Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-22October 22, 1980 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) October 22, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) 360 An adjourned meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on October 22, 1980; said meeting being adjourned from October 15, 1980. Agenda Item No. 2. Review of proposed road re: ZMA-80-16, Thomas E. Worrell, Jr. Agenda Items No. 3 and J4. Following the viewing of Broomley Road, the Board of Supervisors was scheduled to reconvene in the Board Room of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was not held due to lack of a quorum. The Board of Supervisors recessed immediately from the on-site road inspection for supper. Agenda Item No. 5. The Board convened in the Albemarle County Courthouse with the following members present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony !achetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Officers Present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County ExecutiVe; J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer; William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official; and George R. St. John, County Attorney. At 7:42 P.M., Mr. Fisher called the meeting to order, and requested a brief moment of silence. Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher referred to the afternoon session, which took place on the site of ZMA-80-16 for Thomas E. Worrell, Jr. Mr. Fisher requested a time and date to continue discussion on this rezoning, and suggested 3:00 P.M., Wednesday, October 29, 1980, in the Board Room of the Albemarle County Office Building. Motion to continue ZMA- 80-16 to October 29, 1980, at 3:00 P.M., was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Fisher said he would like the answers to the following questions before that meeting date: What can be done to widen Broomley Road to bring it to state standards along the existing alignment. What legal or technical problems would prohibit a state standard road. The staff should locate stakes along Broomley Road where alignment for state standard road would be located. Miss Nash asked if the staff could determine the legal rights of the Weld°n Property to further develop, and if there were restrictive covenants on that property prohibiting subdivision of said property. Mr. Fisher said he would like to see notification of this meeting sent to the ad- jacent property owners, as well as representatives of Flordon Subdivision and Farmington. Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: To adopt an ordinance to amend and reorda~n Chapter 19.1, Article II, Section ig.l-6(a)(2)a, to read "Within two hundred horizontal feet of the 100 year flood plain of any impoundment;" (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 8 and October 15, 1980.) Mr. Fisher introduced Mr. William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official, who presented a summary of his report entitled "Runoff Control: A Question of Setback, A Literature Review", dated October 16, 1980 (Note: Copy of this report is on permanent file in the office of. the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors). Mr. Fisher said that in reading this report, he got the impression that any figure could be established for setback, and asked why there is no set State or Federal standard used to establish set- backs for the protection of public water sources. Mr. Norris said all area situations vary to a great extent. For example, groundwater sources, soils in the immediate area, slope and vegetation. He concluded by saying that if flashboards are placed on the dam of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, the additional setback in the amendment before the Board tonight will insure that no septic systems become inundated. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer and Runoff Control Official, presented a map showing the normal pool level, the 100 year flood level and the 200 foot flood level. Mr. Bailey said he would recommend keeping the present buffer for several reasons, one being that a study is presently underway by Dr. F. X. Browne regarding the movement of pollution into the reservoir. The Planning Commission is also studying whether or not to adopt a two year storm event rather than the ten year storm event as the guideline for this ordinance, as well as other amendments. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Bailey's statement seemed like a turnaround from his former views. Mr. Fisher said this ordinance is a result of urging from the public, but mostly from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, to establish a larger buffer area around the Buck Mountain proposed reservoir area. It was the Board's opinion that if that were done, the buffer areas should be the same for impoundments already in existence. Mr. Bailey said there should be uniformity, but felt that the recommendation from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was poorly thought out. Mr. Bailey said that a discussion between the Planning Department and Mr. George Williams, Executive Director, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, is where the setback of 100 feet beyond the flood level'of the pool was obtained. 361 October 22, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Bailey felt it reasonable to reduce the setback from the present 100 feet to 10 feet. Mr. Bailey said no. Mr. Lindstrom said part of Mr. Norris' report indicated that for class three and four soils, a 10 foot setback is all that is required, and that those figures are based on State Health Department recommendations. Mr. Bailey said the Health Department requires a minimum of 50 feet, and that the present ordinance di~stance of 100 feet was a matter of compromise between the possible 200 feet and 50 feet. Dr. Iachetta said he feels this proposed reduction is a mistake. He said you can't be too careful with your water supply and that he would rather have a larger buffer area than one too small and inadequate. Mr. Henley asked what increase in vertical height there would be at the 100 year flood level. Mr. Bailey said approximately 12 feet at the dam. Mr. Bailey added that according to the Betz study, the area immediately around the reservoir produces about 10% of the phosphorus loading going into the reservoir, so if the upstream areas are ignored, than 90% of the phosphorus going into the reservoir have not been addressed. Mr. Lindstrom said when he originally seconded Miss Nash's motion to adopt this ordinance, he thought the setback was not only for the impoundment itself, but for all tributary streams also. Mr. McCann said he felt this should have been presented and heard before the Planning Commission before coming to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing. Mr. St. John said the Planning Commission was dealing with the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir at that stage. He said the Runoff Control ordinance does not get its authorization from zoning enabling legislation and therefore it is not in order to be heard or reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Henley said if he heard Mr. Lindstrom's statement correct about the setback requirements including the streams and tributaries, he could never support it, because it would take up the major portion of the county. Mr. Fisher said he would like to open the public hearing at this time. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a very lengthy report from the League of Women Voters dated September 15, 1980, (Note: This report is on permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors) along with other letters from citizens. Mr. Bob Walker, representing the Albemarle County Property Owners Association, -introduced Mr. Max Evans, a langscape architect, to review the proposed ordinance change. Mr. Evans disputed figures presented by the League of Women Voters as to the traveling time for organisms into a stream. He said the figures taken from a report of the American Water Works Association are based on an area described as "sewage polluted trenches intercepted by groundwater" which in simple terms is a septic system in poor soils. He noted that the Health Department regulations do not allow septic systems in poor soils or soils with a high groundwater table. If the proper figures for organism travel were used, Mr. Evans said the traveling time would be 65 feet in 27 weeks rather than 164 feet in 37 days. Mr. Evans said it is his opinion that a 100 foot setback is adequate, but that it would be much more failsafe if it were from the 100 year flood level rather than from the normal pool. He also said that a large buffer area is not the only answer to preventing pollution of a water source. He said the land in that buffer must be properly preserved, drainage must be controlled, sedimentation basins must be employed, etc. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Evans what the vegetative cover above ground does to diminish the traveling ability of pollutants under ground. Mr. Evans gave the example of a large mature oak tree, and said it's root system would be equal to the exten~ of the tree above the ground. He added that this rule holds true to smaller trees, shrubs and grass as well; the smaller the vegetation, the less roots and the less roots the greater the run- off. Next to speak was Mr. Bill Gentry, representing the Blue Ridge Home Builders Assoc- iation. Mr. Gentry said he would gladly support the 200 foot setback if the Board could produce convincing evidence of its necessity. Mr. Gentry then questioned the logic in imposing such a setback when raw sewage is allowed to be dumped daily into Lickinghole Creek, which flows directly to the Reservoir. Mr. Lindstrom answered by stating that the Board approved last week a package treatment plant which will eliminate that sewage problem in Crozet. Mr. Gentry said he was still concerned that citizens who are very unknowiedgable about this problem are causing the Board and City Council to make laws affecting the reservoir and the citizens of both communities, and felt this was wrong. Mr. Charles Echols read the following letter dated October 20, 1980, from William H. Wisely, Executive Director Emeritus of the American Society of Civil Engineers: "The proposal to amend Chapter 19.1, Article II of the Albemarle County Code with regard to Protection of Public Drinking Water under Section 19.1-6 has been brought to my attention by Mr. Charles E. Echols. He sought my comments on the amendment in view of my 26 years of professional practice in the water pollution field, of which 12 years were in the Sanitary Engineering Division of the Illinois Department of Public Health. After careful review of the proposed amendment, it is my firm opinion that the required location of any sewage disposal system at least 200 feet from the 100-year flood plain of any impoundment is unnecessarily stringent, and that it cannot be justified by actual field experiences during the past 50 years or more during which the 100-foot requirement has been a universal standard. Neither am I aware of any responsible research that would indicate that organic or bacterial contamination could travel anywhere near 100 feet laterally in soils considered appropriate for sewage leaching fields. It is my considered judgment that the present ordinance is more than adequate to protect the public health. The concluding paragraph of 362 additional safety measures wherever local conditions may raise a ~question as to the adequacy of the present 100-foot lateral separation requirement. I respectfully urge that you do not adopt the proposed amendment, which in my opinion is arbitrary and would invoke unwarranted hardship on the landholder." Mr. Echols said he has recently purchased property in Ivy Farms Subdivision, wherein the septic system would fall just beyond the I00 foot setback requirement. He urged the Board to consider property owners such as himself when considering a 200 foot requirement which would render his property almost useless. Mr. Preston Stallings urged the Board to leave the ordinance as it presently stands. Mrs. Babs Huckle, Vice President of the League of Women Voters, read a statement noting the concerns of the League regarding the preservation of water in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. She stated the League's concern regards 1) chemicals and fertilizers, 2) pathogenic organisms, and 3) soil runoff. Mrs. Huckle presented several Slides taken around the County showing the growth of algae and soil sedimentation in lakes, streams and the reservoir. Mrs. Huckle quoted a United States Department of Interior statement saying "The second best alternative is to acquire, in fee, only those lands which are directly associated with the reservoir. This should include those lands which, if developed, could have a septic system discharging directly into the reservoir. This would probably be all lands within 500 feet horizontally of the maximum pool elevation of the reservoir." Mrs. Huckle said the League of Women Voters would like to see the Board adopt the 500 foot setback as recommended by the Department of the Interior. Next to speak was Mrs. Treva Cromwell, Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board, who said the Board should consider the implications of the addition of flashboards to the South Fork Rivanna River Dam on the "normal pool level" of the reservoir. She quoted sources used in Mr. Norris' report which stated that septic systems do not fully remove phosphorus or nitrogen from household wastes, and she noted that these two nutrients are the main causes of the eutrophication in the reservoir. Mr. Tim Michel, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, said the Council supports this proposed change back to the 200 foot setback. He agreed with Mrs. Cromwell that the Board should consider the flashboards which are to be added to the dam. He said Mr. Evans suggestion of the 100 foot buffer of mature hardwood forest, was the best answer yet, and that this would be his first choice for protection of the water supply in Albemarle County. Mr. Roy Patterson said he supports the comments of the League of Women Voters, and that it is impractical to try and enforce protection of a forested t00 foot buffer;~ best sense would dictate enlarging that buffer to be certain of its effectiveness. No one else wished to speak either for or against this proposed ordinance amendment, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. At 9:45 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:52 P.M. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to hear from Dr. F. X. Browne as he felt Mr. Henley was given some misinformation earlier. Dr. Brown said once phosphorus enters a stream, eventually it will work its way into the reservoir. Dr. Browne said if the Board enacts a 200 foot setback around the reservoir, it should also be done along all the tributaries. Mr. Henley asked if a properly installed septic system has the ability to filter out phosphorus. ~Dr. Browne said the phosphorus should be trapped in the soit, and as long as it does not come in contact with a stream or groundwater, it would remain there. Dr. Browne did add that there is theory indicating the average life of soils surrounding a septic system to be approximately 100 years. Mr. Fisher said there are many varied opinions on what should be done to protect the Reservoir, but no absolutely final proof that any protection efforts will guarantee total protection of the reservoir. Mr. Fisher said a legislative decision must be made to balance the rights of property owners to use their property with the rights of the public to protect their investment in the reservoir and their future health. -Mr. Fisher also stated his concern about Several recent developments approved by the Board for construc- tion near the reservoir. He said that although the applicants intend to comply with all the rules of the present ordinances, he is not completely certain that this will be sufficient to protect the reservoir. Mr. Fisher said his common sense tells him that 100 feet is not adequate to handle runoff for developments so close and of such large scale. He said it is his responsibility to make the required changes; Mr. Lindstrom said many people have made statements to the effect that there is no evidence that 100 feet of setback is inadequate. Mr. Lindstrom said we have not lived here long enough to visually see that evidence. He said if development is allowed to continue so close to the water source, the potential for the problem grows. He stated his concern that there is no clearcut standard offered by the experts, thus making this decision by the Board much more difficult. Mr. McCann said since he has not heard any hard facts regarding setback requirements, he will base his decision on the advise of those hired by the County. Mr. McCann said the opinions of the County Engineer and Watershed Management Official are to stay with the 100 foot setback. Mr. McCann said he would not support the proposed change in the ordinance at this time. Dr. Iachetta said he does not have much faith in "properly installed septic systems", because too many times he has seen systems which have failed in as short a time as one year. Dr. Iachetta said he helped prepare the State Manual on this subject, and he feels that distance is one of the most important factors, even if vegetation is encouraged. He said he would like to see a larger buffer, but since that cannot be done, he will support the ordinance change as proposed. 363 October 22, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Miss Nash said she feels it was a mistake to have ever reduced the setback require- ment from the original 200 feet. Miss Nash said she was startled to see the amount of sedimentation which occurred, as shown in the slides presented by the League of Women Voters. She said she would support the 200 foot setback as presented, and would like to see that distance set along tributary streams if possible. Mr. Henley said 100 feet beyond the 100 year flood line would be sufficient. He said he would rather support that than the change as presented, which he feels is no~ a very long distance from the reservoir. Mr. Henley added that he could not support a 200 foot setback requirement along tributary streams. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the ordinance as advertised as follows: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 19.1, ARTICLE II, PROTECTION OF PUBLIC DRINKING WATER, IN SECTION 19.1-6 CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS NEAR IMPOUNDMENTS AYES: NAYS: BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Albemarle County Code, Chapter 19.1, Article II, Pro- tection of Public Drinking Water, be, and it hereby is, amended in Section 19.1-6 as follows: Sec. 19.1-6. Runoff control permits - required for development. (a) (2) Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, it shall also be unlawful for any person to construct any sewage disposal system any part of which lies within the limits prescribed in this section, as follows: a. Within two hundred horizontal feet of the 100 year flood plain of any impoundment; or b. Within one hundred horizontal feet of the edge of any tributary stream. The foregoing notwithstanding, in the event that the runoff control official shall determine that it would be impracticable to construct a lawful sewage dispoasl system on any parcel of land of record at the time of the adoption of this section except within limits hereinabove prescribed, the runoff control official may authorize the construction of such a system upon such terms as he may determine to be necessary to protect the public health~ safety and welfare and upon the approval of the state department of health. For purposes of this section, the construction of a sewage dis- posal system shall be deemed impracticable in any case in which construc- tion of such a system without the limits prescribed hereinabove would (1) be physically impossible within the geometric limits of such lot or parcel, (2) require the pumping of effluent, or (3) require the construction of such system on soils found to be unacceptable by the state department of health for such constructuion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. McCann. Agenda Item No. 7. Merit Increase Adjustment: County Executive's Salary. Mr. Fisher referred to his memorandum to the members of the Board of Supervisors, dated October 17, 1980, stating "on the basis of the recent merit review, consideration is requested for an increase to the "C" step of the 36 range for the County Executive; (the amount is $37,030)." Mr. Lindstrom said he felt this increase is overdue, and offered motion for approval. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Fisher said he would like to see this become effective retroactive to the beginning of this fiscal year. Mr. Lindstrom and Dr. Iachetta said that was the intent of the motion. Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 8. Confirm Agreement for Nuclear Consultant. Mr. Fisher said there are some points in this agreement which he feels must first be clarified with the City of Charlottesville, and he would therefore like to see this item deferred. Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. following resolution for the Board's consideration: Mr. Fisher presented the October 22, 1980 (Regular N~ght Meeting) 36 4 RESOLUTION URGING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'~OF VIRGINIA TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE EXPANSION OF PIEDMONT VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE. WHEREAS, Piedmont Virginia Community College serves the educational needs of many citizens of the County of Albemarle and is a necessary part of the educational and cultural life of this community; and WHEREAS, the growth in enrollment at Piedmont Virginia Community College has created a critical need for additional facilities for many of the educational programs operated by the College, including programs in nursing, respiratory therapy, data processing, secretarial sciences and business technology; and WHEREAS, this Board has previously committed itself to provide the requested local portion of funding and support for expansion to meet these needs; and WHEREAS, in 1980 the General Assembly of Virginia appropriated only $600,000.00 of the 3.9 million dollars estimated to be necessary to com- plete the improvements needed by Piedmont Virginia Community College; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albe- marle County that we earnestly request the General Assembly to take action at its 1981 session to appropriate the balance of the capital outlay fund being requested by Piedmont Virginia Community College to meet its immediate space needs; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of this Board be directed to send certified copies of this resolution to the Chairman of the House Appropriations and Senate Finance Committees of the General Assembly, to Albemarle's representatives in the General Assembly, to the Governor of Virginia,.and to the President and Board of Visitors of Piedmont Virginia Community College. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the resolution as read by Mr. Fisher. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a copy of Annexation Proceedings between the City of Harrisonburg and the County of Rockingham. Mr. Fisher said as an adjacent County, Albemarle is required to receive copy of same. Agenda Item No. 10. Adjourn. There being no further business before the Board of Supervisors, at 10:24 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a motion to adjourn to October 27, 1980, at 3:00 P.M., in the Board Room of the Albemarle County Office Building. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AyEs: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Chairman