Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-04317 August 4, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 4, 1982, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottes- ville, Virginia. Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr. J. T. Henley (arrived at 7:33 P.M.), Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 7:38 P.M.), and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and Assistant County Planner, Ronald Keeler. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Mr. Agnor noted that on the consent agenda was one request for a lottery permit; that being for the University Union for a raffle to be held on July 27, 1982. Motion to approve this lottery permit application in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for issuance of same was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing: Progress on July 21 and July 28, 1982.) Six-Year Highway Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and explained the State law relating to the Six-Year Highway Plan, plus the items listed in the plan itself; all as set out .in the minutes of July 14, 1982. The public hearing was opened and first to speak was Mrs. Lucille Hoffman who said that improvements were started on Route 645 many years.ago, but have never been completed and.are not shown in the current Six-Year Plan. Mr. Roosevelt said a short section of this road leading~to the Orange County line was widened in the 1960's, but that the remaining section did not qualify because of its low traffic count. The road presentl carries only 55 vehicles per day. With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Miss Nash noted that since the last meeting Mr. Roosevelt had deleted from the Six-Year Plan the allocation listed for operation of the Hatton Ferry in future years. . Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the Six-Year Plan for Secondary Highways in Albemarle County as advertised and discussed by Mr. Roosevelt tonight, with one change; that being to delete the $20,000 shown for operation of the Hatton Ferry in the years 1983-84 through 1987-88 and adding that amount in each of the stated years to the monies for the Meadow Creek Parkway. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Not Docketed. Mr. Ag~or said he had received notification from the Virginia Association of Counties relative to a Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee Study of the allocation of Highway Construction Funds. Several workshops have been scheduled to provide for inter- action between JLARC staff and local governments and organizations. It is noted that these meetings will not be public hearings and will not involve participation of members of the Commission or the General Assembly. VACo has stated that the interest of the. Virginia counties in this study is a towering one and urges all counties to attend and make.their interests known. Mr. Agnor asked if the County should try to participate or just ~send someone to observe the proceedings. It was the concensus that someone should observe. At 8:03 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 8:10 P.M.' Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing: Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir. (Notice of this publiclhearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on July 21 and July 28, 1982; also in the Charlottesville Observer and the Crozet Bulletin on July 29, 1982.) Mr. Fisher called the meeting back to order and introduced Mr. William Norris, Watershed Management Official, to summarize the proposal which had been advertised for this meeting. Mr. Norris presented the recommendation of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority as set out in the minutes of June 30, 1982, and which was further modified by the Rivanna Board on July 19 1982: e That Buck Mountain Creek be selected as a future raw water supply source and that a dam be built, at the~appropriate time, at Site C, as identified in the Camp, Dress, McKee Study. That the necessary land be purchased now by RWSA using the fee simple method with leasebacM provisions where appropriate. No new permanent structures would be permitted in leased back areas. August 4, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) That a minimum buffer zone of 300 horizontal feet, as measured from the normal pool level, be acquired either by fee simple or by easement. This buffer zone is considered adequate to provide access control, provide reservoir maintenance and to handle sheet flow runoff. A major purpose of this buffer would be to prevent development next to the pool. The buffer zone would be extended on a parcel by parcel basis based on one or more of the following: a. small remainder of parcel justifying acquisition of complete parcel b. slope of land and length of slope beyond the take line c. wishes of the property owner d. access to the property. That a 100 foot buffer zone on either side of tributary streams be acquired. This zone should be acquired by easement to minimize cost and to minimize damage to residue properties. That a matrix (noted as Attachment A) of permitted and prohibited land use practices in the future pool area and buffer zones be adopted. The 300 foot buffer zone would be subject to stricter controls than would the pool area. That flood easements be acquired for those areas not included in the 300 foot pool buffer. That in-stream sedimentation ponds be placed on the four major tributaries including Burruss Branch, Piney Creek, Buck Mountain Creek and Elk Run. That the James River not be further considered as a water supply source at this time because of high capital and operating costs. ATTACHMENT "A" LAND USE MATRIX BUCK MOUNTAIN WATERSHED AREA Before Const After Constr. X - Not Permitted IMPOUND- IMPOUND- TRIBU- IMPOUND- IMPOUND- TRIBU- P - Permitted MENT MENT TARY MENT MENT TARY L - Limited1 POOL BUFFER BUFFER POOL BUFFER BUFFER AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA Agricultural Practices1 Row Crops P X X X X X Pasture P P P X X L Hayland P P P X X L Livestock Access P P P X X L Feed Lots X X X X X X Use of Pesticides, Fertilizers, and other Chemicals L L L X L L Forestry Activities2 P L L X L L Permanent Structural Improvements X X X X X X Temporary Structural Improvements P P P X X X New Septic Fields/Systems X · X X X X X Access P P P X X L Wells P P P X X P (1) Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMP) being advocated by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) are required. (2) All forestry activities shall utilize approved forestry BMP's. Activities shall be limited to selective cutting designed to promote the welfare of the remaining trees. The public hearing was opened at this time. First to speak was Dr. Reynolds Cowles for the Buck Mountain Creek Watershed Association. He read the following prepared statement: "We are all here tonight to deal with the common good of Albemarle-Charlottesville. Clearly there will be a necessity to provide adequate water resources for future generations. What is good for one area must be good for all, or at least the minimal amount of damage must be done to those who must be damaged. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has decided on the Buck Mountain Creek Watershed as its future source of quality water. This will certainly be good for the county as a whole but a number of our neighbors will be severely damaged, if not wiped ouT. This fact has brought about the formation of our Watershed Association, a group which comprises over 80% of the landowners directly affected by the proposed reservoir. The mood in our area has been "how do we stop this, or if we can't stop it, how can we live with it". We have been advised by counsel that we could delay land acquisition for years by a series of legal maneuvers. However, at this point, we would like to take the second approach - "how can we live with the proposed reservoir?" 319 August 4, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Many factors have been discussed but we come down to a few points that we feel are absolutely necessary if BMR is to be and is .to be lived with. These are as follows: Fair market value for all land condemned. Fair compensation for damages beyond the land acquisition. A buffer zone around the pool that provides adequate protection but is reasonable. Easements along the tributary streams that provide livestock access and landowners access. Reconstruction and relocation of Routes 666 and 667. Let us examine each of these points. Fair market value needs no more explanation. The values set forth by Mr. Norris in his report to you on July 14 are in the low range by 20 - 25%. We feel that the 4.2M figure is more like 5M. This of course will vary as to your decision about the buffer zone and the possibility of variances in the buffer zone for houses that are just on the edge or are cut in two by the magical line. Damages are impossible to pinpoint accurately but these will vary greatly as to the size of the pool and the.regulations on the tributary streams. Historically in other such condemnations as this, damages have equalIed land costs. Therefore we are looking at land cost and damages totaling at 10M - not 4.2M! We now come to the sticky wicket - the buffer zone. It has been said that you can get an expert to testffy on any size zone. The consultants said 150' plus. RWSA has said 300' from normal pool plus additional footage where slopes indicate. Some of you have been grasping for 500' and the proposal in discussion tonight is 300' from 100 year flood plain. Now, frankly, we believe that 500' is ridiculously excessive. The only authority we can find for this proposal is the letter that was quoted at the previous public~ hearing from the person in the Dept. of the Interior to the League of Women Voters. According to RWSA, this letter was rescinded 4 days after it was written because it had no authority to be written. RWSA has recommended 300' from normal pool. We feel we can live with this as adequate and reasonable. This is the most widely recommended buffer zone today across the country and comes from the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As we understand it, the desire to go 300' from flood plain stems from the problems of South Rivanna. First of all to compare BM with South Rivanna is comparing beans and sugar. South Rivanna watershed drains 156,288 acres or 33% of the county. BM drains 22,016 acres or 4.64% of the county. The slopes are similar around the basin, however come out and take a look at these slopes. They are not cluttered with houses, subdivisions, manufacturing plants, etc. They are in grass and forests. If a 100 year flood does occur - that projected 10' vertical rise in the water level - where will it go - over trees and grassland. So why take another 320 acres of land to buffer the buffer zone. This increased land grab takes the Nuesch's paddocks and renders their horse farm useless. It cuts the Mooney's cattle pasture by 50% again; it severely cuts Roy Bailey's, Mrs. Huff's and Mr. Finley's pasturage up Piney Creek. These 320 acres alone will undoubtedly add at least a million dollars in damages. I am sure that when this reservoir is built that zoning regulations around it will protect the buffer zone well without buying this additional land. Now we come to the feeder streams. If all of You have walked around.the area - and I certainly hope you have - you know that what we are talking primarily about on these feeder streams are small branches, they are three or four feet wide at the widest point - six inches deep. The major feeders have retention dams proposed but the rest of these tiny branches are to be protected by the 100 foot easement up these feeders. These easements can obviously be made very restrictive. They chop up people's access to their remaining property and they enclose the water supply for most of the livestock grazing this area. We have calculated 500 - 600 head of cattle and 100 head of horses grazing this area SE of Route 601. If these landownerS lose access to their property then the county must buy it and up goes the price. If livestock are not allowed to drink then the land is. only good for housing developments or you must drill wells and pump water to livestock. This would be an impossible burden for any farmer to carry and still hope to make ends meet. The opposition to livestock using the feeder streams seems to hinge around possible pollution from urine and fecal matter. Remember, these streams are running over sand and gravel bottoms. They are in their own right, secondary treatment plants. The small amount of excrement dropped into these streams is diluted to insignificant levels by the time it reaches pool. Phosphorus levels in these discharges are infinitesimal to begin with and coliform counts are diluted immediately. Water experts don't see this as a problem. The last point we would like to emphasize is that of roads, Route 667 and Route 666. Route 667 is already proposed to have an alternate that would come in across Piney Creek on a 'bridge. This is in the initial RWSA proposal as road alternate A-1. Somehow 666 got forgotten. Camp, Dresser and McKee did not know it was there. There are eight families which are here tonight who live back there and will be cut off by the water. Now I know you folks cannot promise what the state highway funds.are going-to be in the year 2015, but if you include the intent for these roads to be built now, we feel the changes are much better for that to happen. Or maybe the Hatton Ferry can be moved up to BM Creek! The families and farms on these roads deserve better access than having to go 15-20 minutes out of their way around the back of Buck Mountain on 667 or having to take a swim to get out on 666~! 320 Au~ust~1982 (Regular Night Meetin~ In conclusion let me ask again that you consider the common good and hope your decision will be good for the landowners that are affected. There are many questions we have not addressed; financing, lease-back, are all things which have not been expounded in detail and we would like to see that happen. If we can answer any questions we will be most happy to do so and if any of you are not closely familiar with our area we will be happy to provide trans- portation and take you all over the land. - Thank you. Next to speak was Ms. Margaret Martin who read the following prepared statement from the League of Women Voters: "The League of Women Voters endorses the concept of a Buck Mountain Reservoir for future water supply. The suggested James River project would have lower water quality, higher costs, less local control, and high energy costs for pumping. The League also believes that a sufficient buffer zone and other protections should be provided to prevent problems similar to those occurring at the Rivanna Reservoir. We continue to call for a 500 foot buffer from the 100 year flood level and a 100 foot buffer on either side of tributary streams. Since the soils in our area have a generally slow perk rate, 500 feet seems a minimum necessary buffer to prevent possible septic system di~scharge. The 500 feet also gives additional filtration for contaminates that might otherwise reach the water. With regard to funding, the League would like to point out that for years the County has been trying to protect the Rivanna Reservoir in the absence of adequate safeguards to the watershed when the Reservoir was built. In so doing, the County has paid for considerable staff time and has probably lost tax revenues from possible higher density development. If land for Buck Mountain Reservoir is purchased, that too will lower tax revenues. Another factor to keep in mind is that the current Albemarle Service Authority minimum rates for County water customers are about 60 cents more per 1000 gallons of water than the City's rates. If the Rivanna Reservoir continues to lose capacity at the present rate, the time will soon come when both the City and the County will need water from Buck Mountain Creek. Attached is a copy of the League's August 2 statement to the City Council that further addresses the funding of the Buck Mountain project. (Note: On file). In the Army Corps of Engineers' April 21, 1982, letter to Mr. Norris, it recom- mends a 300 foot buffer zone as the minimum amount of land needed to provide "outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement." This recommendation clearly was not meant to address the health requirements of maintaining a safe drinking water supply. In planning a future water supply, the Board should allow a generous buffer that would remain adequate for the decades of use the community expects from a new reservoir. The lessons of the Rivanna Reservoir are apparent. Lack of watershed protection has a direct bearing on the quality and quantity of water. The opportunity now exists to provide protection for one of the few good sites remaining in the State. The League urges you to make the most of this opportunity." Dr. Charles Durbin said his land will be involved depending on which plan is chosen. He feels that if the tributary streams are restricted as proposed in the latest plan, this will not allow access for farm animals, thus the reservoir will become the same as the South Fork Rivanna with apartment complexes around the edges, but if the rights of the farmers are preserved, this will encourage the farmers to continue their occupations, thus ending with a purer reservoir. Dr. Durbin noted that he had only been a resident for four years, but had chosen to live in the area because of its rural character. Mr. Felix Nuesch noted that he is a farmer and raises livestock. He said a 500 foot buffer would wipe out his operation entirely. A 300 foot buffer measured from the 100 year flood plain would limit his operation. He could live with the 300 foot buffer measured from normal pool level, but would have to rent land. He said this property is his homestead and livelihood; he has no other income. Dr. Charles Helm was present to speak ~for Elk Run Corporation which owns 105 acres adjacent to the proposed reservoir. He indicated some knowledge of the laws relative to acquisition of property and said that the State's rights must overwhelm those of the property owners. In this case, he said most of the landowners know nothing about a 100 year flood plain. He also asked why the recommendation continues to grow related to the land area to be taken. He said it had been mentioned that there have been numerous meetings on this subject, but he had received notice only of this meeting, and had attended no others. What has been presented thus far tonight would not substantiate any plan. If water is necessary for the growth of the area, there would probably be no opposition from the citizens, but there is not enough information available to move in the direction being discussed. Mr. Ken Houtz said the spillway from this lake would be built on his property, thus wiping him out. Of the two farms that he owns, there would be nothing left to occupy. Four or five months ago, the Rivanna Service Authority asked if holes could be drilled on his land to assist in the study; he had not heard another word about the study until he heard about the Buck Mountain Creek Association. He said this indicates very bad communications. He encouraged the people who are responsible for planning this project to deal with the issue of lease back because a lot of the property owners cannot make any plans until they know what will happen. Mrs. Treva Cromwell, former Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors, said she felt the issue of whether the James River would be a better source of water had been adequately addressed. She noted that she had given to the Board members a list of conditions under which the City of Richmond has prior rights to the waters of the James. In addition, she noted the cost of building the facilities necessary to take water from the James. Mrs. Cromwell said she supports the fee simple purchase of a 100 foot buffer 321 August 4, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) along the tributary streams and feels that the question of whether there will be lease backs is a matter for further discussion. Mrs. Cromwell said she is concerned about a statement in the Camp, Dresser, McKee report on Alternative Water Supply Sources in which it is stated that Buck Mountain and Piney creeks combined would be eutrophic from the beginning, would be slightly better than the Rivanna, but not as good as Sugar Hollow, Ragged Mountain or Beaver Creek. The report also notes that no development should be allowed in the Piney Creek water- shed because development would cause water quality to deteriorate below that of the Rivanna. The report also assumed in final analysis that no nonpoint source discharge woUld be allowed upstream of the proposed impoundment. Mrs. Cromwell said that decisions of this type always present a major dilemma to public officials, but there is the other problem (pressure to reduce costs by reducing the amount of land to be taken) that she does not feel should be a dilemma, because if the water quality is not protected, the investment in the property will be lost. As to the question of who pays for the facility, Mrs. Cromwell said that she had never considered any financing method other than that method set out in the Four-Party Agreement; increasing the wholesale rate to each of the two customers. Mrs. Cromwell said that the whole community will benefit from the growth assured by a water supply. She reminded everyone present that water is no longer a free commodity. As the sources of good water decrease, the price of obtaining water will increase and everyone will have to recognize that fact. Mr. Dennis Marcello said he lives on Route 666 and agrees with Dr. Cowles. One item which has not been discussed in detail is the idea of lease backs. Mr. Marcello said he thinks the landowners should be allowed to use their land in the way the land is presently being used; this would probably also keep the land a lot cleaner. If this hearing is to discuss a buffer of 300 feet from flood stage, he would like to say that the Army Corps of Engineers and the Board's own experts say that 300 feet from normal pool is sufficient. If the Board decides to take 300 feet from the flood plain line, it will wipe out Mr. Neusch, Mr. Mooney and himself immediately. Mr. Marcello said he is not concerned about water flowing temporarily over land which will be in trees and grass, but about wiping him out today. Also, whatever buffer is chosen, it should be worded as a 300 foot minimum since there are many places where less is adequate or where to take more land would put an undue hardship on the landowner. Mr. Marcello said he has a relatively new barn which sits 100 feet from the stream, but is also 100 feet straight up from that stream. The water will never rise that high. Mr. Marcelto said he would also like to see a total restriction on access to the reservoir by the public since people litter. Mr. Marcello said there was a statement in the newspaper recently by Mr. Fisher to the effect that landowners in this part of the county have made accommodations. He said the word "accommodation" indicates to him a willingness and it is not an accommodation that the property owners want to make. He reiterat that the experts believe that 300 feet from normal pool elevation is an adequate buffer. Mr. Fisher said the statement quoted was made about what the private property owners in the County have already done, primarily about the people in the watershed who have had to build retention basins, etc. to protect the existing water supply reservoir. Mr. Fisher said he was also thinking about the moratorium on buildings permits which has been in effect in the Buck Mountain Creek area for the past two years. Mr. Ken Hotet noted that he is the owner of Parcel 53 on Tax Map 18. He agreed with Dr. Helms that the notice received of this meeting was the first notice that he had seen although he is directly affected by the proposal. Not only is he concerned with his land but also with what is morally fair for the people in the county and whether Buck Mountain is the best alternative for water quality. He said that although it has been mentioned that the City of Richmond has prior rights to the water of the James River, he lived in an area in Pennsylvania where the water was used 12 times before it got to Pittsburgh. At one time he lived in a city where the entire water supply was obtained from !0 deep wells. He asked if that type of alternative has been investigated. Mr. Holet said he is concerned that the plan calls for taking land on the minor tributary streams, but sedimentation ponds will be built on the major tributaries. He asked why this could not be done on the minor tributaries instead of taking the land. Mr. Holet also said he hopes that the Board will not expect the taxpayers of the County who do not use public water to pay for this facility. Mrs. Florence Wellons said she would like to know exactly what uses will be allowed in the buffer zone before and after construction of the reservoir. Mr. Norris referred to the "land use matrix" which had been developed by the RiYanna Board and which was presented earlier in the meeting. Mr. Marcello asked who would be permitted access across the buffer. Mr. Norris said access is intended mainly for livestock, it would not be for a farmer to get from one field to another field. Dr. Cowles asked what "limited access" to tributaries means. Mr. George Williams, Executive Director, Rivanna Authority, said that the proposal is to limit use of tributary streams for access by cattle following construction of an impoundment. Prior to construction there would be no restrictions except for the tributary buffer area based on whether the degree of usage by livestock was causing a problem. Dr. Michael Kovac said he owns two parcels noted for total purchase. He said the moratorium which has been in existence for the past two years has severely affected ownership of property in this area. As a landowner, it is important for him to know what is going to happen. He asked if anyone can give an approximate time as to when money will actually be available to purchase the properties which are earmarked for purchase. Mr. Fisher said the Board of Supervisors has never considered any proposal for paying for the purchase of land other than the Rivanna's recommendation. Certain people in the City have ra£~d the issue of other means of'~paying for the land. Mr. Fisher~said he could not answer Dr. Kovac's question, but the project certainly cannot go forward until there is some resolution. He, personally, wants to end the moratorium and make the decisions necessary to settle this question. 322 August 4, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Venable Minor said it has been said tonight that the Board is considering the recommendation of the Rivanna Authority, but that recommendation is for a Buffer of 300 feet from normal pool level. What is being considered tonight is 300 feet from the 100 year flood line, and they are not the same. Mr. Minor asked if anybody had inquired to see if an environ- mental impact study is necessary. Mr. Lindstrom said there is no Federal involvement in this project, so he did not believe one is required. Mr. Williams was of the same opinion. Mr. Minor asked Mr. Williams if he would recommend that such a study be made. Mr. Williams said not necessarily. Mr~ David Ashcom said he owns land in the affected areas. He asked if a property owner would be able to put a road across a tributary stream to his home before construction of the dam. Mr. Norris said the Rivanna Authority has agreed to permit access through the buffer before construction. Mr. Ashcom said this project affects the value of his land and he hopes that the type of restrictions which will be placed on the land through the easements will be considered carefully. Mr. Robert Humphris said he does not live in the affected area, but a good water supply is a valuable resource. He said it is too bad that there is no definition as to what a buffer should be. One option might be to buy the entire watershed as other localities have. He said that if too much land is purchased there will be no problems, but if too little land is purchased the quality of the water could deteriorate. He would, personally, recommend that the buffer be from 300 to 500 feet. Mr. Roy Patterson saif if the City were to reimburse the County for the pain and sufferin~ that the Rivanna Reservoir has caused the County over the past years, the land for Buck Mountain reservoir could be purchased and there would be no financial problems. He urged the Board to go ahead with the project but to treat the citizens in the area fairly. Mr. John Via said his mother, Gertrude, owns 100 acres in the affected area. agree to a new reservoir because they are not taking care of the one they have now. can't take care of that, how can they take care of a !00 foot buffer zone. He can't If they Dr. Helms said his land is not for sale. He asked if the Board has considered all the options. He asked why the land must be taken now and deprive the owners of the use of that land. He is not sure it is essential for the public good to take the land at this point in time. Mrs. Wellons asked what will happen if the owners do not want to lease back the land that is taken. She also asked if the public will have access to the land. Mr. Norris said the Rivanna Authority will lease the land to someone to use during the time before the dam is constructed. Mr. Fisher said he agrees with Mr. Marcello that the land would be better taken care of if leased back to the landowners in the area. He does not believe that there will be public access across this land to anyone. Mr. Holet said he would like to mention that his lot is bisected by a tributary stream which is about as wide as a tile on the floor in this room.- Because of that fact, 200 feet will be taken and that 200 feet is the only level land on his lot and the spot where he has his garden planted. He asked if he would no longer be allowed to have a garden. Mr. Williams said it is his opinion that there would be no restrictions on something like an individual garden. Mr. Holet also inquired about an environmental impact statement and asked if there had been any investigation of deep wells. Mr. Fisher said the people who have lived in the western part of the County know there is little groundwater in the area. Usually people who drill a well and get five gallons per minute feel lucky. Mr. Williams said he is aware of two deep wells in Albemarle that produce a substantial amount of water, but nothing in the range of the 19 million gallons per day estimated to come from Buck Mountain Creek. Mr. Via said he could take all of the water out of Buck Mountain Creek each day and it would not even water 500 turkeys. Dr. Cowles said the term "limited" is too ambiguous. If an environmental impact study may be required 30 years from now, that fact should be known now. Also, he hopes the Board will consider the impact of this proposal on the total county as well as just the landowners in the area. With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Fisher closed the pubiic hearing at 9:48 P.M. Mrs. Cooke asked about the word "limited". Mr. Agnor said the word "limited" is intended to incorporate the management practices that are being advocated today by both Soil Conservation Service and the Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service. Mr. Agnor referred the Board members to the "land use matrix" set out above. He said the only exclusion he found on the chart relates to feed lots which would not be allowed at all. Mrs. Cooke asked if anyone present knew whether an environmental impact study would be required. Mr. Lindstrom said he has read the national environmental policy and unless there~ is some Federal involvement in the project, the law does not require such a statement. Mr. Fisher said the Rivanna Authority spent two years studying various areas to find the best location for this facility. He felt that a lot of what would be a part of an environmental impact statement has-already been done. Mr.. Henley said he will support the recommendation of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The Authority spent two years looking at the project, and if the Authority is satisfied that a 300 foot buffer measured from the normal pool level, with some added restricti~ is adequate, he will support that recommendation. Mr. Fisher said it would be nice if there was a watershed in the County that had the water.quality and gravity flow that Buck Mountain has, and nobody lived in the watershed. Mr. Fisher said it will be harder to acquire the land ten years form now, and much, much harder 30 years from now, plus the added expense. Mr. Fisher said he has a feeling that 50 years from now people will say this Board made a mistake by not buying the whole watershed, but he does not feel that is practical. August 4, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr.-Lindstrom said he feels it would be a fundamental mistake to shirk his responsibility and shortchange thousands of people because he was concerned about an extra million dollars or because he was preoccupied with the concerns of a handful of people. He did not see how the Board could quibble about the land areas involved knowing the mistakes of previous boards and city councillors. Mr. Lindstrom said he supports 300 feet from the 100 year flood line for the buffer because it has been the experience in this area that the 100 year flood occurs much more often than that and when it does, everything that is in the area becomes a part of the water supply. If the Board errs on the side of acquiring too much land it makes no difference, but the mistake cannot be undone if too little land is acquired. Mr. Henley said if there were a 500 foot buffer around the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir there would still be a problem because of the size of the area that drains into the South Fork. Mr. Henley said that twice in the last two weeks, the Mechum River has been running red and when it does, it puts nutrients into the Reservoir. He said no one has ever said that development has caused the problem in the South Fork. Mr. Lindstrom said that studies show that developed land contributes 12 times as much pollution. Mr. Henley said he feels that a reasonable buffer must be chosen. Mr. Lindstrom said the Army Corps of Engineers recommend 300 feet as a minimum distance. Mr. Butler said that the Rivanna is quite a different type of watershed than the Buck Mountain. He feels that the recommendation of the Rivanna Authority will give the community good quality water. Mrs. Cooke said that several landowners present had mentioned that if they are allowed to retain the use of their land, they will better be able to protect the land around the reservoir. She said she is inclined to agree with Mr. Henley and Mr. Butler that since this area is their home, they will not want pollution in the area, and will keep the area clean. At this time, she is inclined to support the recommendation of the Rivanna Authority. Mr. Butler said the area being discussed does not really lend itself agriculturally to row cropping or other land-disturbing activities. There are a lot of agricultural activities and industrial wastewaters, etc. draining into the Rivanna. For that reason, he feels that the water coming out of the Buck Mountain area will be of a much higher quality. Mr. Fisher said Mrs. Cromwell had read a line from an old report which indicated that there should be no further development on Piney Creek or the water would be worse than that in the South Fork today. The County has no way of prohibiting development on Piney Creek. Mr. Henley said he felt the Board was discussing two different things. Mr. Fisher said to buy all of the watershed so there could be no development would be the ideal situation, anything less than that is a compromise. Miss Nash asked Mr. Lindstrom why he considered 300 feet from the 100 year flood line better than 300 feet from the normal pool level. Mr. Lindstrom said he has read a number of articles which indicate that 300 feet is the minimum distance that should be set aside. If ~00 feet is a minimal distance, then anything that is added to that number will be better for the future users of the water. He suggested 300 feet from the 100 year flood line because that will assure that during any type of storm, there will be a minimum buffer from the water's edge. Measuring the buffer in this manner will not mean taking that much addi- tional land in most of the reservoir, but where there is not much steepness in the area to be flooded, it could be a substantial area. Mr. Fisher said that the 100 year flood line could exceed the 300 foot buffer in some cases. People might build septic tanks and houses outside.of the 300 feet from normal pool, but that area could still be flooded occasionally. Mr. Henley felt restrictions could be placed on septic tanks and houses and yet the people still use the land they have been using all the time. Mr. Lindstrom said the point of the discussion is - if there is never a storm that causes flooding, 300 feet from the normal pool level would be adequate, however, if there is 300 feet from the 100 year flood line, that will assure that the integrity of the buffer will almost under no circumstances be affected. At 10:20 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a recess. The Board reconvened at 10:35 P.M. Mr. Fisher said the Rivanna Water and Sewer has done an exceptional job in evaluating various sites and making a recommendation to the Board and City Council. The issue at this time is what area should be purchased and whether or not the Baard and Council agree with the Rivanna's recommendation for financing the project. Mr. Lindstrom said he supports Rivanna's recommendation for financing. He said the idea that the County should contribute funds from the General Fund does not take into consi- deration the time, effort and money that the County has almost singly devoted to this issue the past ten years. It does not take into consideration the tax revenues the County will lose or the tax revenues that the County is already sending to the City, or the obvious discomfiture that this whole idea is causing some citizens. He said as far as~financing is concerned, he sees no other logical way to do the project. Mr. Agnor said he is a member of the Rivanna Authority Board. He had recently looked at the Four-Party Agreement which set up the Authority and although he realizes that such agreements are subject to interpretation, the Agreement does contain a statement that "in case of additional water impoundments provided by the RWSA at the request of the City or the Albemarle County Service Authority, then the full amount of the debt service shall be added to the water rate. In the event the City or the Albemarle County Service Authority determine the need for an additional water impoundment, the Rivanna shall provide the facilities at the sole cost of the City or the ACSA, as the case may be." The agreement states that water rates shall be uniform throughout the urban area; that is, the City and a defined area outside of the City. Also, the Rivanna shall establish separate rates at Brownsville, Crozet, Scottsville and such other areas outside the urban area. Mr. Agnor said he feels that all of this was hammered out ten years ago and the interpretation of the Agreement is very clear. Mr. Fisher said that in the urban area, there are about three times as many City customers today as there are County customers, but with the growth rate in the County, and August 4, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) with the emphasis on.channeling growth into the urban area, that will change drastically during the time in which the bonds would be paid off. Mr. Fisher said he thinks that if the Board concurs with the Rivanna recommendation for financing, it is a good time to go on record saying~so. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to go on record as supporting ~the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors recommendation for financing of a reservoir project on Buck Mountain Creek. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, HenleY, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley then offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Rivanna Authority for the Buck Mountain reservoir dealing with boundaries, restrictions, so forth, as received in the latest recommendation (copied in at the beginning of this meeting, noted as being adopted by the Rivanna Authority on July 19, 1982). The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler. Mr. Henley said he has not always agreed with the restrictions put into effect on the South Fork Rivanna, but he has always supported what has passed. There have been things added to the South Fork since it was built, and there will be things changed and added to this reservoir and he would feel better to have people roam the few feet of land that the Board is arguing over rather than having the Rivanna own that small amount of land· If it would be appropriate to enact a specific setback relating to septic tanks and buildings, then that is what should be done instead of purchasing the extra buffer area. Mr. Lindstrom said that if the additional buffer had been purchased for the South Fork reservoir at the time the reservoir was constructed, that would have caused little disruption compared to the disruption that has occurred during these past years by adding restrictions little by little. Mr. Fisher said his principal concern with not taking the buffer to the 100 year flood line is with septic tanks or structures that might be built in that area which floods periodica The key issue seems to be whether restrictions can be placed which will keep people from building in the areas that are going to flood. If that can be done with a slight modification of what has been recommended, he will accept that compromise. Mr. Lindstrom said in order to arrive at some consensus, he would go along with restrictin the area in excess of 300 feet of normal pool without actual acquisition of the property. In order to maintain the integrity of that buffer, he would support restrictions in the form of easements against the construction of septic fields, feed lots, etc. in the area between the buffer at normal pool and the buffer at flood level since it is not a significant area. Mr. Henley said any flooding that might occur would last no longer than a few hours at the most. Miss Nash asked Mr. Henley if he would be willing to change his motion to incorporate Mr. Lindstrom's recommendation. Mr. Henley said he would not mind doing this by restrictions in an 'easement, but he could not support buying that much additional land. Mr. Henley then said he would amend h~s motion to include the idea of an easement. Mr. Lindstrom clarified by stating that there should be acquisition of 300 feet from the normal pool level, with the exception that for the area between that line and 300 feet from the 100 year flood plain, the area would be controlled by easements which would prohibit creation of septic fields, permanent structures, ~row cropping, feed lots, etc. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were other uses which should be included in the motion. Mr. Norris recommended that the "Land Use Matrix" presented earlier in the meeting be used. In order to be perfectly clear about the motion, Mr. Henley restated the motion and same appears below in final form: Accept the recommendation of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors that Buck Mountain Creek be selected as a future raw water supply source and that a dam be built at the appropriate time at Site C which is identified in a study by Camp, Dresser and McKee, dated June, 1982 entitled "Buck Mountain Feasibility Study Phase III Final Report, Subsurface Investigation Site C." A minimum buffer zone of 300 horizontal feet measured from the normal pool level to be purchased using the fee simple method. Permitted and prohibited land use practices in this future pool area to be controlled by land use practices listed on Attachment "A" dated August 4, 1982 (set out in full earlier in these minutes). This buffer zone to be extended on a parcel by parcel basis based on one or more of the following: small remainder of parcel justifying acquisition of complete parcel; slope of land and length of slope beyond the take line; wishes of the property owner; access to the property. A 100 foot buffer zone on either side of tributary streams to be acquired by easement. In those cases where the land lying between a 300 foot buffer measured from the normal pool level and a 300 foot buffer measured from the 100 year flood plain is not acquired in fee simple pursuant to #2 above, such land shall be acquired by easement and controlled by -permitted and prohibited land use practices in the same manner as the tributary buffer area as listed on Attachment "A" dated August 4, 1982. In-stream sedimentation ponds to be placed on the four major tributaries including Burruss Branch, Piney Creek, Buck Mountain Creek and Elk Run, as needed. This project shall be financed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority in accordance with provisions contained in the Four-Party Agreement. 325 August 4, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) The amended motion was accepted by Mr. Butler who had given second. at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: The roll was called AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley said the one problem brought out by the Buck Mountain Watershed Association concerning a road which was not even mentioned in the study and on which eight families presently lives needs to be included in a future study. Mr. Williams said it can be investi- gated in the Phase IV study. Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor said a notice had been received from the Virginia Association of Counties about a hearing to be held in Richmond dealing with counties receiving enabling state legislation to enact a tax on rooms and meals. At present this is special legislation, and applies only to a few counties. He asked if the Board would like to have a staff member appear at this he.aring and take a position for Albemarle. Mr. Fisher said he is worried that the Committee is so stacked that it will try to do away with the legislation altogether. Mr. Fisher said he does not have any strong opinion about being able to levy the tax on meals, but does not want Albemarle to lose its ability to levy the transient occupancy tax. Mr. Fisher noted that the Consolidation Study Committee has a meeting scheduled for tomorrow. A draft of a letter to the University of Virginia's Institute of Government has been prepared by Roger Wiley, City Attorney, on behalf of the Committee, asking for several evaluations on the question of consolidation. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board members had any comments. Mr. Lindstrom said he is uneasy about getting the Institute of Government mixed up in this study at the present time. He personally feels that this is beyond the scope of what the Committee was constituted to do. Miss Nash said she was somewhat startled by the letter. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the Committee was to get an in-house estimate of costs first. Mr. Henley thought it would be best for the committee to wait awhile before sending the letter. Mr. Fisher said the Committee has only met one time so far, and it seems that the City representatives are interested in looking at possible consolidation, but the County representatives are more interested in short-range goals such as better management of present joint operations. Mr. Fisher said he had received a letter from the Governor's Office asking that the County promote a U.N. Day in October. He asked if anyone on the Board would care to serve as Chairman of such an event. There was no response. Mr. Lindstrom said he had several questions about the June 30, 1982, Financial Report distributed by the Director of Finance. Mr. Agnor said this has been scheduled as an agenda item on the August 11, 1982, agenda. Mr. Fisher said that if any of the Board members intend to attend the Consolidation Study Committee meeting tomorrow, perhaps this meeting should be adjourned until that date. Mr. St. John said that if the members do not intend to participate in the proceedings, there is no need to do that. Mr. Lindstrom said he has personally pushed for the study of consoli- dation of law enforcement agencies just because he feels the time is right for studying that question. Agenda Item No. 6. At 11:40 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.