111111114 .':.*:.. ' L • - :p ::-..,......m„:„ .... r11..:::: ....... :.„. Ai \\: : • : w wp.m.,F ,:::mmi:::.!:;;::1, .y....„.1.! ,::::.!,!.:!!:,,!i,:,::.. .....„.:.;.. ..... , ine' „....„...::: .•,.....,..., ' ,•,,....:!liii,:4 ,Illrappp) ...,..„.. .. .. ..,,,_,..:,,,„..,„..... _ .., fg: ! :,:i? • — .:ii'..,. :.::i..":-.7",-,41€11b-- - ''.10 :' ..;., tri,V , ‘I'lliggigt..i :..::-.:;:z7.,:.! ...„ -....,,, / •••••:-cip ._,..,:,,,,*i.:::;;;"i ) II ,.... .. . /.... , .. . ....... .. .. . . .. ........ .. \ .. --------- -::,::.,::-::. .. . .. ' r ,,, ...:„:: :: . 1 s 1 \ :q:: ::::;g:N.!:\ ,„,.-771,,--/ .'•:Pi .. . :.:::: :. Iii............,.................... - -/ Pga::A ' 1 s I . ::''*:.::'':',. 0 i .0, • ..,:,....„150.:r;Ifi'kf - 4. ,3i*E•i '..]. 1 1 ,1 ::•:i::: :,:::.•gi: :ma -,-" •,,,-----: 0 :::::'"•• ---- ‘1 il I -Ii':]W• :.,::::::: /- .,.„--, .„,-----: ;.;,..,::•,-,--. , :-•i••:•;i::]:::,-,,::: I \-0 1 I 1 .:R!!i•: :T..' ''.: •'• )( ; r ' • '•,- •• 1 I , i I: ''' •-.. ..,. i ,/,,,- , 20 / fil , . 1 k I I \ . ---' '' '7/ ' . L 21 ' ' ' 1 `N,,,...,,,,,,,/ •.....,+'..,,.. ------4...:7 -....:..----,--- iiiii:: iiIiii:ikli:"..___:,.. ,.---_ 7-77-7-'--.----1 ''i C ''' - :':::‘:•::::::'''.:':.. . 1---- ig 6Et... _ _ _ _... ..F.W•7L7,2']: ::i0T-LL--:-.-:-..c.. .. :•---- _____.j , -1.64 ... Directions: Take 1-64 West to Ivy Exit.Left on 637.Right on 708.Peacock Hill on left.Twelve minutes from town. Peacoc ill Service Company /• / PO Box 2x4 Ivy- Virginia 2291s ' 111.11111117. Phone (Ro4)296-24R4 FaX (R04)296-2474 IMPORTANT NOTICE!!!! September 10, 191)8 Dear Peacock Hill Service Customers. As many of you are aware, the water system experienced a leak on Turkey Ridge Road that was found on this past Labor Day. Our maintenance provider, Country Water System, promptly began to repair the leak early the next morning. In most cases, in order to repair leaks and depending where they are located, water service must be shut down. This was the case for this most recent leak. We realize that these interruptions in water service are an inconvenience for our customers and while it is the intention of Peacock Hill Service Company to give notice in advance of any work which must be done that will necessitate any interruption of the supply, such notice is to be considered an accommodation and not a requirement on the part of the Company. Property owners must so regulate their installations connected with the water supply system that damage will not occur if water is shut off without notice. Peacock Hill Service Company will undertake to use reasonable care and diligence in order to prevent and avoid interruptions and fluctuations in the service, but cannot and does not guarantee that such will not occur. Please refer to your copy of the Peacock Hill Service Company Water Rates, Rules and Regulations(effective date January 1, 1998). Along with the water loss that occurred with the leak, we are in a extreme drought period. Coupled with the fact that water usage has been increasing during this period, the wells and tanks are being stressed. The tanks cannot replenish to normal levels quickly enough to meet demand at this time. If water usage continues to climb, and there is no rain to replenish the wells, it could mean that alternate water sources would need to be used. With this in mind, Peacock Hill Service Company is implementing a mandatory restriction of water usage to it's customers in order to obtain a sufficient supply. Until further notice the following usage of water will be prohibited: 1) Any and all outdoor watering of lawns and landscaping. 2) The washing of automobiles. Peacock Hill Service Company may discontinue water and sewer service to those customers that willfully or indifferently violate the above prohibitions as stated in the Peacock Hill Service Company Water Rates, Rules and Regulations. - 2 - Normal household water usage, such as bathing, showering, cooking, etc is no problem However, be mindful of how much water you are using. Shorten your showers. Fill your bathtubs only 1/4 full. Use your garbage disposal sparingly. Accumulate waste and dispose of it all at once by flushing with cold water- or better yet, save all the waste for composting. Load your dishwashers and washing machines to capacity. A toilet leak can waste hundreds of gallons of WalCI a day I.islrn li t an ominorts''lissss" sound Since many leaks are silent, put a few drops of food coloring or a dye capsule in the toilet tank and wait 15 minutes lithe color shows up in the bowl and the toilet has not been flushed, you have a leak to repair. Adherence to the above restrictions and tips, will result in the water system bouncing back to normal at a quicker rate Peacock Hill Service Company thanks all it customers for their patience and compliance during this time Customers will be notified when restrictions will be lifted. You may call the office number at (804) 296-2484 for updated information Please do not call my personal home number. Only messages left at the office number will be answered. Sincerely, c ly Cindy Perfater, Manager Peacock Hill Service Company 11.1D PEACOCK HILL SEI CE COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX IVY, VIRGINIA 22945 (804) 296-2484 FAX (804) 296-2474 WATER & SEWER RATES EFFECTIVE JANAURY 1. 1998 CONNECTION FEES: New Water Service Connection S 1550.00 New Sewer Service Connection S 750.00 SERVICE FEES: Water Service Fee S 11.00/month USAGE FEES: Water Usage Fee 0-20,999 gallons $ .00475 per gallon 21,000 & over S .05 per gallon Sewer Usage Fee 1/2 of Water Gallons Used At Applicable Rate DISCONNECTION FEE: Disconnection of Water/Sewer Service S 55.00 RECONNECTION FEE: Reconnection of Water/Sewer Service S 55.00 ACCEPTED FOR FILING JAN 7 1998 I ., , • C- i ., ;;1! CINUISS111N NOTICE TO CONSUMERS OF THE PEACOCK HILL SUBDIVISION PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM We have been advised by the Vlrginla Department of Health that total coliform bacteria exceeded the primary maximum contaminant level as set forth by federal law for samples collected during the month of July 1998. The results indicated the presence of coliform bacteria in two samples. We are allowed no more than one coliform presence sample per month. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets drinking water standards and has determined that the presence of total coliforms is a possible health concern. Total coliforms are common in the environment and are generally not harmful themselves. The presence of these bacteria in drinking water, however, generally is a result of a problem with water treatment or the pipes which distribute the water, and indicates that the water may be contaminated with organisms that can cause disease. Disease symptoms may include diarrhea, cramps, nausea, and possibly jaundice, and associated headaches and fatigue. These symptoms, however, are not Just associated with disease-causing organisms in drinking water, but also may be caused by a number of factors other than your drinking water. EPA has set an enforceable drinking water standard for total coliforms to reduce the risk of these adverse health effects. Under this standard no more than 5.0 percent of the samples collected during a month can contain these bacteria, except that systems collecting fewer than 40 samples/month that have one total coliform positive sample per month are not violating the standard. Drinking water which meets this standard is usually not associated with a health risk from disease causing bacteria and should be considered safe. • For additional information concerning this notice, you may call Ms. Cindy Perfater at 804/296-2484. L, Sig ature / / i ' / / I / 1 — 'S - • - -- - _ -` � �� - c -- I /.. , ) / s. 1 / / ,\ ` ) % 1 / I r / / // / / / , � 1 I / ,- / / 1 / / // // r // / / / i% � - �i 1 '; /.x.„. 1 Ge +r title-,' Ike hk 1�-- , / , / , ;;,; _ - ...% �' / L��h 1 / / / / / I / //i��� So �1 / I I i \ I r / / / / / / / / �/ -- rl / I 1 / / ; / / 1 /, / / / /' ///I / / /� 1 \ ' . - / // 1 / / / / / 1 I / e1 1 \ J/ / 1 / i/ / / i // r r / / � 1 � 1 / l I / 1 �;ld Locbll�o� oI G�1um bid , / \ ` ' 1 /,��r, , . — N� �,�ch � 1$ V-AG 174- 4. • a� / / i 1 \ :1_ tr I'p/ J / o \ \ 1 ‘ 1 1 / / / / I. •f4‘' ....' -- \ .- 1 v► \ - _ -.- - -- moo►-- _ -- - ~IP I':� / / `� p/'�M� ` v ,, ��. , '� \ \\ �_ - — \ /I Z11 00 vi . .p 'Rot Iv ( 1 2 r; 9 40 t 1 \� \i 7/ O/ i A j8 1 �21°3 E'o� O f �� AI/�O i7� )i17.� June 11, 1999 COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP COUNTY WATER PROJECT Bill Hodson, Coordinator 797 Gillums Lane Telephone: 295-8676 E-mail: DDI4IMAGE@aol.com FAX: 295-6991 Gerald (Gerry) Fisher Louise Smith 305 Heron Lane 75 Apple Lane Telephone: 296-0642 Telephone: 971-3959 E-mail: Gerry_Fisher_3@Compuserve.com E-mail: FAX: FAX: Charles (Chuck) McGinnis Joshua Cates, President 50 Gooseneck Lane 395 Heron Lane Telephone: 244-0426 Telephone: 984-4334 E-mail: E-mail: FAX: FAX: Harold Morris Cindy Perfater, Manager 825 Gilliams Mountain Road 812 Gilliams Mountain Road Telephone: 971-3567 Telephone: 296-2484 E-mail: E-mail: cperfater@juno.com FAX: FAX: 296-2474 David Noble 821 Gilliams Mountain Road Telephone: 293-5633 E-mail: FAX: ATTACHMENT B Summary of Meeting Peacock Hill Water Situation June 4, 1999 A meeting was held in the Albemarle County Office Building to discuss the current situation with the Peacock Hill water system and efforts that are underway. The meeting was attended by the following: Jim Moore & Carl Christiansen: Virginia Department of Health, Office of Water Programs Bill Brent: Albemarle County Service Authority Harold Morris, Dave Noble, and Bill Hodsen: Peacock Hill Homeowners' Association David Benish: Albemarle County Planning Department David Hirschman: Albemarle County Engineering Department Nick Evans: Division of Mineral Resources The topics discussed at the meeting were as follows: Bill Hodson explained to work of the homeowners' subcommittee looking into the water situation, and distributed a draft outline of the jurisdictional area request application. He also distributed a draft list of alternative solutions to finding water, with advantages and disadvantage listed for each solution. David Benish gave a brief overview of planning and policy issues. In order for the jurisdictional area to be extended, a clear emergency need and health and safety justification would need to be provided based on the criteria in the comprehensive plan. Clear documentation would have to demonstrate that there are no other feasible options to extending a public water line. A few past cases were referred to. Jim Moore described the current configuration of the Peacock Hill water system—5 wells. He explained that the system is limited based on the source (rather than storage or pump capacity). Based on the 48-hour drawdown test, the system was rated at 54,000 gallons per day, although current yield was estimated to be closer to 22,000. David Noble outlined in some detail the history and operation of the system. The developer originally drilled 12 wells in 7 locations. Of these, only 2 were used for the supply. By 1990, these two were having trouble, so a 3`d was brought on-line. The homeowners' bought the company in 1991. More supply trouble was encountered in 1993. They looked back at the original 12 sites to see where additional wells might be drilled. In 1994, they brought the 4th well on-line at 9 gallons per minute (gpm). In 1995, they pursued additional supply by contracting with Tom Gathright. Tom recommended several other drill sites. They drilled a well up near the storage tanks, 690 feet deep, at 15 gpm. Tom G. looked for 6` and 7th well sites. Of these, one was drilled, and results of the 48 hour test are pending. The 7th site is the last one identified by Tom G. Currently, their storage is a combined total of 48,100 gallons, so storage does not limit the yield—in fact, they are having trouble keeping the tanks filled. Additional well sites within the community are limited by terrain and existing (or future) septic drainfields (setbacks are needed between drainfields and any well location). At present, Peacock Hill has 148 lots built on out of a total of 180. Bill Brent inquired if a dowser has ever been used to find well sites. The answer was no, and there was some discussion about dowsers and geologists, and some reference to Bob Humphries, who is also on the Service Authority board. David Noble and the other residents explained efforts to approach an adjacent landowner (Gillenwater). If adjacent land is used, existing wells couldn't be used due to standards and the need to have a dedicated source, so new wells would have to be drilled. Nick Evans described his work of relating geology to groundwater availability. He explained that availability is related to fractures and the amount of storage above the fractures within the saprolite layer. Generally, they look at fractures, topography, and the nature of the saprolite layer(overlying material). He explained that for the Peacock Hill situation, the best thing would be to look for the best opportunities within some proximity to the community. Dave Hirschman suggested the options of doing a broader well location study (not just within the subdivision) and/or looking at using some of the remaining lots for water supply development. David Benish discussed with the residents the timing of turning in the jurisdictional area application. Basically, the timing doesn't matter that much, since a study would have to be done either before or after the application is turned in. David said that the application fee could be refunded if it turns out that they find water and not much staff time is expended reviewing the request. It was decided that the application would be turned in the near term while other work to find nearby water is ongoing. Bill Brent explained that, even if the request if approved, it would take 18 months to 2 years before a pipeline could be completed, so some contingency supply would be needed anyway. It was also discussed that the existing distribution system may have to be upgraded, and that would be a high cost item. Jim Moore did a quick calculation and estimated that 45 gpm is needed to meet current demand, based on the assumption of 0.5gpm of yield per equivalent residential connection. At this point, there is a 15-20 gpm deficit in order to obtain a reliable water supply. Existing water conservation and demand management strategies were discussed. David Noble explained changes to the rate schedule to discourage excessive use. The residents felt that the community was using water very prudently in light of their current problems. David Hirschman asked if there might be some opportunities to replace some water uses, such as yard irrigation, with non-potable sources, such as the pond. David Noble explained the current system whereby different groups of wells are activated on a rotating system to fill the tanks. Based on his description, it appears that a more efficient automated system may be able to help supply somewhat. Nick Evans explained that other automated options were available. Jim Moore raised the question of whether is was prudent to keep adding connections (building on the remaining lots) if they are having trouble serving the existing demand. This was discussed in some detail as a land use implication to this situation. Bill Brent asked if the remaining lots could be developed with individual wells. It seems, based on lot sizes, that this may be limited. David Benish commented that, in the past, extension of lines into the RA zone was stipulated for existing users only, raising an issue of what would happen with the currently undeveloped lots. There was additional discussion about who would be available to assist the community with a broader well site study. Nick Evans suggested that he could help, and would also try to enlist Tom Gathright. David Hirschman summarized the meeting by suggesting that the homeowners look at the following issues as part of the process of requesting public water: 1. Additional well sites in the vicinity (not necessarily within the subdivision)—Nick Evans and possibly Tom Gathright may be of assistance. 2. Additional demand reduction strategies, such as using other sources for irrigation. 3. Optimizing the automated system where different wells are tapped on a rotating basis. 4. Suggestions for future land use with regard to the undeveloped lots. David Benish and David Hirschman will have to work with the homeowners on this. ATTACHMENT C Vlrlliam L Hods I 797 Gilliams Mountain Road Charlottesville,VA 22903 Telephone:804-295-8676 Fax 804-295-6991 E-mail:D0I4IMAGE©aol.com 1 ' -3 7_3 September 13, 1999 Wayne Cilimberg Director , Planning & Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Cilimberg: In our application to Amend the Service Authority Jurisdictional Areas dated July 1, 1999, we promised to amend the application with a report from a Geologist and a Dowser. This correspondence conveys reports from Thomas M. Gathright, II, Consulting Geologist and Robert R. Humphris, Dowser. These reports were promised in our application on page 13. I have been advised by David Hirschman that the next step could be a working session with the Board of Supervisors where we could develop a working relationship and address their concerns. This process seems much more productive rather than a formal presentation at a Board meeting as openers Would you initiate that session? The residents at Peacock Hill are anxious to move the application forward as quickly as possible. Thanks again for your assistance, and those of your staff. Sincerely, • William L. Hodson Chairman, Peacock Hill's Comprehensive Water Committee cc: Cindy Perfater, Peacock Hill Manager rivivutzlvl. krATHRIGHT, II 'ONSULTING GEOLOGIST P.O. BOX 297 BATESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22924-0297 TELEPHONE(540)456-6462 August 8, 1999 William L. Hodson, Fache 797 Gilliams Mountain Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. Hodson, Fache, I have prepared the following report on the geohydrology of Peacock Hills subdivison and the surrounding area at your request. I used water well data compiled by Dr. Nick Evans from files of the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Health, and the Virginia Division of Mineral Resources. I have also compiled a fracture-trace analysis of the Peacock Hills property and the adjacent properties from black and white, stereo-pair, aerial photographs and from MSS (multi-spectral scanner) satellite imagery. The bedrock geology was compiled from The Geology of Albemarle County, Wilbur Nelson, 1959 and The Geology of The Mechums River Belt, personal communication Christopher M. Bailey. A field investigation was made by Dr. Evans and I to confirm the geologic evidence presented in the two reports and to develop an understanding of the fracture (joint)trends in the area. Included in the report are a map defining the fracture traces in the total area, the geologic bedrock distribution, and potential drilling sites that have a good potential for acceptable groundwater yields, and a map of the Peacock Hills subdivision showing the approximate locations of born the producing wells and the dry holes drilled for the subdivision with superimposed fracture traces. The report addresses the general geohydrology of the granitic terrain that Peacock Hills is located on, the locations of significant fracture traces near Peacock Hills, and in and drilling recommendations for sitesAnear the subdivision that may be accessible. Geohydrology: The Peacock Hills subdivision is underlain by granite and granite gneiss formally of the Lovingston Formation. These rocks have no significant porosity or permeability for storage or transmission of groundwater. Water wells drilled in these rocks must encounter open water-filled fractures that receive adequate recharge to be productive. The fractures are generally of two types; near vertical fractures (joints) that commonly occur in two intersecting sets at large angles to each other, and sub-horizontal fractures (release joints) that occur most commonly in the upper±50 feet of bedrock. For the fractures to be water-bearing, they must be in a locally low topographic position (valley, hollow, etc.) below the local water table and preferably below 25 feet of saturated soil and weathered rock material. The saturated soil and weathered rock material is critical as it provides the groundwater reservoir for the fractures because the fractures have very little volume for groundwater storage. Examination of the 40 water well records for Peacock Hills and the surrounding area that is underlain by the granitic rocks shows that well depths range from 50 to 690 feet, initial yields range from 0 to 38 gallons per minute (gpm) and the median yield and depth is 7.5 gpm and 205 feet respectively. Twenty percent of the yields are 3 gpm or less and 20 percent of the yields are 15 gpm or greater. These data do not include the dry holes that are normally not reported and does not address the accuracy problem with short term yield tests. Generally the long term yield of water wells drilled in fractured rocks is significantly less than those obtained from the 30 minute to two hour tests commonly conducted. Fifty to 75 percent reductions in yield are not uncommon after a few months of continuous use from wells that have high initial yields. This condition indicates that the well site either lacks storage capacity in the overburden or adequate size to the recharge area. The Peacock Hills water system is supplied by six wells that were initially tested at a rate of 38, 28, 17.5, 9, 18, and 12 gpm respectively for wells one through six (Figure 2). This is an aggregate initial yield of 122.5 gpm. A total of 14 wells were drilled to obtain the six productive wells, eight wells being effectively dry holes. The system is capable of supplying a demand of up to about 25,000 gpd (gallon per day) but cannot maintain a supply of 31,000 gpd. A demand of 25,000 gpd is equivalent to an effective aggregate yield of 17.36 gpm or 14 percent of the aggregate initial yield. At 31,000 gpd, the wells cannot maintain an effective yield of 21.5 gpm or r 17.6 percent of initial aggregate yield. Assuming there is minimal water loss from the distribution system and that the wells are being pumped on an efficient rotation, the above numbers highlight the low groundwater potential of the Peacock Hills property. Additionally, the fourteen wells drilled on the property have tested virtually all the sites that have any potential or that could be drilled when health department restrictions are considered. Statistically, to add 10 gpm to the long term production to the Peacock Hills water system, eight additional wells averaging at least 500 feet in depth would have to be drilled. Of these wells, three or four would be producing wells and four or five would be thy holes. I do not believe eight drill hole sites are available considering site restrictions. Annual groundwater recharge rates for the upper part of Peacock Hills where the producing wells are located probably ranges between 50 and 100 million gallons. Annual withdrawal rates from the six producing wells probably range up to 10 million gallons at maximum pumping rates. This suggests that the effective recharge area for most of the wells is small and that additional wells could be drilled without approaching annual recharge rates. Fracture trace and lineament study: The generally negative aspects of granitic aquifers can be partially overcome by finding zones of extensively fractured rock that can be intersected by drilling. Fractured rock weathers more rapidly than unfractured rock and if fracture zones are linear, they tend to form linear, topographically low features that are visible on topographic maps, aerial photographs, and satellite imagery. Examination of these images suggests the presence of two significant lineaments in the area. A major lineament parallels Broad Ax S7ato god.( 708 is 4 ci.r7warto.f Mee 4air, j{ivti 7 - S Pw�•e//t/ frccttcrc Trx�1! .//lrwt �u.rci iihta.s4s€.�t et/eca(Siriyj Creek fromA StateRoad 68 and crosses 1-64 and Broad Ax Creek with 682. Both of these lineament are in drainages that may be affected by runoff or groundwater migration from the Albemarle County landfill. Many shorter linear fractures are in and around Peacock Hills but they lack the systematic orientation or the suggestion of a rectilinear pattern that would connect them genetically to a specific tectonic stress event. The accessible sites in Peacock Hills provided by these linears nave been drilled including the sites for five of the eight dry holes. Also, two of the producing wells were not drilled on suspected fractures. All this indicates that the short (less than 2000 foot long) linears may not be very meaningful. Examination of the property across State Road 708 and adjacent to Peacock Hills Property two areas appear to have characteristics indicating a greater potential for groundwater development than is available at Peacock Hills. Field examination and fracture trace analysis verified the presence of a north trending diabase dike on the property and a long parallel fracture trace in the drainage to the east of the dike. The dike is about 800 feet east of the southeastern corner of Peacock Hills and the fracture trace is about 500 feet east of the dike. Both features are positioned to take advantage of a large recharge area unlike the well sites in Peacock Hill that are close to the foot of Gilliam mountain. The importance of these two features is their probable age. The dike is typical of other Triassic or Jurassic dikes in Virginia which are much younger than the granitic rocks they intrude. The dikes were intruded during a period of extensional (tensional) faulting and commonly are accompanied by brittle fracturing in the adjacent bedrock. The parallel fracture trace to the east of the dike may be a parallel fracture zone or fault developed at the time the dike was intruded and may represent an extensive open fracture system. If drilling on the property east of State Road 708 is possible, the first site should be located close to but upstream of the point where the stream crosses the dike. Drilling depths should be less than 300 feet but if water is being encountered near that depth. drillings should continue at least another 50 feet. Dr. Evans or I should be on site if a drill hole site is to be selected. Recommendations: There are four options available to a private water supply system. I) brill more wells on the property: Considering Healthy Department restriction there may be several areas available for drilling even though those areas may not have the theoretically best hydrogeologic characteristics for a well site. Geologists have a limited number of tools to use in the search for water. It is always possible to find useable supplies of water at unlikely sites but the probability is not great. Possibly deepening the dry holes or drilling deeper wells near some of the dry holes where drilling can be approved would provide useable quantities of water. As I have no information on the depth of these wells this approach may be futile since they may already be very deep. 2) Drill very deep wells: There is very little data on wells deeper than about 500 feet. We know there are fractures and faults that extend to great depths in the Blue Ridge Complex which include the rock units at Peacock Hills. I am aware of open water- bearing fractures (200 gpm) as deep as 4,200 feet in a deep hole drilled in the Blue Ridge. The probability of encountering such a fracture system within the drilling capabilities of most drilling machines seems very small as most are limited to less than 1000 feet. Also, we do not have any data that deep fracture systems are present below the property although we know there are major faults less than two miles to the west. Those faults are probably too old to be water-bearing. 3) Acquire additional property specifically for groundwater development: The potential for groundwater development on the property across State Road 708 to the east of Peacock Hills has already bccn addressed. Possibly a portion of that property large enough to protect a well site located near the intersection of the diabase dike and the local stream course can be obtained. Certainly an option to buy the property should be acquired dependent on finding an adequate water supply. 4) Revamp the existing water system if necessa ry: Many water systems, even those as young as the Peacock Hills System, may be experiencing devastating leaks or inefficient pumping schedules. Water flow needs to be metered at the well head, at the input to storage tanks, and at the points of consumption. If this is not done, leaks will go undetected. Considering the disparity between the initial yield tests and the apparent maximum production rates, there is a possibility of significant water loss in the system. As I do not know how the system is monitored, this option may already be in place. Of these options, I believe the one most likely to be successful is option three if the property can be obtained. I am not optimistic about the other options. I believe this report will answer some of your questions on groundwater availability in the area and I will be glad to answer any other questions that I can. Very truly yours, 7/c/x40-S --6/Z4/674".r Thomas M. Gathright II __. Iii kXp/L/rl♦t fJo�7: I & ...0.�» �� L `.) '1.' . , - 1 j �)) ` , ..•, ti: . „ 1.,..cA— • 1 - L ' :. -1 ..-�!r(t o 11 ,-Afir o ` =., - '`jajj‘ j\11-- --• -••" --..„—A .. , . ,\ r, ‘ Fs.i'nghoo l i '�n;� (•--.:1 i --- r'1 )• ) �' +i t 1 k,„ •k,_.��' tide Qtofr r i J �. • -i..-.17)k ,..-_ , , tY TGtanrt< Grelrtt /.� �� rA1!r 'r,.� jS A 6 ��C .57 -1��-' i `�.r , • ^�:1 •" 'y -----• T I.., .,.- _. "i , '1-- -,. (te )-.\, -, , ,_ _, ... 7 N..„4--Z,_, , _.2,---10.Ait ,L, Farrilo:fio.k, 7 f?._- -1-t-lr.".`, •N-_*rf-, (..„ ,>" r .; / • -4-•y' .- 1 \. -.----r'' ' )11°."•'^--.'-'" 't (' If " ' ' r 4 6 ,,, �� Feral f: top/4 ir t ._......., ., ,,,.ri l ,��-prr. , i•,,//�c). .. -��,,i ��'r�a i /J�� ( - 4 11 �_ ..t,44 Ilpi -t.._ 2... /,. ,-.,,..4_.1,,.... , \„„, ........„ , 4 + / � rJhdcRf,� � il'Ait .- 1 ,, 441 ��� � + , �� 1.,414.) ?i ,---i) fps) i ` � -�rrsctionr g l .a •, ,�y 4 ` 7\: 17 '' -''' 1\ /..f< r--- i' ' / ' teat �'�� P. ' ),... � (Porto ftc ,_ / 1/ . - r r � 1,. . 0-.- f--,I t Ill l _� �• Frost t{ /,`. ,,.., _ fr „......„, �1� --�� � Yam'. r • ".• � \ ��`� 00000 rrt c.e �-.y;ya�' /./`/ -� �bA =:K r• i •/ - r• , VJJ (Pra i a b l t ( ,,\�`-!",,- %-•'�-si1111 ,. ;.V,,,i.,....„. ...: . 4 sti r44 ' �_ v' u... .,..t 7 y. r---L,4" ,A.poj \Lg...-\_.. i 1.,,_1-i • ‘ ; ftit, S a 1 ' ?Vk (I ,r, . 0.„ ,..__.„ ,..:, ._, I cf,—;,--,.„,,..._,J,_y_e . ,, )7 _ . V I- . .. "."" 11 . de)j 1014: , • `r N/ 1 is , rib, ► i 40 //i `• �. , --14AN' --/-1.i.eli, . .,,-". .",./ ir/---/ . \ k V/- -- ii,T,,i111' ,_/-N .... tit-.z\-7 r" - -•- 7..- _•:.,. '?...•...:(—/L.)i4l?gi-i i-E-iVllP,•01°--ei-s)s)r a..-..,..-_-.-.-,-,..-......A... 'r 6 - - ,-, J )4' `i ` -` ;:� j `gip 0 • r ,. - --=-• ` , +#;r ,„,,‘„,..ify: Ovi,..- -.0-,,- - , •,__• ._„--_ , _ ---- '---. a. . .A .... . , ,-- �yare 2 - <<') , •— ' _ -- �. -. �� l V'^ =. 7w f` `Cry ( ,..— �iKsjNS! MI/ 4 / ` i�, (/y/� r �(���� • 4c : ; ; - `�1/! �l/t iTTl\` l = 'll /99 IS IL L 14 c.,D s.4 CReCieED PsAc.c°cN;ll5c.64 40. — ?� upper , ��� l .57TEs A 4.b ara b•X. z s ITV s 7-' Peacock Hill !'' Oar (�/faER pR�P�iT � rolim �. -----—-----.., ., . ja dLT44 i'orT rf itAiIl �. J.pPoiiTi �PfAcaoJc I)t.'I,t /I 1Owsr .� ,r '� ‘, r��'fJ v i7_,....-~ \ i PRA .,,n'<s�+rala.as�wiiiiii eat* 1.1-47„,m..••,04- Itip w. - - 4/ - .. ��� ! IA '�- 4. �:: r .`• ', '— - - =;.7 at: . ' ' Mr. r1 _ (f , ( ire. AI if I �'/ •��� 'Yap. -4 iVone —"lir Ilir t ... It, -.qv h. 'ref:Isiah". .'%. 6 • • -A. ; I.' , ;1'10 iv.• WP • ' . Tr -og :-- -;:- .-- ff .#6 .., i: r ,1" :,. sa. �+. i �� fc Defies (4- ill -f l wT�� �!pf1 , / ---- _ ,r, ilb `t 3 411....iiiks ii.c, yf . } t ‘ WIS . '...., \ 1. 0.4 / •, ti - V - / I de4114:141"1;.;.v4,..1*:7:::11 ''''N''''''''4 \'-'-' • i c St j ✓Ca411 ibr-/1 --- p A 4'` .. • \If • : )...;'' k „..< t - l= ; 7 1. tc, L ' - - ._--..r 5iTE B: SrTE A D1roctlpelc Thin ibf dies so Ivy Fxs Litt on 6l7. 3 2A ,�9+ ... 4 20f - 9_169PM on 706.Anoxic Hill on$cR.7herve minutes from tom."" 2 STRIA/As '2 s rR zA..ts ATTACHMENT D Albemarle County Land Use Plan a rural subdivision density utilizing a central system exceed the density achievable with the use of an independent system. The County currently follows the procedure outlined in the County Code for permitting a central sewer facility and requires Board of Supervisors' approval. As with central water systems,the ACSA discourages County approval central sewer systems in the Rural Area due to the potential of the Authority having to take over the system. Any new system that may be approved shall be built to ACSA standards. Recommendations • New central sewer systems in the Rural Area shall be strongly discouraged except to address health and safety problems. • Any new system approved must meet ACSA standards and not allow residential densities to increase beyond that density achievable under individual on-site facilities. Defining Public Water and Sewer Service Areas Public water and sewer facilities are defined as facilities capable of serving the entire Development area boundary. Public water and sewer are to be actively used by the County as an incentive for growth and, as such, should be provided in all classifications of Development Areas. Conversely, such utilities are not provided in the Rural Area, as these services can increase development pressures. Water and sewer service jurisdictional areas provide the implementing measure for directing utilities according to the land use plan and overall growth management policies. They also permit these services to be provided in a manner which can be supported by the utility's physical and financial capabilities. The jurisdictional areas are those portions of the County that can be served by water and/or sewer service and generally follow the Development Area boundaries. Delineation and adoption of utility project jurisdictional areas by a local governing body is provided in Title 15:1-1247 of the Code of Virginia. 124 A l b e m a r , e County Land Use Plan Recommendations • Provide public water and sewer only to areas within the ACSA jurisdictional area. • Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas. • Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Areas in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health and/or safety is in danger. • Prohibit access to the Crozet Interceptor between the boundary of the Crozet Community and the Urban Area. • Prohibit the installation of private central water and/or sewer systems in the Urban Neighborhoods, Communities and Villages. Water and Sewer Planning Water and sewer facilities are essential if the urban densities recommended in the land use plan are to be realized. Available water supply and wastewater treatment capacities can limit the ultimate number of connections which can be made to either system. More important to the effective use of these capacities for future growth is the strategic location and sizing of necessary water storage facilities, water distribution, and wastewater collection lines. The provision of water with adequate pressure to support necessary fire flows is equally important. Coordination of utilities and land use planning also requires the provision of utilities where they are needed, and policies to ensure that Development Area densities and areas designated are appropriate. To ensure effective planning efforts between the County, City, UVA,ACSA and RWSA, the Master Water and Sewer Study has been prepared. In this study, both short and long term projected water and wastewater needs for the existing Development Area boundaries and possible future expansion areas are analyzed. Also, based on these projections, the needed water and sewer facility improvements to meet the future demand of the service area are outlined. 125