HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-05-13
FIN A L
May 13, 1992
Room 7, County Office Building
4:00 P.M., Room 7, Adiourned from May 6, 1992)
1) Call to Order.
2) Work Session: Proposed Sign Ordinance.
3) Adjourn.
7:00 P.M., Room 7 (Re~ Meetin~)
1) Call to Order.
2) Pledge of Allegiance.
3) Moment of Silence.
4) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
5) *Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
6) SP-91-71. Unity Church in Charlottesville (Appl); David Allen (Owner).
To construct a 300 seat church with. offices, fellowship hall &
educational facilities on 5.0 ac zoned RA. Property on W side of Rt
743 approx 900 ft N of Whitewood Rd. TM61, P4. Jack Jouett Dist.
This property lies in a designated growth area.
7) SP-92-09. David D. Allen. For day care for 25 children on 5.0 ac zoned
RA on W side of Rt 743 approx 900 ft N of Whitewood Rd. TM61,P4.
Jack Jouett Dist. This property lies in a designated growth area.
8) ZMA-92-01. Ednam House Limited Partnership. To amend existing
proffers on 1.892 ac zoned R-10 to permit 3 dwelling units in existing
Ednam House. Property on S side of Worthington Drive in Ednam.
Site is located in Neighborhood 7 and is rec:'ommended for low density
residential (1 - 4 du/ac) in the Comprehensive Plan. TM60,P28A1.
Samuel Miller Dist.
9) SP-92-12. Ednam House Limited Partnership. To operate a Class-B Home
Occupation for a realtor on 1.892 ac zoned R-10 (Proffered).
Property on S side of Worthington Dr in Ednam (See ZMA-92-01
above) . TM60, P28A1. Samuel Miller Dist. This property lies in a
designated growth area.
10) Draft Statement for the Governor's Advisory Commission on the Dillon Rule
and Local Government (Deferred from May 6, 1992).
11) Change date for work session on the Open Space Plan to June 3.
12) Approval of Minutes: June 12 and September 18, 1991.
13) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
14) Adjourn to May 14, 1992, at Scottsville Elementary School for a public
forum on the requested boundary adjustment.
j.
CON S E N T
AGE N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 Doyle's River Flood Damage.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.2 Copy of the Planning Commission's Minutes for April 21, 1992.
5.3 Copy of letter dated April 30, 1992, from Amelia Patterson, Zoning Admini-
strator, addressed to Roger Ray entitled "Official Determination of Number
of Parcels - Section 10.3.1, Tax Map 30, Parcel 21; Property of Grace H.
Price. "
5.4 Letter dated April 24, 1992, from Mary Ann E. G. Wilson, Manager,
Richmond Office of U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
re: Report on Audit of Section 8 Housing Office for period July 1, 1990
through June 30, 1991.
5.5 Copy of memorandum dated April 30, 1992, from Amelia M. Patterson,
Zoning Administrator, re: "Interpretation of Condition #8 of Approval on
SP-90-99 for Rappahannock Electric Cooperative."
5.6 Copy of the Draft for Public Comment Public Health Assessment written for
the Greenwood Chemical Company, Newtown, National Priorities List site
(on file), received from the State Department of Health, Bureau of Toxic
Substances.
DTE
/)7 ;
/ I ! d~}
I I
'/
A JENDA ITEM NO.
A l;ENDA ITEM NAME
Form. 3
7/25/86
UNTIL
I
/'3 /11 :;z
)
tf .;{ {51&. (5 (r)
\ . /... j"
,'\L'~7'Z? (/-/{ /t./12(/111'_l:/
/.-,. "'2...
[J . :) - 9 0-'
Edward H. Bai . Jr.
Samuel Mille
David P. Bowe man
Charlottesvill
Charlotte y. H mphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC~~
May 14, 1992
JECT: Board Actions of May 13, 1992
At the Board of Supervisors' meetings on May 13, 1992, the
lowing actions were taken:
Agenda Item No.2. Work Session: Proposed Sign Ordinance.
erred to June 3, 1992 for Zoning Department to write/or
earch several sections.
1. Rewrite 4.15.11 as Mr. Don Wagner's letter suggests and
iew to determine if these changes create other difficulties.
2. Research temporary sign provisions as they apply to non-
fit organizations.
3. Research anchoring of temporary signs.
Agenda Item No.5. Consent Agenda.
5.1 - Doyle's River Flood Damage. Staff to request flood
pr tection assistance for John R. Pflug through the Soil
Co servation Service.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
May 14, 1992
1. Day care shall not exceed 25 children or such lesser
ber as the Health Department may specify based on adequacy of
e septic system;
2. Administrative approval of site plan;
3. No such use shall operate without licensure by the
Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It shall
b the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the
z ning administrator a copy of the original license and all
r newals thereafter and to notify the zoning administrator of any
license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three days
of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful non-
c pliance with the provisions of this ordinance;
4. Periodic inspections of the premises shall be made by
t e Albemarle County fire official at his discretion. Failure to
promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be
de med willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
or inance;
5. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated
herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the
uirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia
artment of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other
ai, state or federal agency.
Agenda Item No.8. ZMA-92-01. Ednam House Limited
tnership. To amend existing proffers on 1.892 ac zoned R-10
permit 3 dwelling units in existing Ednam House. Property on
S ide of Worthington Drive in Ednam. Site is located in
Ne"ghborhood 7 and is recommended for low density residential (1-
4 u/ac) in the Comprehensive Plan. TM60,P28A1. Samuel Miller
Di t. APPROVED with agreements #1-7 as set out in the Planning
Co ission's letter of May 1, 1992.
1. Approval is for a maximum of 140 dwelling units in
at ions and types in accordance with land use summary of the
roved plan. (Commission approved the amended land use
ary.) Specifically, multi-storied residential structures
11 be restricted to Site A, E and G; (Land Use Summary enc.);
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
roval of commercial entrances and road improvements as shown
the approved plan;
RECF\.\f7,n
MAY 0 7 1992
PLANNING DEPT.
IN COOPERA ION WITH THE
STATE OEPAR MENT OF HEALTH
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Thomas Jefferson Health District
1138 Rosc Hill Drivc
p. 0. Box 7546
Char!o{(csvillc, Virginia 22906
(804) 972-6219
ALBEMARLE - CHARLOTTESVILLE
FLUVANNA COUNTY (PALMYRA)
GREENE COUNTY (STANAROSVILLE)
LOUISA COUNTY (LOUISA)
NELSON COUNTY (LOVINGSTON)
May 4, 1992
Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner
Albemarle County Planning Dept
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Yolanda,
As promised, I am writing you to clarify questions which have
been raised relative to health department approvals for preliminary
site plans and in particular those relative to the Unity Church
proposal (Route 743, Hydraulic Road, Tax Map 61 Parcel 4). This
department, when evaluating proposed sites, must consider a number
of factors relative to use of existing drainfields or proposed
drainfield sites. Water usages must be established and based on
available drainfield area (existing or proposed), limits on
particular use on each site may be set. What must be considered,
too, is that no more than 1200 gallons of sewage may be distributed
per acre without encroaching and impacting water tables. This
department must make every attempt not to exceed mass drainfield
limitations (i.e. maximum 1200 gallons/day/acre).
Within these guidelines, I have tried to set limitations of
water usage for each of the Phases of the Unity Church site plan.
They are as follows:
Phase I:
Existing Building ~1: Maximum Water Use 300 gallons/day
Office Use and Evening Classes for 15 persons/day
Existing Building~~: Maximum use 250 gallons/day
Day Care Center - 10 Children (25 gallons/day/child)
\If/DH VIHC,INI.\
'I IJII'AHI^\I NT
01 I tI ,\1111
II,o"~ tlllJ: )0" ,Iflf/}"." f 11\ ''''''tm'1I1
Phase II:
Existin~ Buildin~ #1:
Office Use
Existin~ Buildin~ #2:
Day Care - 10 Children
Proposed Buildin~ #3:
150 Seat Sanctuary & Sunday School
Classes Monday- F r i day - Max 20 Persons
Maximum Water Usage - Buildings 2 and 3 - 500 gallons/day
2 ADDITIONAL DRAINFIELD DITCHES MUST BE INSTALLED
Phase III:
Existin~ Buildin~ #1
Office
Existin~ Buildin~ #2
Day Care - 10 Children Monday - Friday
Sunday School - Sundays
Proposed Building_Y3
Evening Classes Monday - Friday
Maximum 20 people
* Because of drainfield limitations, WATER USAGE CAN NOT
EXCEED 500 GPO (Day Care, Sanctuary, and Even; ng Cl asses)
Proposed BUlldin~_~~
Permanent Sanctuary - Sundays Only
Primary and Reserve Drainfield Sltes have been set aside.
600 gpd
Phase IV
Existin~ Building #1:
Reverts back to residence - 2 Beqroom Maximum
300 gpd
Existin~ Buildin~ #2:
And
Existin~ Buildin~ #3:
Day Care Center - Maximum 20 children/day 2 Employees
500" gpd Usage
Pro po sed B u i 1 din g__ # 4 :
Permanent Sanctuary - Sundays - 300 Seats
Evening Classes - Monday - Friday - 30 Persons Maximum
900 gpd Usage
Please be advised, also, that any area designated for parking
~r driveway which is located over drainfields must be paved with
~ither asphalt or concrete (4" min.).
I
I hope that his writing clarifies this departments position
~elative to the Unity Church site. Should you need to discuss this
further with me, please feel free to contact me at the Thomas
~efferson Health District (972-6259).
Sincerely,
(jj.~
G. Stephen Rice
Environmental Health Specialist
cc: Susan R i dd 1 e
GSR/mrn
...
~
~'t\"..al ",.1ft C
,.~'~
..
. .~
..
'r: r4J.II}~1)
. 0".""" .., ,.,.,...", ...... "" "" "'" ,..0 '.' ,,," u."
~O Wl-l.\.~ OF 'tl-\~ BIJ\\.OIl'lO I-Rt. StlO'f(T' I'ItrttOl'l.
SUIJJECt P/l(}PtAY'" ",,46 ';(1"1 ~/~
I~ A ,:LOClD UA&AaD ARIA A~
OI~nJE.D b~ H. tJ. D.
T. ~. flO' '0" '
PARCEL ~.,
~
.011
~~
."'
-'"
~~
~~
t'>-
':i~
to'
I..JO It
q fer Jq)-
ll" ~
\
--::..---
-
-
t
~.
\
'1/1."" ,,"" ct/J1,dO
IW. (0. .10"",'111'
It
<is
to
~
.
~
~
'Ci
t
~,
..
PAIl'€f. ..,
o. ~. l~.ot' Pf,Al
't f"l. ClC" I~ A I
\.,,1 A~U.
~.
jJotf'
()11"Ut. l1a ~
I.nJOIIl~Il"CJIJ~.
stf IlCCOROIU p(.A'(~
P. ..1,,,.411 A/JD D.
roR ACCt.. 'AH~
u. -t. .CUTI ,~.
.
/),,,,('1"
AOUO~8\.1S"'. O~EN ~ ()J.\.~ \Ne.
101.1\1,,,(0 "J.I40 auf\VlYOl' - ~HOlHtC.1\
~OfT,,'iI\.~I. VlIIQ....A
O"ll;3A~. C1----!"M:::::
flno ,0<)'" - ,. L. -
" _."" .::_..:~..~,.,..,O;-:-:;"":' .~:.r.',~"'"
~..("i~-s.~~
~
\'.r-'t,__,~
::t
!f>)
.~~
<:f.
,~
~~,
,\:,
'i'
',!Xi
~~Ji
.~.f'
~.~
:f'
;~,
~.::..
~~
'..~L'~
:~
.s'
}:
\ '\~
..11,
l'l.,
;~. r~~
.\~~
,7,;1
'~~.
'"
....,
...",
~t
','
~-L' ~
::'~~
")r'"
,
'.'
"
:"':.
,C-
,-',
.~t
l.
.',;
~~1
~"r
,r.
:~~~
'(',,~
It.:
.;
,.
~ ": .
~,: :
t.J 0 I~
q ler jq;;-
~
A
..~iATTACHMENT cl
A
A
AT\'JoD.l't'm c
or. r40. //Je,,,
. "unnu,U Itn t'HVl'tRll' SHOWrt Ort THIS PUlT I-tlO THt TITI,[ liNn
ANO WAl.\.$ OF THE BUI~OINQ ARE SHOWN HEll tON.
5vaJEC1' PIl"PtRY"" 0"'0 A/(l'1' (/(
/AI A ~tOOD J.lA~AAD AREA A~
O~~/JJlO bY H. lJ. D,
l M. "D. '~,A I
PA ReEL f).1
lAW \II
W()~ 7'HIJJ{J TOu
{fI',,,,..,, .rll.'
_------- .p' I/w/ D.ll1v:
.- -- ~
. t. ''''o.~t' -
11. ,. --
---. 01. If}~. -- __
i-- ~ --
"u - ~ . -;:;...,~
1f'i',~.lIr -- __ --- ~
-- .--...... .
__ r
IVA TIC C ,"', cr/./TIIlIIJ ~
1/./, ro' ..,n,''''
,- ..
-"
-
,,~
-- II. .. ..fl. 1t0 ~
':)
O.
1M
~
t
~ '
~
"\
.11I
~~
.~
-..'"
~...
~~
~~
:i~
to:
~
,
t
"#:;
tci
~
~.
to'
1."1 Acue
PAIlCfL 11./
0, ~. 7~'OU PlAT
't U. CICio 10 A ,
("".). '
" II'
'\1\
, () \
, .
~
.", '
~.
~:
~....
:::>~
(1))0.
'. 'l
,,~
~
"'~
....~
~c
5"":
t\."l
~.
'"
}JOTI"
(lfIU7/C. A A ('
U AI OIlUJ/l(lOI,J{).
su tlUOIlOl11 PLAY6 AT
R I, 14'1.4 tI A uD D,~. 7~/' (,4/
roll ACe,... IA,(M*UT T~
U. ~. Itcvr, ,"to.
....
\I
\,
III
~
I
. IJ*JJttU.
ROUDABUSH. OMEN l Q"'L~ IHC.
l;U\t1"IO L*-HO IlUAv(yOl\ - lNOIHCt/\
~OTT"Vl\.\.I. V\1I0''''''
O",Tl: MAJ. f1, M~
~-;
fino tOO" t. t,
seAI.I, / .. tiC"
PILI NO. ~/7"
.-
(
,~.
4' 0:-:" _...... _~:_ '.'!: "~f.T~-:-_"'7';;-'.:' .J .. _... . .. ..:.r".~,,';'I...,.. __ Ao ----:------.. ...,.;,;-:-
STATEMENT OF DAVID P. BOWERMAN, CHAIRMAN
ON BEHALF OF THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TO THE GOVERNOR'S ADVISORY COMMISSION
ON THE DILLON RULE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
May 19, 1992
CHAIRMAN MacFARLANE AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, I'M DAVID
BOWERMAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY.
ON BEHALF OF OUR BOARD, I WELCOME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU
ON THIS CRITICAL ISSUE. THE DILLON RULE'S APPLICATION TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT HAS HAD, IS NOW HAVING, AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON OUR ABILITY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY IN A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE MANNER.
IN ADDITION, THE PASSING OF FEDERAL AND STATE MANDATES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES DOWN TO THE LOCAL LEVEL, WHILE NOT PROVIDING
COMMENSURATE REVENUES IN THE FACE OF LIMITED LOCAL REVENUE
AUTHORITY, PLACES LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN AN UNTENABLE POSITION.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO ALBEMARLE COUNTY?
THIS, ADDED TO THE
SERVICE DEMANDS FROM CONTINUED POPULATION GROWTH AND A DYNAMIC
TRANSFORMATION FROM A LARGELY RURAL COUNTY TO AN URBAN/RURAL COUNTY
RESULTS IN BEING UNDULY CONSTRAINED IN MEETING THE NEEDS OF OUR
CITIZENS.
IT IS A SITUATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES WITH LIMITED
AUTHORITY TO MEET THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES. WE, THEREFORE, ASK FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS:
· EQUAL TAXING POWER WITH CITIES. THE INEQUALITY IN TAXING
POWERS BETWEEN CITIES AND COUNTIES IS AN IMPEDIENT TO EFFECTIVE
FISCAL MANAGEMENT. WHILE GRANTING SIMILAR POWERS TO THE COUNTIES
-
_A'
I:
IS A FIRST STEP, THE GREATER ISSUE OF HOME RULE TAXING AUTHORITY IS
SUPPORTED TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE.
· EQUAL BORROWING AUTHORITY AS CITIES. BROADER AUTHORITY IN
?ORROWING SUCH AS ISSUING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS WITHOUT
~EFERENDUM.
· BROADER AUTHORITY IN REGULATING LAND USE IS CRITICAL.
$IGNIFICANT EMPOWERMENT OF LOCALITIES TO MANAGE THEIR LAND USE IS
~ECESSARY.
~E OPPOSED THE RECENT LEGISLATION ON GIVING SITE PLANS A FIVE-YEAR
IJIFE; WE SUPPORT THE OPTION TO USE IMPACT FEES, TRANSFERRABLE
qEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, AND USE VALUE TAXATION IN THE URBAN AREAS.
A REVIEW OF SOME OF THE TREATISES ON THE DILLON RULE IN VIRGINIA
SPEAKS WELL TO THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU. OUR
E~PECTATION IS SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE. WHETHER YOU CALL IT A
RELAXING OF THE DILLON RULE BY FUNCTIONAL AREAS OR A CHANGE TO HOME
I
,
I
RVLE WITH STATE LIMITATIONS, THE NEED TO PROVIDE GREATER AUTONOMY
I
I
T~ LOCALITIES IN MEETING LOCAL NEEDS IS THE CENTERPIECE OF THE
,
SQLUTION.
,
W~ LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY
I
TO PARTICIPATE IN FUTURE EFFORTS OF THIS COMMISSION.
,
,
\dlbm
921.018
..' ,. _ .' _ . .rl
/, ) I . --, ;> I~ /)
f.! ~_ '::'-_~ / ).. {...J .
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
0:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ~/~
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive;l~ /
May 8, 1992
John R. Pflug - Doyles River Flood Damage
A tached for your information is a request from Mr. John R. Pflug,
J . for flood protection assistance through the Soil Conservation
S rvice via Mr. Peyton Robertson, Water Resources Manager. This
r quest for flood protection assistance requires initiation from
Albemarle County. Unless you have objections to this, I plan to
m ke this request to the Soil Conservation service through Mr.
G rdon Yager.
.
ALBEMARLE - CHARLOTTESVILLE
OFFICE OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
401 MCiNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901-4596
(804) 296-5841
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. , County Executive
FROM: J. W. Peyton Robertson, Jr. , Water Resources Manager
f vv'/f1L-?
DATE: May 7, 1992
RE: Doyles River Flood Damage - Pflug Request
Attached you will find a letter from Mr. John R. Pflug,
Jr., requesting flood protection assistance for his property
along the Doyles River in the Brown's Cove area of Albemarle
County. Gordon Yager and I met with Mr. Pflug on April 27 to
assess flood damage and determine options for any
restoration/mitigation activity. Gordon described federal
assistance available under section 403 of the Agricultural
Credit Act of 1978. Gordon has since informed me that any
request for assistance must come from the County.
In light of the need for County initiation of this
process, I am referring this letter to you for action. I will
respond to Mr. Pflug and inform him to that effect.
Please contact me if you have questions or need additional
information.
wr92-63
Attachment
I
o 1~lug Enterprises
COUNTY OF J\LBEMl\f;Lf..
~~'.(1l. I;':r, ".' ' :.,-::" ,- r, "'... "t.'
. F f:..--~..!L_:;; L..~;j ,
.',p' "
l'~ r MAY 1 1992 ~i:: ~
..~\ j ~ :~
I I ~
.~, . It
~ ~ . - '. : . .~.--." "--" . ~
l~~ur, ,.-i.J
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
~
April 29, 1992
Mr. Gordon Yager
District Conservationist
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Mr. J. W. Peyton Robertson, Jr.
Water Resources Manager
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Gentlemen:
Thank you so much for meeting me at my "Headquarters" Farm
last Monday morning at 9:00 a.m.
After discussing the flooding of the Doyles River with you,
I feel compelled to set forth for the record that I am concerned
for the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of my Managers
house, as well as the equipment and/or occupants in my barn, during
times of flooding of the Doyles River like those in November, 1985
and on April 20 and 21, 1992.
It is my opinion, after talking to you both, that boulders and
rocks from the stream bed need to be stacked along my side of the
stream bed at the two (2) areas we viewed last Monday, where it was
obvious the River had flooded it's banks. It is also obvious that
others before us have seen the same wisdom in doing so, since most
of the River on my side is currently stacked with rocks.
Please accept this letter as notice to both of you that I wish
the following to be implemented at your earliest conveniences.
1. Make such reports as are necessary
to the proper authorities as to the
extent of the damage caused by this
most recent storm.
5400 Shawnee Road, Suite 201 Alexandria, Virginia 22312 Telephone: 703-354-2200 Fax: 703-354-2208
I
o Pflug Enterprises
Mr. Yager
Mr. Robertson
April 28, 1992
Page 2
2. Provide ,all paperwork necessary to
me and/or Mr. Ripper, and/or any
other landowners whose signatures
are necessary to permit repair work
to commence within, hopefully, the
next 30-60 days.
3. Immediately make any and all
applications or allocations for
necessary funds for accomplishing
such work.
I am enclosing a map indicating the two (2) areas I feel need
your attention. Please write me and let me know of your intentions
along these lines at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely yours,
~~l(fz~
enclosures
cc: Chris Ripper
JRP,jr/smt
"
, "'J ' y .<;'"
i.", r-'(")r!~' .. '- / ,6
'-v _-".....l.i ;J, '~"~'"_,,,,""'''.''''~,,:>>;:l<''
(~'j,., ".- ~(,-- ,>)
i-L' " :;j.~ -',
d 'i~L:___ . . J
11
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
i ~ '
April' 30, 1992
Roger Ray
1717 Allied street
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARCELS - section 10.3.1
Tax Map 30, Parcel 21; Property of Grace H. Price
Dear Mr. Ray:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the documentation of
records you have submitted for the above-noted property. It is
the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official
determination, that this property consisted of two (2) separate
parcels on the date of adoption of the Zoning Ordinance (December
10,1980): One parcel on the south side of Route 660 and the other
on the north side of Route 660.
Each of these lawfully separate parcels is entitled to associated
development rights. This determination results in one (1)
additional parcel that is shown on the 1980 County tax maps. No
subdivision has occurred subsequent to 1980.
This determination considered the Sanford v. Albemarle County
Board of zoning Appeals case. In both cases, fee-simple
right-of-way dedication to the state for a highway, serves to
divide the property. In this case, the dedication of right-of-way
for Route 660 was recorded in October, 1974, prior to the adoption
of this Zoning Ordinance in December, 1980.
The most recent deed of record as of the date of adoption of the
Zoning Ordinance is found in Deed Book 563, Page 309. It is dated
October 29, 1974 and certifies the condemnation of right-of-way.
It is part of the 88.9 acres acquired by Thomas and Grace Price in
June, 1950 with Deed Book 289, Page 385.
~
April 30, 1992
Ray/Price
Page 2
This acquisition of highway right-of-way served to subdivide the
property as follows:
1.) ,Parcel on the north side of Route 660 undetermined acreage,
possibly i/2 the 36 acres total, or 18 acres. Five (5)
development rights.
2) Parcel on the south side of Route 660, possibly 18 acres.
Five (5) development rights.
Anyone aggrieved by this decision may file a written appeal within
thirty (30) days of the date of this letter. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
~~.P~
Amelia M. Patterson
Zoning Administrator
AMP/sp
cc: Jan Sprinkle
Gay Carver
vLettie Neher, Clerk to the Board of supervisors
Grace H. Price
Reading Files
NOTE:
One (1) additional Parcel
One (1) by Tax Map, two (2) by determination
\",lNr O~
il1"q. ,'I r, ....0
Q' ,'~':! ::~~ "~
. v u~I'*}
.:-....<9"'''' O['Jt.,-O'i'
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Richmond Office. Region III
P.O. Box 10170
400 N. 8th Street. 1 st Floor
Richmond. VA 23240-9998
/-. V ^
to fbard' :.:> . d -c; J....
-'''''-
i!,~: ,.:.. 7d:{.!SI8...&_~ 0
APRIL IS FAIR HOUSING MONTH
p,pf( 2 4 1892
1 r\:i
'i \ J
,./ ( \
, '.j
. .
/~\ '
h::
,~-\
Mr. David P. Bowerman
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Section
8 Office
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Bowerman:
SUBJECT: Report on Audit
County of Albemarle
Report Number: 92-NR-4657
Issue Date: March 25, 1992
For the Period: July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991
By: Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates (IA)
On March 25, 1992, the Office of the Inspector General,
National Review Center for Non-Federal Audits for the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as
general oversight agency reviewed the Single Audit Report
numbered 92-NR-4657. The report covered the period ended
June 30, 1991. The Direct Funding Source was HUD - Low
Income Housing.
As general oversight agency, this report was reviewed
for compliance with the requirements set forth in the Single
Audit Act and OMB Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local
Governments. Since nothing came to our attention that
generally accepted government auditing standards were not
followed, an extensive report review was not performed.
Our processing of this report, at this time, does not
preclude HUD from taking administrative actions should
subsequent information disclose that such actions are
warranted. HUD reserves the right to return the report
based upon subsequent review of the lA's workpapers, if such
a review identifies significant deficiencies.
The auditor did not question any costs, note any
material weaknesses in internal or administrative controls
or instances of non-compliance with laws and regulations.
The report contains no OIG or program-controlled findings/
recommendations.
"FAIR HOUSING BREAKS DOWN BARRIERS FOR ALL"
~
~
-
2
If you or your staff have further questions, Mrs. Doane
at (804) 771-2571 will be happy to provide assistance. You
are commended for the proper administration of HUD programs.
cc:
Ms. Bonny Davies
Administrative Agent, Albemarle
Section 8 Office
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Very Sincere~~~
/'-','11 1/''':<'
<"'''' -" ,
'0
();;"~1':::132~ ~S)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
, ;',1
j'
MEMORANDUM
. .
FILE, SPECIAL PERMIT #90-99 - Rappahannock Electric
cooperative
Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator~
April 30, 1992
Interpretation of Condition #8 of Approval
his special permit was approved by the Board of supervisors on
ugust 7, 1991 to allow construction of an electrical power
ubstation and transmission line on properties between Rt. 29 and
t. 763 near Piney Mountain. This approval is subject to 9
onditions. The purpose of this memo is to clarify the meaning of
he distance requirement in condi tion #8, which states:
'Centerline of transmission shall not be located closer than 250
eet to any dwelling and shall be in accord with the routing
ndicated in Attachment A." It is my opinion that this minimum
eparation from the transmission line shall apply only to dwellings
xisting at the date of approval of this special permit.
have been requested to make this interpretation by both an
nvolved property owner and Bill Fritz of the Department of
lanning and community Development. A copy of this decision will
e forwarded also to Rappahannock Electric Cooperative and to the
the Board of Supervisors, for inclusion in their consent
n consideration of this interpretation, I consulted the file, the
ranscript of both public hearing discussions, and the County
ttorney. The record reflects that this 250 foot distance is that
istance from existing dwellings to the proposed transmission line.
urther, it would stand to reason that the intent is to protect the
ights of the residents, particularly those who established homes
efore the power line was approved. Now that this is an approved
se, those who chose to build a home closer than 250 feet to the
roposed or existing line, are those who would be most directly
mpacted by that decrease in distance.
c: VEstelle Neher, Rappahannock Electric, Gerald Herring, Planning
..
DISTRIBUTED TO (l)A:<D ME^',3f:RS
ON ~-; - / ,j~l^
r ')
ROBERT B. ST OUBE, M.O, M.PH
STATE HEALTH COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Health
Bureau of Toxic Substances
1500 E. Main St., RM 124
P. O. Box 2448
Richmond, VA 23218
Phone (804) 786-1763
FAX: (804) 786-9510
, I'
May 8, 1992
,l!
. Ella Carey, Deputy Clerk
ard of Supervisors' Office
bemarle County Office Building
1 McIntire Road
arlottesville, VA 22901
Ms. Carey,
As we discussed on the telephone last month, I am sending you
t 0 copies of the Draft for Public Comment Public Health Assessment
witten for the Greenwood Chemical Company National Priorities List
s.te. I am also enclosing, for your information, a copy of the
p blic notice and a copy of the news release which will be sent
s 'multaneously to area news media representatives. These documents
s ould be placed in your public area so that interested members of
t e public will have access to them.
Our public comment period will last from May 15, 1992 through
ne 15, 1992. Only written comments will be accepted. Each
itten comment will receive a written response in the appendix of
e final document.
Thank you for your assistance in this activity. If you should
ve any questions, please do not hesitate to call me (804)786-1763
to write to the address listed on the public notice.
Sincerely,
~r~ &J'kLl
Vickie O'Dell
Information Specialist
E closures
I'~DH~~~~~~~ENT
I OF HEALTH
Proh'{ titJ~ YOll .mri Your fll~'irolJmf'nt
11
J>.-
D1STRlBUTED TO SO,\fW N,:~',\8~i,S
'--, ,'-.' ,
ON ~ I ~ .~(! '-;~=--._.
PUBLIC NOTICE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
he Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Public
ealth Assessment for the Greenwood Chemical Superfund National
riorities List site will be available on May 15, 1992, at the
ollowing repositories:
Crozet Branch Library
P.O. Box 430
Crozet, VA 22932
(804)823-4050
Albemarle/Charlottesville Health Department
1138 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22906
(804)972-6219
Albemarle County Office Building
Board of Supervisors Office
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
(804)296-5841
he Public Comment Period will run May 15 - June 15, 1992.
omments postmarked after that time will not be considered.
omments received during the public comment period will be logged
nd will become part of the administrative record for the Public
ealth Assessment. Comments and responses will be included in an
ppendix to the final Public Health Assessment. Commenters' names
ill not be included in the Public Health Assessment; however, they
re subj ect to Freedom of Information Act requests. For that
eason, individuals should exercise their own judgment concerning
he inclusion of any personal health information or other
onfidential data in comments sent to ATSDR. Only written comments
ill be accepted. Comments should be directed to:
Dr. Peter C. Sherertz
Bureau of Toxic Substances, Room 124
Virginia Department of Health
P.O. Box 2448
Richmond, VA 23218
tf sufficient public comments are received, a public meeting may be
~eld. Please contact Vickie O'Dell at (804)786-1763, if you have
~uestions.
DISTRIBUTED TO BOAr'D N\EI\\BERS
,- ) /' ')
ON -') . I)' ') (p .
May 14, 1992
Contact:
Barbara Mitchell
Information Officer
804/786-3551
OR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
ANNOUNCED FOR GREENWOOD CHEMICAL
itizens will be able to review and comment on a health assessment
f the Greenwood Chemical facility in Albemarle County, Virginia
rom May 15 through June 15. Greenwood Chemical is a Superfund
ational Priorities List site.
he document contains information about hazardous substances at the
ite and evaluates whether exposure to the substances might cause
arm to people living, working or playing on or near the site. The
gency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), part of
he U. s. Public Health Service, conducted the evaluation. The
nvironmental Protection Agency and the Virginia Department of
ealth provided information and review to the document.
ach ATSDR assessment identifies studies or actions needed to
valuate, correct or protect human health. Recommendations are
lso made to other federal and state agencies.
health assessment is available for review at three locations:
Crozet Branch Library
P.O. Box 430
Crozet, VA 22932
(804)823-4050
Albemarle/Charlottesville Health Department
1138 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22906
(804)972-6219
-MORE-
I
Albemarle County Office Building
Board of Supervisors Office
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
(804)296-5841
DISTRIBUTED TO EOA!W ME!v'.3iY:
:) ) ~ - c/ J-
ON . ~ ...~___".._____
Only written comments can be accepted. They should be addressed
to:
Dr. Peter C. Sherertz
Bureau of Toxic Substances, Room 124
Virginia Department of Health
P.O. Box 2448
Richmond, VA 23218
Comments will be logged and become part of the administrati ve
record for the assessment. Comments (without attribution) and
responses will be included in an appendix to the final document.
Although names will not be included, they are subject to Freedom of
Information Act requests. For that reason, individuals should use
jUdgment concerning the inclusion of any personal health
information or other confidential data in comments sent to ATSDR.
Community members seeking information on the public comment
procedures should contact Barbara Mitchell (804)786-3551 or Vickie
O'Dell (804) 786-1763 at the Virginia Department of Health in
Richmond.
-BllD-
I
--
..
AI
INITIAL RELEASE
HEALTH ASSESSMENT
GREENWOOD CHEMICAL COMPANY
NEWTOWN, ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
CERCLIS NO. VAD003125374
FINAL DRAFT POR PUBLIC COHKENT
MAY 15, 1992
Prepared by:
Bureau of Toxic Substances
virqinia Department of Health (VDH)
for:
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation (DRAC)
Aqency for Toxic Substances and Disease Reqistry (ATSDR)
-
..
INITIAL RELEASE
BACKGROUND
A. SITE DESCRIPT~ON AND HISTORY
Gree wood Chemical Company was placed on the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) National Priorities List (NPL) (words appearing in bold are
defi ed in the "Glossary" at the end of this Health Assessment) in July
1987. EPA emergency response activities took place at the site over the
next 18 months (1987-88). A Record of Decision (ROD) to remediate (i.e.,
clea up) on-site soil contamination was signed by EPA in December 1989.
A R D addressing ground water, sediments, and additional soils was
finalized in December 1990.
The Greenwood Chemical Company site is located in Albemarle County,
Vir inia, between the cities of Waynesboro and Charlottesville,
approximately 4 miles east of Rockfish Gap at the foot of Bear Den Mountain
and the Blue Ridge Mountain Range. Access to the site is from Route 690
via outes 250 and 796. The site entrance is near the center of the small
viii ge of Newtown, Virginia.
ite consists of approximately 18 acres. It is bounded by Route 690 and
stjwest residential access road (dead end) to the north, a hedgerow to
the ast, the Mt. Zion Baptist Church property to the west, and the largest
lagoon (Lagoon 5) to the south. The main on-site features (see attached
map) include three main processing buildings; two main warehouse buildings;
an 0 fice/laboratory building; numerous storage sheds; an outdoor platform;
a p p house; a concrete bunker; five former treatment lagoons (currently
bac filled or excavated); two treatment lagoons (full of water); several
dila idated and abandoned structures; and a former buried chemical drum
area. Two small farm ponds are located south and east of the chemical
processing and lagoon areas. South Pond is located on Greenwood Chemical
Comp ny property, while East Pond is on an adjacent (east) parcel of land.
The western and southern sides of the property have small streams which
receive surface water runoff from the site. These streams are tributaries
to S ockton Creek, and ultimately, the Rivanna River.
1947, chemical operations at the Greenwood Chemical Company site have
place under three different owners and three different company names.
ugh major processing operations ceased in April 1985, the current
continues to perform limited chemical handling operations, including
oordination of chemical shipments from the site.
sinc the onset of operations, a variety of chemical products with
applications in industrial, pesticide, pharmaceutical, and photographic
proc sses have been manufactured at the Greenwood Chemical Company site.
The primary products manufactured at the site have included
naph haleneacetic acid, a product used to prevent premature fruit drop
prio to harvest; 1-naphthaldehyde, a product used in metal plating; and
naph hoic acid, a product associated with photography. Other chemical
prod cts produced have included diamine (hydrazine), 2-amino benzo
-
..
INITIAL RELEASE
chi rophenol, magnesium sulfate, and polyurethane. Dimethyl pyridine was
use as a catalyst in the synthesis of polyurethane. Feedstock chemicals
use in the manufacturing process of naphthaleneacetic acid included
nap thalene derivatives, sodium cyanide, sulfuric acid, paraformaldehyde,
and hydrogen peroxide. The naphthalene derivatives were chemically
com ined with sodium cyanide under alkaline conditions. From 1 to 10 tons
of yanide were used per year by Greenwood Chemical Company. In addition,
ars nic salts were used as catalysts to produce chloromethylnaphthalene, an
int rmediate in the production of naphthaleneacetic acid. During the final
yea s of operations (1982-85), various naphthalene and benzene derivatives
wer either produced or used in chemical processes.
Dur'ng the initial period of operations, waste water from the manufacturing
act .vities was discharged into a small lagoon, which has since been
bac filled. The EPA designated this former lagoon Backfill North (see
att ched map). Following closure of the Backfill North lagoon, waste water
fro Building A (used strictly for the production of naphthaleneacetic
aci ) was directed to Lagoon 1, while waste water from Buildings Band C
rep rtedly entered Lagoon 2. Building C was used for the following four
pro esses: production of naphthaldehyde via a confidential process;
pro uction of 2-benzoyl pyridine by reacting 2-cyanopyridine in a solvent
of onochlorobenzene; purification of the sodium salt of beta-naphthalene-
sui onic-acid; and dissolution of organic powder in toluene via another
pro rietary process. Building B was used only when there was insufficient
cap city in Building C.
Lagoons 1 and 2 reached a predetermined level, allegedly, waste water
routed to Lagoon 3 through overflow pipelines. Lagoons 1, 2, and 3 did
incorporate any processes to aid in the breakdown of waste organic
icals. Waste water from Lagoon 3 was routed to Lagoon 4, and then to
on 5. Lagoon 5 utilized evaporative surface-spray devices to prevent
flow. The surface sizes of these lagoons ranged from 500 square feet to
app oximately 11,000 square feet. originally, all five lagoons were
unl'ned. In 1978, all the lagoons reportedly were drained and bentonite
lin rs were installed. Details concerning the construction methods,
mat rials, or thickness of these liners could not be determined from
ava'lable information.
facturing activities at the site involved the handling of a large
er of drums containing various waste, feedstock, intermediate, and
I products. Historical aerial photos show tens to hundreds of chemical
s in the vicinity of the process buildings throughout the 1970s and
y 1980s. There does not appear to have been a formal system of
gement for these drums.
er employees reported chemical containers routinely were buried on
These drums contained sodium metal, toluene, caustic lye, sodium
oxide and associated process by-products, such as fiber barrels of a
like residue containing bromine reacted with pyridine, chloroform, and
thylamine. The primary disposal site consisted of a series of trenches
2
INITIAL RELEASE
the western boundary of the site. Other areas used for storage
r disposal of containerized wastes included an area adjacent to the
ials handling shed, designated the Waste Dump (west of Building A),
and wooded area on the northeastern corner of the property. All drums
were removed from the trenches during EPA's Emergency Removal activities in
Dece ber 1987. Drums from the Waste Dump are believed to have been
remo ed, while those dumped in the wooded area remain.
965, an unidentified cyanide-laced liquid spill was apparently
nsible for the deaths of 10 cows and hundreds of birds and small
is that approached stockton Creek. A fish kill of over 4,000 fish
red on July 1, 1971, in stockton Creek, after heavy rains caused
lago ns to overflow. Fish tissue analysis was not performed. In 1972, a
poss' ble cyanide gas release from the site allegedly killed cows on
neig boring farms. In 1975, accidental spills migrating to stockton Creek
repo tedly resulted in cattle and fish kills, however, no data were
avai able from the Virginia state Water Control Board (SWCB). In 1980,
thre workers filed complaints with the state alleging that another fish
kill had occurred and that "midnight dumping" was being practiced on site.
The PA has classified the remedial work at Greenwood Chemical Company into
two categories referred to as Operable Units. Operable Unit-1 (OU-1)
addr sses contaminated soil associated with Lagoons 1, 2, and 3, and
Back ill North. OU-1 also includes leftover drums and containers of
chem'cals in the process buildings. OU-1 comprises approximately 1.5 acres
and is located at the center of the site. An inventory of the drums and
cont iners was conducted in June 1988, and confirmed during an inspection
in J ne 1989. All the drums and containers in the buildings were examined
by E A emergency response contractors and sorted according to each drum's
chem' cal characteristics. The components of Operable Unit-2 (OU-2) include
grou d water beneath and adjacent to the site, and surface water in Lagoon
4, L goon 5 and a farm pond.
ghout its history of operation, Greenwood Chemical Company has been
ed by numerous accidents, fires, and explosions. A number of these
ents resulted in injury and/or death to workers. The most severe
ent occurred in April 1985, when toluene was ignited, resulting in an
sion and fire.
Spec'fic details pertaining to emergency removal activities conducted in
1987 88 associated with OU-1 include:
1) Approximately 400 buried drums and other containers were
excavated, overpacked, and removed from the former buried drum area.
Following drum excavation and removal, the area was backfilled,
covered with a layer of 10-mil-thick synthetic sheeting and a layer of
seeded topsoil was added. A shallow French drain also was
excavated upgradient of the former buried drum area to divert surface
water from this area.
3
..
INITIAL RELEASE
2) A significant number of surface drums were sampled and removed
from the site.
3) Water from Lagoons 1, 2, and 3 was pumped into Lagoon 4, treated
with activated carbon, and released into Lagoon 5.
4) sludge and associated soil from Lagoons 1, 2, and 3 were
excavated and the sludge was sent off site for disposal. The
associated soil (800 cubic yards) was stabilized with kiln dust,
placed in a temporary vault constructed in the void created by the
excavation of Lagoon 3, and capped with clay and topsoil.
5) Subsequent to the excavation of contaminated sludge and soil,
Lagoon 1 was lined with 10-mil-thick synthetic sheeting, then
backfilled with 3 to 4 feet of clean, site-derived soil.
6) Drums and containers found in on-site buildings were examined,
inventoried, and overpacked, when necessary. All of the drums and
containers were sorted and stored in several of the on-site
buildings.
7) Potentially explosive materials were detonated on the site.
8) Access to the three main process buildings was restricted by
boarding windows and locking doors.
A F cused Feasibility Study (FFS) addressing OU-1 was completed in August
1989. The Remedial Investiqation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was initiated
in ctober 1988. The ROD for OU-1 was signed December 29, 1989, and
incl ded the following major components: excavation of soil associated
wit four former lagoons and exceeding risk-based, clean-up levels
(es imated at 4,500 cubic yards); implementation of surface water runoff
con rols during excavation; staging and screening of the excavated soil;
tra sportation of contaminated soil to an off-site, high temperature, a
Res rce Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-permitted thermal treatment
fac.lity (i.e., incinerator) or off-site disposal facility; incineration of
soi (as necessary), stabilization of the ash (as necessary), and disposal
of t e ash in RCRA Subtitle C landfill; backfilling of the excavated areas
wit clean fill; coverage with topsoil and revegetation; and removal/
dis osal of chemicals in on-site buildings.
B.
On arch 29, 1990, a site visit was conducted by representatives from the
VDH (Dr. Gerald Llewellyn, Dr. Peter Sherertz, Mr. Stan Orchel, Jr., Ms.
Con ie Webb, and Mr. Sanjay Thirunagari), ATSDR (Mr. Bucky Walters), EPA
Region III (Mr. Darius Ostrauskas and Mr. Douglas Fox), Virginia Department
of W ste Management (Mr. Khoa Nguyen), Northwest Regional Health Department
(Mr. Allen Gutshall), and Thomas Jefferson Health District (Dr. Susan
4
INITIAL RELEASE
McL od and Mr. John collins). Areas of special interest at the site were
the process buildings, five former lagoon areas, two lagoons filled with
liq ids, the former buried-drum area, and the south farm pond. At the time
of he visit, site access was unrestricted. Some buildings were boarded and
loc ed; however, a few buildings were open. There were no warning signs
pos ed on the buildings, other than for asbestos. Areas of stressed
veg tat ion were observed, including discolored and sparse vegetation.
Sev ral homes and a church were within viewing distance of the site. It
was reported that deer and hunters have been observed on site.
At he time of the visit, the site was undergoing maintenance work by an
EPA emergency removal team to control runoff and erosion.
C. OMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS
cal citizens' group, Greenwood citizens' Council (GCC), is monitoring
-related events and has been interested in the site for a number of
s. The group has a membership of approximately 200 people and was
blished in the late 1960s to address county-wide concerns. currently,
considers the Greenwood Chemical Company site one of its priorities.
1 residents and county officials have expressed a high level of concern
rding the Greenwood Chemical Company site. While the officials' chief
ern is for the regional water supply, the primary concern of local
dents is for their personal safety. This concern encompasses both
r immediate physical safety and their future health. Virtually all of
residents vividly recall the explosions and fires that have occurred on
, as well as the livestock and wildlife kills that have happened in
ds and streams off site. In addition, many residents have felt that
of the rashes, sore throats, sores, and headaches they experienced at
ous times in the past, and particularly those that occurred after
aps at the plant, were attributable to chemical exposure from the
ical manufacturing facility. The Newtown community is adamant that
her Greenwood Chemical Company nor any similar business should ever be
wed to operate in the community again.
the county officials, residents of the Greenwood community, who are
immediately adjacent to the Greenwood Chemical Company's property, are
erned about the ground-water aquifer. They believe that the Greenwood
Che ical Company site poses a potential danger to the water supply of the
ent're county of Albemarle.
residents believe that the Greenwood Chemical Company site poses an
imm. nent danger to human life. Local residents are convinced that
rdous substances are buried throughout the Greenwood Chemical Company's
erty. There is concern that Agent Orange and nerve gases may be buried
Many residents are concerned that animals or local children may
into contact wi th dangerous substances if they wander into the
erty, which is not fenced and is located near a playground.
5
.-
..
INITIAL RELEASE
Beca se of the April 1985 explosion and fire, local residents are concerned
abo t flammable and combustible materials remaining at the site. There is
substantial concern regarding long-term health effects. Several residents
rep rted that following the fires and explosions that occurred on site,
hom s were often covered with a dusting of "crystals" and residents
exp rienced sore throats, headaches, sores, or rashes. They are worried
abo t these apparent exposures and wonder about less visible chemicals that
may have been in air breathed over the years. In addition, they are
con erned about chemicals they may have consumed in drinking water or in
local agricultural products, especially milk.
Residents are concerned about the effect of the site on surface water and
gro nd water. The Greenwood Chemical Company site is drained by an unnamed
tri tary to Stockton Creek and is located in the watershed of the Rivanna
Riv This river is a main water source for the City of Charlottesville
and much of Albemarle County. Also, large portions of the county are
rur 1, and residents in these areas rely on ground water wells. Although
well samples, taken to date, have revealed no significant site-related
con amination, the concern of contaminants from the site migrating to the
gro nd water remains.
DEMOGRAPHICS, LAND USE, AND NATURAL RESOURCE USE
town of Greenwood is about 0.75 mile northeast of the site. The
est community to the Greenwood Chemical Company is the village of
own. The village is bounded by State Routes 690, 250, 691, and several
1 roads. Newtown is a rural community which contains a church (Mt.
zio Baptist Church), a general store, and a community center. The church
is 1 cated approximately 300 feet from the site boundary, and has a regular
Sun ay attendance of approximately 150 people. The community center
loc ted across the road from the church is approximately 400 feet from the
sit. There are approximately 50 residences in Newtown.
population within a 3-mile radius of the Greenwood Chemical Company
is approximately 1,150 people. The distance from the site to the
clo est residence is 400 feet. At the time of our site visit, there was at
least one new house under construction in the area.
own and residences downgradient of the site do not have a public water
ly system. All of the nearby residents utilize ground water as their
ce of potable (drinking) water. The water supply for local residents
btained from wells, which range in depth from 50 to 250 feet. The
pri cipal sources of water for previous domestic use on site were an open
well and a deep well drilled into bedrock which were constructed by
Gre nwood Chemical Company. The deep well water was used for industrial
(no -human consumptive) purposes only.
rimary land uses surrounding Greenwood Chemical are rural residential
gricul tural in nature. Local farms produce apples, peaches, and dairy
6
INITIAL RELEASE
cat le. One utilized farm pond is located immediately downgrade of the
sit . The western and southern sides of the property have small streams
whi h receive surface water runoff from the site. These streams drain into
sto kton Creek which joins the Rivanna River. The Rivanna River supplies
pot ble water for the City of Charlottesville. The intake point is located
app oximately 20 miles downstream from the Greenwood Chemical Company site.
EHVIRONKENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS
A. N-SITE CONTAMINATION
history of the Greenwood Chemical Company site indicates that the
ing of chemical wastes into unlined lagoons and the burial of chemical
s have contributed heavily to on-site contamination of soils, ground
r, and surface water.
rding to the January 1990 RI report, the primary sources of on-site
amination are contaminated soils beneath the process buildings, the
handling areas, the east drum and waste dump areas, backfill
rials, and underlying native soils in the drum disposal area.
of selected contaminants of concern present in the soils, sediment,
water, and surface water is shown in Table 1.
7
INITIAL RELEASE
Table 1
contaminants of Concern Detected
in Different Media
at the Greenwood Chemical site in 1989
Maximum concentration
Cheaical Soil1 Sediment2 Ground water Surface water
Type (mg/kg) (~g/kg) (~g/L) (~g/L)
Oraanics
iAcenaphthalene3 1.8 - 2.0 -
Benzene 230.0 - 230.0 -
Chlorobenzene4 - 36.0 25.0 2.0
2 -Chloronaphthalene3.4 21.0 - - -
1,2-Dichloroethenes - 7.0 80.0 7.0
~ethylene Chlorides 550.0 49.0 8.0 10.0
2-Methylnaphthalene3 900.0 210.0 5.0 -
Naphthalene3 3,100.0 3,200.0 152.5 -
Toluene 6,400.0 13.0 5,100.0 25.0
TrichloroethyleneS 32.0 9.0 98.0 -
Inoraanic. mer/ker mer/kg IMl.1.1:! IMl.1.1:!
~senic 1,630.0 145.0 39.0 17.4
Cyanide 2,870.0 84.0 40.0 64.9
Ilmay represent surface or subsurface s01l
~samples taken from Lagoons 4 and 5, South Pond, and West Stream
bpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
~chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons
~chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons
(-) no data available
8
-
INITIAL RELEASE
e
g the EPA emergency removal activities conducted in 1987/1988, sludge
Lagoons 1, 2, and 3 was excavated after stabilization with kiln dust.
stabilized material was subsequently removed from the site.
e samples from Lagoons 1, 2, and 4, collected in May 1985, contained
two rganic compounds [methylene chloride (800 mg/kg) and toluene (390,000
mg/k )] and two inorganic compounds [cyanide (470 mg/kg) and arsenic
(con entration unavailable)]. Samples from Lagoon 1 also contained
naph halene (12,000 mg/kg). Samples collected from Lagoons 3 and 5 in June
1985 found several organic compounds [i.e., toluene (1,500 mg/kg),
naph halene (420 mg/kg), and naphthaleneacetic acid (1,600 mg/kg)].
sampling was conducted on site in April 1987. The detected
minants of concern were naphthalene, benzene, and toluene.
any of the soil samples collected during the 1988-1989 field
tigations, concentrations of toluene and naphthalene compounds
rema . ned high, even though EPA emergency response actions had removed
evid nt principal sources of contamination on the site. The presence of
cont minated soil around the process areas and drum disposal areas can be
cons.dered a potential source of contamination of the surface water and
grou d water. Table 1 shows the concentrations of contaminants of concern
dete ted in soil samples collected in 1989. Surface soil samples collected
in 1 89 showed maximum concentrations of naphthalene (66.0 mg/kg), toluene
(1,3 0 mg/kg), arsenic (1,370 mg/kg), and cyanide (2,870 mg/kg).
d Water
d water sampling in the vicinity of the Greenwood Chemical site was
cted in June 1985, May 1987, May 1988, and February 1989. The sampling
onducted to detect on-site and off-site ground water contamination.
are 30 monitoring wells on site. Thirteen are drilled in bedrock, and
est are drilled to the over~urdeD.
The ground water samples collected to date contained volatile organic
comp unds such as chlorobenzene, benzene, and toluene. The concentrations
of ontaminants detected in ground water samples collected in 1989 are
sho in Table 1. The ground water also contains significant
conc ntrations of semi volatile organic compounds. Most semi volatile
comp unds detected are naphthalene derivatives. Low levels of cyanide have
been detected periodically at a few sampled locations.
The oncentration of arsenic in ground water at the site has been noted to
chan e significantly from one well to another. The maximum concentration
of rsenic detected in ground water was 39.0 p.g/L, which is above the
back round arsenic concentration in bedrock ground water samples (2.3 p.g/L
to 5 p.g/L). However, arsenic is not considered a contaminant of concern in
grou d water since the observed maximum concentration is less than the MCL
(50 g/L).
9
INITIAL RELEASE
ace Water and Sediment
rimary surface water bodies on-site are Lagoons 4 and 5, and the South
. A recent sampling of lagoon liquids, and to a lesser extent, the
h Pond, has indicated the presence of elevated cyanide levels. Samples
other surface water bodies and Lagoons 4 and 5 were collected in
ember 1987, December 1988, and March 1989. Table 1 shows the
entrations of contaminants of concern detected in surface water samples
ected in 1989. In addition, toluene was detected (just above the level
etection) in Lagoons 4 and 5 in 1989.
Con
sam
for
pho
Sou
the
wat
sur
entrations of cyanide and arsenic were high in the surface water
Since the lagoons were used for waste water treatment, they
ed a potential source of transport for contaminants. Aerial
ographs show the lagoons have overflowed in the past, resulting in
h Pond contamination. Contamination of the South Pond by overflow from
lagoons is no longer occurring. Another potential source of surface
r contamination is the discharge of contaminated ground water to
ace streams and ponds.
Sed. ent samples, including sludges, collected in 1987, contained
ificant concentrations of toluene and 1,2-dichloroethene in Lagoons 4
5. The concentrations of volatile organics in sediment samples
ected in 1989 were very low when compared with those taken in 1987. A
lar e number of semivolatile organics were detected in the liquid portion
of t e sediment samples from all lagoons. These included naphthalene and
2-m thylnaphthalene.
B.
F-SITB CONTAMINATION
d Water
ajor off-site ground water contamination studies include the sampling
of g ound water from residential wells. Over 28 residential wells have been
sampled at different intervals since May 1987. The majority of
down radient wells sampled were drilled into bedrock to a maximum depth of
250 feet. These wells are located west, south, and southeast of the site.
The losest well is located 50 feet from the eastern boundary of the site,
and the closest downgradient well is located approximately 1,400 feet
sout east of the southern site boundary. The results of recent sampling of
resi ential wells (conducted in February 1989) indicated that the quality
of g ound water used by residents was not affected by contaminants from the
Gree wood Chemical Company site.
a d Sed me t
ff-site surface water and sediment studies in 1987 and 1989 included
ing of water from the East Pond and various locations along the West
m. Stockton Creek and the Rivanna River have not been sampled for the
minants of concern.
10
-
INITIAL RELEASE
nd water and much of the surface water runoff from the site discharges
the West stream. Several volatile organic compounds were detected in
surface water and sediment samples collected from the West Stream and
Pond in 1987. However, the concentration of volatile organics in East
Pon surface water samples collected in 1989 was below detectable limits.
Sedi ent samples from locations upstream and downstream from the site in
the West Stream had the same chemicals (i. e.. methylene chloride and
ace one) and similar concentrations. The most likely sources of this
contamination in the West Stream could be motor vehicle traffic on Highway
690 and Interstate 64 and/or asphalt-based pavement materials on either
roa. In addition, some of the compounds detected are contaminants
as so iated with sampling glassware.
C.
ALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
Contaminant concentrations considered for this Health Assessment were
deri ed from information supplied by the EPA. A majority of the samples
were analyzed as per the EPA contract laboratory program, which utilizes
mand ted QA/QC programs for review and reporting of data prior to
publication.
s further assumed that QA/QC measures were taken with regard to
ction of samples, chain-of-custody, and laboratory procedures. The
tion of analytical procedures required for the analyses of the wide
of contaminants present at the Greenwood Chemical Company site is a
ical problem. Since the conclusions made in this Health Assessment are
on the information provided, their accuracy is directly related to
eliability of the referenced information.
The VDH is concerned with the elevated limits of detection for the soil
samples. Many of the soil samples collected in 1989 had concentrations of
tolu ne and naphthalene compounds high enough to require sample dilution by
the aboratory. For those samples with high detection limits, the presence
of 0 her organic compounds was observed only when the concentrations were
unus ally high. Hence, the conclusion regarding the presence or absence of
orga ic compounds, when detection limits are elevated, is generally not
defi itive.
oncentration of compounds such as methylene chloride and acetone was
ently observed to be high in blanks and some upstream sediment
es. This poses uncertainty of the reported values for these
minants. The RI indicates additional steps should be considered in
zing samples for cyanide, which is periodically detected in ground
at a few sampled locations. Based on the history of operations at
this site, however, methylene chloride is conservatively included, and the
qual.ty of the data available for on-site contamination of soil, surface
wate , sediments, and ground water media is considered adequate for this
Heal h Assessment.
11
INITIAL RELEASE
D. P YSICAL AND OTHER HAZARDS
The Greenwood Chemical Company exhibits many physical hazards. These
de deteriorating buildings; large, open lagoons filled with
minated liquids; broken and rusting tanks; and discarded equipment.
ntly, site access is unrestricted. There are several residences in the
ity of the site. Trespassing by nearby residents, including children,
ssible.
PATHWAYS ANALYSES
IROHMENTAL PATHWAYS (FATE AND TRANSPORT)
The site soil is colluvial (weathered material transported by gravity
ill) ranging in thickness from 0 to 15 feet. The soils at the site are
ted to be moderately permeable. Areas with moderate soil permeability
ase the rate of erosion and surface water runoff from the site.
ure spacing of the bedrock is moderately close (0.2 to 2.5 feet), with
ure frequency decreasing with depth. The thickness of soil between
urface and the bedrock underneath OU-1 is approximately 60 to 80 feet
he depth to ground water in this area ranges from 21 to 31 feet. The
portion of overburden (consisting of soil and saprolite) is believed
nsist of approximately 50 percent clay material, which decreases the
of contaminant migration by sorption. Average horizontal seepage
velo ity is estimated at 2.6 feet per day in fractured bedrock and 0.03
foot per day in the overburden. The hydrogeologic data indicate a hydraulic
inte connection between the bedrock and the overburden.
reenwood Chemical Company site is located near the eastern edge of the
Ridge Mountains. The topography of the site slopes predominantly to
outheast. The surface elevation of the area ranges from 817 feet above
sea level (MSL) to 1,013 feet above MSL. The general direction of the
d water flow is toward the southeast.
d water at the Greenwood Chemical Company site occurs in both the
ured bedrock and the overburden. The ground water flow pattern is
ex because of the changes in local topography, textural and
sitional heterogeneities in the saprolite, and the presence of
ure networks found in both saprolite and bedrock. Significant
tions in vertical heads in the bedrock indicate the existence of
rent hydraulic conduits for contaminant migration, which is related to
ariable fracture pattern. The most recent ground water elevations were
red in October 1989.
The elease of chemical contaminants into the environment at the Greenwood
Chem.cal Company site appears to have taken place through surface water,
12
INITIAL RELEASE
grou d water, soil, and sediment. The concentration of a contaminant in a
part'cular media depends on one or more of the following factors:
Natural background concentrations of a compound in the tansport
media.
Concentration and chemical form released into the media.
The length of time the media may have been exposed to the source
of contamination.
The interaction of the chemical with the media.
The fate and transport of contaminants in the environment depends on
chem.cal, physical, and biological processes. Since the majority of organic
chem'cals detected at the Greenwood Chemical Company site are soluble in
wate , ground water and surface water may be considered the principal modes
of ran sport for these contaminants. Due to their high concentration in
soil , benzene and toluene could reach the ground water by a leaching
proc ss.
The ajority of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (naphthalene
and related compounds) detected at Greenwood Chemical Company have low
mole ular weights and only two aromatic ring structures, which increases
thei solubility in water. Therefore, these compounds have been detected
in s rface water and ground water at the Greenwood Chemical Company site.
compounds of concern at this site include the chlorinated
arom tic hydrocarbons (~ ,chlorobenzene and 2-chloronaphthalene).
They tend to be adsorbed to organic material in soil; moreover, the higher
the mount of chlorination, the more strongly adsorbed these compounds will
be. Chlorobenzenes (with two chlorine atoms) are fairly volatile and
solu le. They moderately adsorb onto organic material in soil and
biod grade very slowly. Therefore, they are expected to leach in the
grou d water.
inated aliphatic hydrocarbons (~, methylene chloride,
loroethylene, and 1,2,-dichloroethene) have high water solubilities.
ion is not a predominant fate/transport mechanism compared to
ility and vaporization. When 1, 2-dichloroethene is released to
ce water, its primary loss will be by evaporation. Adsorption to
ents is not expected to occur.
ersistence of metals in soil and ground water media may be affected by
es in pH and temperature. Arsenic could be removed from ground water
dsorbed to soil particles by steep changes in ground water levels due
asonal variations. Cyanide is present in aquatic systems. Cyanide
may Iso adsorb to soil and sediment particles, however, changes in pH
cond . tions could lead to biodegradation of arsenic and cyanide in the
envi onment.
13
-
INITIAL RELEASE
Biot
The bioaccumulation of an organic compound or metallic element in fish
species is highly compound- or element-specific. Within a particular
che ical class, chemical constituents may exhibit variable bioaccumulation
factors (RI, 1990). In general, volatile organics and metals do not
bioaccumulate appreciably in aquatic organisms (RI, 1990). Lower molecular
wei t PAHs, such as those detected at the Greenwood Chemical Company site,
gene ally have much lower bioaccumulation factors. In addition, PAH
bioaccumulation is considered to be a transitory process, since most lower
molecular weight PAHs are readily metabolized by higher organisms (RI,
1990). Therefore, bioaccumulation is not expected to be a significant
envi onmental process at this site.
Soil
The presence of high quantities of clay minerals in the overburden and
sedi ents could lead to high cation exchange reactions. As a result, most
of e contaminants from aqueous media could be separated and adsorbed to
these clay particles. Therefore, contaminant migration of the different
che ical groups at this site could be reduced. The mobility of metals is
hig ly reduced in this type of soil media.
For the contaminants present at the Greenwood Chemical Company site, 2-
met lnaphthalene is anticipated to be highly sorbed to soil particles. In
contrast, volatile organic aromatic compounds are expected to be weakly
sor ed. Thus, sorption to site soils and/or sediments is expected to be a
ver significant environmental fate process for the PAH's, and the metals
of c ncern, but not for benzene, toluene, and the chlorinated hydrocarbons.
Gro d Water
The round water in the site vicinity plays a key role in transporting the
con aminants off-site. Based on sampling data, we believe that the primary
sources of ground water contamination are the process and lagoon areas, the
dru storage area, and the drum disposal areas. Recharge (ground water
replenishment) of the upper portion of bedrock occurs from water passing
thr gh the contaminated overburden. This process has resulted in the
migration of contaminants into fractures of bedrock.
Most of the chemicals identified at the site are soluble in water. The
migration of contaminants in ground water is controlled by a combination of
factors, including each contaminant's chemical and physical properties and
the site's hydraulic gradient. The predominant migration is
sout /southeastward. A major factor to be considered is the relative
density of the contaminants in the media (which determines the depth of
thei occurrence). The other factors to be considered are the pressure
diff rence in each fracture zone and fracture frequency and direction. It
is ossible the contaminants could be transported through the vertical
frac ures and affect the quality of ground water in distant residential
wells.
14
-
INITIAL RELEASE
Grolnd water flow velocity calculations have resulted in a linear seepage
ratl~ estimate of 1 to 180 feet/year with a maximum vertical ground water
flo~lT velocity of 28 feet/year. Based on this velocity rate, the time
reql ired for a particular contaminant to reach the nearest residential well
locited downgradient of the site may vary depending on the length of flow
froln point of source to point of discharge. Based on the observed rates of
mig ation (28 feet/yr), the estimated earliest arrival of site-related
con aminants in the nearest residential well, located approximately 2,800
fee southeast of the southern-most contaminated monitoring wells at the
sitl , would be 100 years. However, the physical and chemical properties of
a cc ntaminant could further retard or accelerate its migration rate. These
calc~ulations suggest that contaminants may appear in residential wells in
the future.
Sur ace Water
The majority of contaminant migration by the surface water route occurs as
on-ll;ite surface water runoff. Since most of the contaminants are water
soll~ble, they may be easily transported by surface water to off-site
loce tions. complete isolation of the source of contamination from surface
wat4er could reduce the existing surface water transport of compounds.
B. lJUMAN EXPOSURE PATB1fAYS
A \ ariety of contaminants have been identified in several different
env ronmental media at the Greenwood Chemical Company site. Based on
cur ently available site information, the potential human exposure pathways
tha may be occurring or may occur in the future, for this site, include:
1. Ingestion and dermal absorption of contaminants in soils.
2. Ingestion, dermal absorption, and inhalation of contaminants in
ground water.
3. Ingestion of contaminated biota (~, fish).
Basl~d on available information, there have been no documented human
expcpsures.
sinc~e access to the Greenwood Chemical Company site currently is
unr.~stricted, children and other trespassers (hunters, fishermen, etc.) may
coml~ into direct contact with contaminated soils. Small children playing
on-l ite may ingest contaminated soil. This pathway is of greatest concern
for children less than 6 years of age, since they typically ingest 0.2
gralns of soil per day. While studies are not available for older children
and teenagers, it is generally believed that they ingest less than 0.2
gral~s of soil per day and their ingestion rate approaches that of adults,
whi(~h is less than 0.1 grams of soil per day. Dermal absorption of
coniaminants is also a potential route of concern, especially for children
com ng into direct contact with site soils.
15
-
INITIAL RELEASE
All persons within a 3-mile radius of the site currently utilize ground
wat r for drinking water purposes. Private wells also provide water for
coo ing, bathing, livestock, and irrigation of crops. To date, however,
the e wells hav~ not revealed contamination. The closest downgradient
res.dential well is located approximately 1,400 feet from the site. All
res.dential wells within a 3-mile radius of the site may be hydraulically
con ected to ground water underlying the site. Residents using potentially
con aminated wells could be exposed to contaminants through ingestion of
dri king water; dermal absorption via bathing, showering, hand-washing,
etc.; and inhalation of contaminants volatilized in aerosols and vapors
fro domestic water used during showering or other household activities.
Fis
con
bee
thi
sit
nea
str
consumption of area residents is a potential human exposure pathway to
aminants. However, minimal, if any, site-related contaminants have
detected in the West stream to date. It would be prudent to consider
human exposure pathway, since potentially harmful concentrations of
contaminants could accumulate in fish taken from stockton Creek and
by ponds and consequently be ingested by residents fishing from these
ams.
PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS
The array of chemicals present at the Greenwood Chemical Company site
pro ides a complicated environmental scenario. Specific identification and
qua tification of all detected compounds are not complete, nor have the
rea tions among the identified chemicals been fully characterized. Given
the e uncertainties, the following toxicological summaries provide a broad,
qualitative assessment of public health risks associated with the
con aminants of concern at the Greenwood Chemical Company site.
The primary populations potentially affected at the Greenwood Chemical
Com any site are off-site residents and trespassers wandering on-site.
Since the company is no longer in business, on-site workers currently are
not considered a population of concern.
As d'scussed in the Pathways Analyses section, the potential human exposure
path ays are ingestion, dermal absorption, and inhalation of the
cont minants of concern. This section emphasizes site-specific
che icals and their public health implications.
io
mount of arsenic intake that is required to cause a harmful effect in
s depends on the chemical and physical form of the arsenic. In
ai, inorganic forms of arsenic are more toxic than organic forms, and
that dissolve easily in water (soluble forms of arsenic) tend to be
toxic than those that dissolve poorly in water. Also, toxicity
ds somewhat on the electric charge (the oxidation state or valence) of
16
INITIAL RELEASE
the arsenic ( 1) .
ino ganic.
For this site, the form in which arsenic exists is
Ars
Mos
and
che
con
the
acc
nic may enter the body through the mouth, either in food or in water.
ingested arsenic is quickly absorbed through the stomach and intestine
enters the bloodstream; however, this varies somewhat for different
ical forms of arsenic. Most arsenic that is absorbed into the body is
erted by the liver to a less toxic form that is efficiently excreted in
ur ine. Consequently, arsenic does not have a strong tendency to
mulate in the body except at continued high exposure levels (1).
stu ies in humans indicate that there is considerable variation in
sen itivity to arsenic's effects among different individuals, and it is
dif icult to identify, with certainty, the exposure ranges of concern. For
exa pie, some humans can ingest over 150 micrograms arsenic per kilogram
bod weight per day (p,g/kg/day) of soluble forms of inorganic arsenic
wit out any apparent ill-effects. However, more sensitive individuals in
exp sed populations often begin to display one or more of the
cha acteristic signs of arsenic toxicity (stomach and digestive irritation,
low red blood cell count, disturbances of the nervous system, skin lesions,
blo d vessel lesions, and liver or kidney injury) at oral doses of 20
p,g/ g/day (about 1,000 to 1,500 p,g/day for the average adult male).
Eff cts are usually mild at this exposure level, becoming more severe as
dos s increase. Doses of 600 to 700 p,g/kg/day (around 50,000 p,g/day in an
adu t or 3,000 p,g/day in an infant) have caused death in some cases. When
exp sure is from contaminated water, concentrations of 100 to 200
mic ograms per liter (p,g/L) do not seem to produce significant non-cancer
hea th risks, while typical signs of arsenic toxicity have been reported in
sev ral populations with drinking water containing 400 p,g/L or more of
ars nic (1). The levels of arsenic that most people ingest in food or
wat r (around 50 p,g/day) usually are not considered to be a health concern.
1 amounts of arsenic may enter the body through the skin. Direct skin
act with arsenic compounds can cause mild-to-severe skin irritation,
no reliable dose estimates are available on the exposure levels at
h these effects appear. Based on the high concentrations of arsenic
ent in the soils at Greenwood Chemical Company, direct contact with
aminated soils may produce these effects.
nic, when inhaled, is absorbed through the lungs into the bloodstream.
lation exposures of soluble forms of inorganic arsenic at 200 p,g/m3 are
ciated with irritation to nose, throat, and exposed skin; higher levels
occasionally lead to mild signs of systemic toxicity similar to that
with oral exposure.
EPA has ranked arsenic as a Class A human carcinogen, based on
icient human evidence (1). The EPA has established a MaximWD
aminant Level (MOL) of 50 p,g/L for arsenic in drinking water.
17
-
INITIAL RELEASE
Maxi um concentrations of arsenic measured in the ground water at Greenwood
Chem.cal do not exceed the MCL of 50~g/L. However, should the
conc ntrations increase and enter private drinking water wells, adverse
heal h effects, such as those described above, may occur.
Benz
The PA has ranked benzene a Class A carcinogen (human carcinogen based on
suff.cient evidence in humans). The most sensitive target systems for
benz ne toxicity are the blood cell formation and immune systems. The
nerv us system is also important in the context of acute toxicity. After
acut exposure to a large quantity of benzene, by ingestion or inhalation,
the ajor toxic effect is on the central nervous system. Symptoms from
mild exposure include dizziness, weakness, euphoria, headache, nausea,
vomi ing, tightness in chest, and staggering. If exposure is more severe,
symp oms progress to blurred vision, tremors, shallow and rapid
resp'ration, irregularities of the heart, paralysis, and unconsciousness.
Many deaths from acute benzene exposure at high concentrations have been
due 0 rapid contractions of the heart caused by exertion and release of
the hormone epinephrine. Long-term exposures to benzene may affect
norm 1 blood production, possibly resulting in severe anemia and internal
blee ing. Leukemia, a disease of the white blood cells that fight
infe tion, and subsequent death from cancer have occurred in some workers
expo ed to benzene for periods of less than 5 and up to 30 years. In
addi ion, human and animal studies indicate that benzene is harmful to the
immu e system, increasing the chance for infections and perhaps lowering
the body's defense against tumors. Exposure to benzene also has been
link d with genetic changes in humans and animals (2). The MCL for benzene
in d inking water is 5 ~g/L.
ne is an irritant to skin. By defatting the keratin layer, benzene
ause redness of the skin, the formation of blisters, and dry, scaly
mmation of the skin.
ic exposure to benzene usually involves the inhalation of vapors.
and symptoms include effects on the central nervous system and the
ointestinal tract (headache, loss of appetite, drowsiness,
usness, and pallor). The major manifestation of toxicity is the lack
ood cell formation (aplastic anemia) (5). Bone marrow cells in early
s of development are most sensitive and arrest of their maturation
to gradual depletion of these cells in the circulating blood. A major
rn is the relationship between chronic exposure to benzene and
mia. Epidemiological studies have been conducted on workers in the
industry and in shoe factories, where benzene is used extensively.
workers reported to have died from exposure to benzene, death was
d by either leukemia or aplastic anemia (2).
ne concentrations measured in the ground water at Greenwood Chemical
ny greatly exceed the MCL of 5 ~g/L. Should these levels appear in
ing water wells, the above health effects could occur via ingestion,
ation of vapors, or dermal absorption of benzene. Direct contact with
18
INITIAL RELEASE
benzene in on-site soils may also produce skin irritations as those
des ribed above.
ChI roben.ene
ChI robenzene is a central nervous system depressant. Degeneration of the
liv r and kidneys has been observed following the ingestion of toxic doses
(7). The histological changes may progress as exposure becomes more severe
or s the period of exposure is lengthened. Chlorobenzene is among those
sub tances being evaluated by the EPA for evidence of human carcinogenic
pot ntial. This does not imply that this chemical is a carcinogen. The
Dri ing Water Equivalent Level Health Advisory for chlorobenzene is 100
p.g/. The concentrations of chlorobenzene currently present in ground
wat r at Greenwood Chemical Company do not appear to pose an ingestion or
inh lation threat at this time.
Sli
con
sup
chi
The
kid
mg/
wit
and
Lev
ht skin irritation may occur as the result of chlorobenzene skin
act. Repeated contact may result in moderate erythema and slight
rficial tissue death. No data are available on the concentrations of
robenzene in soils at Greenwood Chemical Company.
rimary toxic effects of chlorobenzene inhalation seem to be liver and
ey injury. Workers exposed to chlorobenzene at concentrations of 50
3 suffered from poisoning (nerve lesions, hepatitis, chronic gastritis
gastric juice hypoacidity, and bronchitis). The Occupational Safety
Health Administration (OSHA) has established a Permissible Exposure
I (PEL) of 350 mg/m3 for chlorobenzene.
Cya ide
The effects of cyanide may vary from person to person depending on factors
suc as health, family traits, age, and sex. Acute exposure to high levels
of yanide may harm the central nervous system, respiratory system, and
car iovascular system. Short-term exposure to high levels of cyanide also
can cause coma and/or death. Acute exposure to lower levels results in
rap'd, deep breathing, shortness of breath, convulsions, and loss of
con ciousness. These short-term effects diminish with time because cyanide
doe not bioconcentrate in the body. People have developed damage to the
ner ous system and thyroid gland after chronic ingestion of food containing
low levels of cyanide. Effects on the nervous system believed to be from
chr nic exposure to cyanide include deafness, vision problems, and loss of
mus le coordination. Effects on the thyroid gland can cause cretinism
(re arded physical and mental growth in children), or enlargement and
ove activity of the gland. The EPA allows levels of cyanide in food
ran ing from 25 mg/kg in dried beans, peas, and nuts to 250 mg/kg in spices
(3) .
Ski contact with dust from certain cyanide compounds can result in skin
irritation and ulceration.
19
INITIAL RELEASE
lation exposure to cyanide causes rapid effects. Human inhalation
sure to cyanide at a level of 110 mg/m3 can cause death within 30
tes to 1 hour (3). At a level of about 18 mg/m3, persons may have
aches, weakness, and nausea (after several hours of exposure). In
ns exposed to cyanides in the workplace, effects on the thyroid gland
and other health problems (breathing difficulty, headache, throat
irr.tation, weakness, changes in taste and smell, abdominal pain, vomitin~,
and nervous instability) have been reported at levels of 6.4 to 10.3 mg/m.
concentrations of cyanide present in soils and ground water at
nwood Chemical Company are considered significant enough to produce any
he health effects described above if dermal absorption or ingestion of
aminated soils, or inhalation or ingestion of contaminated drinking
r occurs.
1,2,-Dichloroethene
Inh lation of high concentrations of vaporized 1, 2-dichloroethene depresses
the central nervous system in humans and milder exposures may result in
nau ea and drowsiness. Liver damage was seen in animals that inhaled high
lev ls (200 ppm) of 1,2-dichloroethene for short (8 hours) and long (16
wee s) periods, the effects being more severe with lengthy exposure. Lung
and heart damage was also seen in animals that breathed very high
con entrations (1,000-3,000 ppm) of 1,2-dichloroethene. Exposure to 1,2-
dic loroethene may occur at the Greenwood Chemical Company site by the
inh lation of vapors of contaminated ground water during showering or other
hou ehold activities.
health effects resulting from ingestion of and skin contact with 1,2-
loroethene in humans are unknown. Therefore, it is unknown what
cts the concentrations present at Greenwood Chemical Company may have
he surrounding population.
Ket
Met
car
and
ter
How
met
exp
ylene Chloride
ylene chloride has been classified by EPA as a probable human
inogen based on inadequate data in humans and increased cancer in rats
mice. Rats have experienced liver cell modifications following long-
ingestion of 50 mg/kg/day methylene chloride in drinking water.
ver, based on animal and human studies, it appears unlikely that
ylene chloride will cause serious liver effects in humans unless
sure is very high.
If ethylene chloride contacts the skin, it usually evaporates quickly and
res Its in mild irritation. However, methylene chloride can be trapped
aga'nst the skin by gloves, shoes, and clothes, resulting in burns. If
met ylene chloride contacts the eyes, it may cause a severe, temporary eye
irr.tation. Methylene chloride concentrations present in soils at
Gre nwood Chemical Company are very high and dermal or ocular contact with
con aminated soils may result in the above health effects.
20
-
INITIAL RELEASE
levels of methylene chloride in air (greater than 500 mg/m3) can
ate the eyes, nose, and throat. Methylene chloride can affect the
al nervous system. If methylene chloride is inhaled at levels greater
500 mg/m3, it may cause effects much like those produced by alcohol,
ding sluggishness, irritability, lightheadedness, nausea, and
head che. Some of these effects have been observed at concentrations as
low as 300 mg/m3. These symptoms usually disappear quite rapidly after
expo ure ends.
In ase studies involving humans, the primary health effects appeared to
mani est in the central nervous system. Short exposures (duration not
specified) to concentrations of greater than 500 mg/m resulted in chemical
into ication, fatigue, and irritabilit~. One study reported a slight
effe t on sensory function at 300 mg/m with an exposure duration of 4
hour. Acute exposure to methylene chloride has been associated with
impairment of the central nervous system, liver, and kidneys. In
addi ional human experimental studies, methylene chloride at an exposure
level of 300 mg/m3 decreased visual and auditory functions, and impaired
psyc omotor tasks following inhalation exposure of 800 mg/m3 for 5 hours.
Chro ic inhalation exposure to methylene chloride has been associated with
mild liver toxicity at greater than 500 mg/m3 for 2 years.
on the weight of evidence from animal studies, methylene chloride is
ified by EPA as a probable human carcinogen. However, metabolic data
animal studies suggest that differences in the utilization of the
lene chloride metabolic pathways indicate that risks to humans are
than those determined for tested laboratory animals. Concentrations
thylene chloride in ground water at Greenwood Chemical Company do not
r to pose a health threat at this time.
yclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PABs)
al PAHs have caused cancer in laboratory animals through ingestion,
skin contact, and inhalation. Long-term ingestion of PAHs in food has
resulted in adverse effects on the liver and blood in mice. Reports in
huma s show that indi viduals exposed by inhalation or skin contact to
mixt res of other compounds and PAHs for long periods, may also develop
canc r. Reproducti ve effects have occurred in animals that were fed
cert in PAHs. These effects may also occur in humans, but there is no
evid nce to prove this.
Hemo ytic anemia (a condition involving the breakdown of red blood cells)
is he primary health concern for humans exposed to naphthalene and 2-
meth lnaphthalene for short and long periods of time. Other effects
comm nly found include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, kidney damage, jaundice,
and liver damage. These effects can occur from either inhaling or
inge ting naphthalene. Cataracts may also occur in the eyes of persons who
inge t or inhale naphthalene. Cancer has not been seen in humans or
anim Is exposed to naphthalene. In pregnant women, naphthalene and its
brea down products in blood can reach the fetus. It is not known whether
21
INITIAL RELEASE
e substances can cause birth defects. Infants whose mothers were
sed to naphthalene during pregnancy developed blood problems (hemolytic
ia) .
aphthalene, 2-chloronaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthene, and naphthalene
been detected at significant concentrations in various media at
Gre nwood Chemical Company. Therefore, any of the above health effects may
potentially occur upon ingestion, inhalation, or skin contact with PARs
fou on-site.
ene
oluene is ingested, it causes vomiting, seizures, diarrhea, and
essed respiration. Kidney and liver damage may follow ingestion.
e are limited animal data concerning the effects of oral exposure to
ene. Toluene concentrations present in ground water at Greenwood
ical Company may produce adverse health effects in humans if these
Is enter the drinking water supply of nearby residents.
Prolonged skin exposure to toluene causes irritation and possible
der atitis. Liquid contact or high vapor concentrations can produce
cor eal burns. Defatting of skin with subsequent danger of dryness,
fiss ring, and secondary infection may occur. Toluene concentrations
present in soils at Greenwood Chemical Company appear to be significant
eno h to produce these health effects if direct contact occurs.
mans, the toxicity of acute inhalation exposure to toluene appears to
imarily limited to depression of the central nervous system, which is
ersible syndrome. Inhalation of vapors at 100 mg/m3 causes headache,
sli t drowsiness, nausea, and difficult breathing. Acute exposures to
concentrations of toluene sufficient to produce unconsciousness (greater
tha 600 mg/m3) fail to produce residual organ damage in humans. Chronic
exposure to mOderate-to-high concentrations (300 mg/m3) of toluene is
asso iated with central nervous system disturbances and impaired
neur muscular function. At still higher levels (greater than 300 mg/m3),
per nent damage, such as cerebral and cerebellar effects, occasionally has
been reported in chronic abusers of toluene. These symptoms include
ataxia, tremors, and speech, hearing, and vision impairment.
Tric loroethylene
Dizziness, headache, slowed reaction time, sleepiness, and facial numbness
have occurred in people who drank several ounces of undiluted
tric loroethylene. Irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat can also occur
unde these conditions. More severe acute effects on the central nervous
syst m, such as unconsciousness and possible death, can occur from drinking
high levels (9,000 mg/kg/day) of trichloroethylene. In general, the less
seve e central nervous system effects, that result from one or several
acut exposures to trichloroethylene, disappear when exposure ends. Some
heal h effects may persist in persons following chronic exposure (500
mg/k /day) to trichloroethylene. This information is based largely on
22
-
~
INITIAL RELEASE
ani al studies. Drinking the equivalent of 240 mg of trichloroethylene per
kil gram of body weight for 2 weeks produced increased liver weight in test
ani also Both inhalation and ingestion of trichloroethylene produce many
of he same effects. Acute and chronic exposure to air containing greater
tha 50 mg/m3 of trichloroethylene have produced harmful effects in both
ani als and humans.
The estimated fatal oral dose in humans is 3-5 ml/kg (6). The lowest
con entration in water producing unconsciousness in adult humans is 16 mg/L
(3, 00 ppm). Trichloroethylene is a probable human carcinogen based on
suf icient evidence in animals and inadequate evidence in humans. The EPA
has established an MCL in drinking water of 5 ~g/L. Trichloroethylene
con entrations in ground water at Greenwood Chemical Company greatly exceed
the established MCL. Should these levels enter the drinking water supply
of earby residents, the adverse health effects described above could
occ r.
Tri hloroethylene is irritating to skin and eyes. Prolonged skin contact
pro uces severe redness and blistering followed by exfoliation. However,
it's only mildly irritating to the skin, if allowed to evaporate. Soil
con entrations of trichloroethylene at Greenwood Chemical Company are very
hig , therefore, the above effects may occur upon dermal or ocular contact
wit contaminated soils or water.
CONCLUSIONS
Bas d on the information reviewed, the VDH concludes that the Greenwood
Che ical Company presents a public health hazard. Evidence exists that
exp sures are likely to occur in the future if the site remains
unr stricted and/or private drinking water wells become contaminated.
Exp sures may be to substances that, upon long-term exposure, can cause
adv rse health effects to any segment of the receptor population.
The exposure pathways of greatest concern associated with the Greenwood
Che ical Company site are: dermal contact and ingestion of contaminated
soils; and dermal contact, ingestion, and inhalation of contaminated ground
wate. Although residential wells have not exhibited contamination to
date, the complex geology associated with this site could result in wells
beco ing contaminated in the future.
ren wandering on-site may be exposed to contaminated
quent ingestion, inhalation, and/or dermal contact.
ntrations of some contaminants found in site soils pose a
h hazard to humans.
soils by
The high
potential
It i not known if surface water runoff carrying contaminants from the site
is eaching the Ri vanna Ri ver , via nearby creeks and streams. This
poss "bility should be ruled out by further environmental sampling as
23
-
INITIAL RELEASE
out ined below because the Rivanna River provides potable water for the
cit' of Charlottesville 20 miles downstream from the site.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations should be addressed during the execution of
the ROD for OU-1:
1. Determine the vertical and horizontal boundaries of contamination
in soil and ground water for each contaminant of concern by taking
surface soil samples and depth-specific ground water samples. It
should be determined whether there is a hydraulic interconnection
between the contaminated overburden and the bedrock for all areas
of the site.
2. To reduce the potential of area residents ingesting or inhaling
contaminants originating in drinking water, it is r~ed that
a monitoring program for ground water be established. Aquarterly
sampling program for residential wells is recommended to protect
human health; and continuous, periodic sampling of monitoring
wells, both before and after remediation, is recommended to track
the movement of contaminants.
3. To prevent children and other trespassers from entering the site,
it is recommended that access to this site be restricted.
4. Due to the large number of tentatively identified and unknown
compounds and the history of chemicals used at this site, it i s
recommended that the 2 farm ponds, West stream, stockton Creek,
and the Rivanna River be sampled in a sequential manner t 0
determine whether or not surface water and/or fish contamination
exists. If significant contamination is found, it is recommended
that the farm ponds be fenced and fish-eating advisories be
considered for the affected bodies of water.
5. Since site remediation is expected to begin in Fall 1992, the ~
concurs with EPA plans to use dust control measures to red u c e
airborne exposure to contaminants during remediation.
6. When indicated by public health needs, and as resources permit,
the evaluation of additional relevant health outcome data and
community health concerns, if available, is recommended.
The ~ata and inforaation developed in the Greenwood Chemical Company PU))lic
HeaJ th Assessment have been evaluated for appropriate fOllow-up health
actjvities. Because human exposure to contaminants at levels of pU))lic
heaJ th concern is believed to have occurred in the past, the Health
24
INITIAL RELEASE
Asst ssment Reco_endation Panel (HARP) determined that a symptom and
distase prevalence study is indicated. An environmental health education
pro~ram is also needed to advise the local medical co_unity of the nature
and possible consequences of exposure to hazardous substances associated
witl the site. If ATSDR receives new information that indicates that
expcsures to hazardous substances is currently occurrinq at levels which
cou~ d cause disease or illness, ATSDR will re-evaluate this site to
dettrmine appropriate health actions.
25
Preparers of the Report
Peter C. Sherertz, Ph.D.
Toxicologist
Bureau of Toxic Substances
connie K. Webb, M.P.H.
Toxic Substances Information Specialist
Bureau of Toxic Substances
Sanjay Thirunagari
Geologist
Bureau of Toxic Substances
ATSDR Reqional Representative
Charles J. Walters
Regional Services
Office of The Assistant Administrator, ATSDR
ATSDR Technical Project Officer
Richard E. Gillig
Environmental Health Scientist
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Remedial Programs Branch
26
INITIAL RELEASE
INITIAL RELEASE
REFERENCES
1. gency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Tbxicological Profile
for Arsenic. March 1989. 125 pp.
2. gency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Tbxicological Profile
for Benzene. May 1989. 173 pp.
3. gency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Tbxicologica1 Profile
for Cyanide. December 1989. 111 pp.
4. gency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Tbxicological Profile
for Trichloroethylene. October 1989.
139 pp.
5. Goodman and Gilman. The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. ~
Edition. 1985. McMillan, New York. p. 1638.
6. Gosselin, Smith and Hodge. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Pnxmcts.
Fifth Edition. 1984. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore. p. II-165.
7. Patty. Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Third Revised Edition. Vol.
IIB. 1982. Wiley-Interscience, New York. p. 3605.
8. .S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ambient Water Quality criteria.
olynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Draft). Environmental Protection
gency. 1980. p. C-121.
27
INITIAL RELEASE
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
dices, Draft Remedial Investigation study Report, Greenwood Chemical
ny, Ebasco Services, Inc., January 1990.
Appe dices, Final Focused Feasibility Study Report - OU-1, G r e e n woo d
Chem'cal Company, Ebasco Services, Inc.,
ugust 1989.
Preliminary Health Assessment, May 2, 1988.
Toxicological Profile for Methylene Chloride, April 1989.
Toxicological Profile for Tetrachloroethylene (DRAFT), ~her1987.
Toxicological Profile for Toluene, December 1989.
/VDH site Visit, March 29, 1990.
Draf Clean-up Goals for the Greenwood, Virginia, Chemical Site, E bas c 0
Services, Inc., June 28, 1989.
Draf Remedial Clean-up criteria for Lagoons 1, 2, and 3, Greenwood
Chemical Company, Ebasco Services, Inc., February 10, 1988.
Draf Remedial Investigation Study Report, Greenwood Chemical Com pan y ,
Ebas 0 Services, Inc., January 1990.
Final Focused Feasibility Study Report - OU-1, Greenwood Chemical Sit e ,
Ebas 0 Services, Inc., August 1989.
Final Work Plan Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Focused
Feasibility Study, Greenwood Chemical Company, Ebasco Services, Inc.,
Octo er 1988.
Nati nal Library of Medicine: Hazardous Substances Data Bank (H S DB) ,
Toxn t.
Preliminary Draft Focused Feasibility Study, Greenwood Chemical Company,
Ebas 0 Services, Inc., March 1989.
site Well Core and Water Sample Analysis, Greenwood Chemical ~y, April
1987.
U.S. EPA Database: Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
U.S. EPA Hazard Ranking System (HRS), Greenwood Chemical Company, NOv~
1985.
28
INITIAL RELEASE
U.S. EPA preliminary Assessment, Greenwood Chemical Company, May 15,
1985.
U.S. EPA Record of Decision - OU-1, Greenwood Chemical Site, December 29,
1989.
U.S. EPA site Inspection Report, Greenwood Chemical Company, May 15,
1985.
29
INITIAL RELEASE
GLOSSARY
An unweathered rock occurring below the soil.
qency Removal: Releases or threats of releases requiring initiation of
activity within hours of the lead agency's determination that a
action is appropriate.
peasibility study (PPS): A Feasibility study that addresses a
study area.
Max mum Contaminant Level (MCL): Enforceable standards for public ~
wat r supplies under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Also referred to as
dri king water standards.
Nat.onal Priorities List (NPL): EPA' s list of top priority h a z a r d 0 us
es sites that are eligible to receive Federal funds for investigation
cleanup under the Superfund program.
able Unit: An action taken as one part of an overall site cleanup. A
er of operable units can be used in the course of a site cleanup.
Any loose, unconsolidated material which rests upon sol i d
issible Exposure Level (PEL): Permissible concentration of a ~~
hich an employee may be exposed, over a given period of time (Tables Z-
or Z-3 of OSHA regulations 51910.1000, Air Contaminants).
Qua ity Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC): A system of procedures, dEds,
aud "ts, and corrective actions used to ensure that field work and
lab ratory analysis during the investigation and cleanup of Superfund sites
mee established standards.
rd of Decision (ROD): A public document that explains which cleanup
rnative(s) will be used at National Priorities List sites. The record
ecision is based on information and technical analysis generated during
emedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and involves the consideration
of public comments and community concerns.
dial Investiqation/peasibility study (RI/PS): Investigative and
ytical studies usually performed at the same time in an interactive,
ative process, and together referred to as the "RI/FS." They are
nded to gather the data necessary to determine the type and extent of
amination at a Superfund site; establish criteria for cleaning up the
; identify and screen cleanup alternatives for remedial action; and
yze, in detail, the technology and costs of the remedial alternatives.
30
INITIAL RELEASB
Res urce Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): EPA's comprehensive
reg lations for the management of hazardous waste.
Sap olite: A soft, earthy, red or brown, decomposed igneous or ~c
roc that is rich in clay and formed in place by chemical weathering.
Ver ical heads: The pressure of water at a given point in a pipe arising
fro the pressure in it.
31
.
EXPLANATION
A .UlLDM eA.
. .UIL......
C...... ...
D OP'ICI.......
I lOU'" ...._
, ITO"A.. .....
" "U'''OOll nA""
It .AC.PlU 1IOlt'''UT
I ""_VII
J .AITI OVMP "-'
. ""U~ IIAMOt._ Alii. .,
L ""uti ""MOL" A"A ..
. O"utI IIAMOt._ A"A .1
" 110"".". .A........
" A"'"0"IlOID ,,"UC,....
~ 'UIIIlI"
o IUII'ACI ""ut1 A".
" w.a, "nCII .
I
~
N
-
...~
.,,-
GREENWOOD CHEMICAL IITI
ALBEMARLI! COUNTY. YA
t..
I
200
I
,..
I
SITE LAYOUT
FIGURE 1.2
9CAI.I
,......
"" ....
I ~ I l"",i i
::. r" ' ~~',"--~ i '1:, ~~
-_:~:.:t.Y-?
i-J ~) / - 3 3 > [-
7. ~7f. _f;:?i..'.~_~ :)'.-J
i.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
C harlottcsville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 2965823
[';:~';'<';~;;,-,J t-':
;\~,.;, ,', "
April 23, 1992
Unity Church in Charlottesville
2114 Angus Road, suite 211
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-91-71 Unity Church in Charlottesville
Tax Map 61, Parcel 4
Dear Sir:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
April 21, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval ,is subject to the following
conditions:
1. The property may not be further divided;
2. The interim sanctuary shall not exceed 150 person
\
seating capacity;
3. Construction of the 300 seat sanctuary shall commence
within four (4) years or approval for the new structure
shall expire. Construction of the 150 seat sanctuary
shall commence within two years of approval of the
special use permit or approval for the structure shall
expire;
4. There shall be only one residential dwelling on this
property;
5. Administrative approval of site plan;
6. Reservation of land for additional right-of-way to
accommodate road improvements as outlined in VDOT
letter dated January 16, 1992;
,
'''(: TI n,:~
, "
L UOMd ~~~,:.id..
:' 1~, {ltjJ-::;'.3:-
-_..~ '-'-,,- t
p,Jnfr i'
,; I:.,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 2965823
April 23, 1992
David D. Allen
2825 Hydraulic Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-92-09 David D. Allen
Tax Map 61, Parcel 4
Dear Mr. Allen:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
April 21, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. Day care shall not exceed 25 children or such lesser
number as the Health Department may specify based on
. \
adequacy of the septlc system;
2. Administrative approval of site plan;
3. No such use shall operate without licensure by the
Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center.
It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to
transmit to the zoning administrator a copy of the
original license and all renewals thereafter and to
notify the zoning administrator of any license
expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3)
days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
4. Periodic inspections of the premises shall be made by
the Albemarle County fire official at his discretion.
Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such
inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with
the provisions of this ordinance;
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
YOLANDA A. HIPSKI
APRIL 21, 1992 (Corrected 5-7-92)
MAY 13, 1992
(SP-91-71l - UNITY CHURCH & (SP-92-09l - DAVID ALLEN
(SP-91-71l - Unity Church
Petition: Unity Church in Charlottesville petitions the
Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a
church [10.2.2(35)] on 5.0 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 4, is located on
the west side of Hydraulic Road approximately 900 feet north
of Lambs Road. This property is not located in a designated
growth area (see Attachment A).
(SP-92-09l - David Allen
Petition: David Allen petitions the Board of Supervisors to
issue a special use permit for day care [10.2.2(7) and
5.1.6] in conjunction with a church on 5.0 acres, zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 4,
is located on the west side of Hydraulic Road approximately
900 feet north of Lambs Road. This property is not located
in a designated growth area.
Character of the Area: Approximately one quarter of the
property is cleared for two existing dwellings. The
remainder of the site is wooded.
This site is located in the South Fork Rivanna River
watersupply watershed. There is a drainage swale toward the
northern property line. This ditch feeds into a spring
located on the western adjacent parcel. As a result, the
northwest corner of the site is limited by a building and
septic setback.
The site contains a recorded waterline easement currently
serving Parcel 4A. A previous plat indicated there may be a
cemetery located near the back property line.
Roslyn Heights, zoned RA, Rural Area is to the north of this
property. Sentry Electric, zoned LI, Light Industrial, is
located to the south of this property. Lambs Road Baptist
Church is located beyond Sentry Electric and zoned RA, Rural
Area. The growth area is on the other side of Hydraulic
Road.
1
Hydraulic Road currently is non-tolerable. The Virginia
Department of Transportation is developing plans to improve
this section of Route 743. At this time, the estimated
advertisement date for the project is June, 1994. The
proposed right-of-way is fifty feet from the existing
centerline and will require approximately 35 feet of this
site.
APPLICANTIS PROPOSAL:
In response to a staff request, the applicant submitted a
sketch plan to demonstrate feasibility for future
development of the site (see Attachment B). In addition,
the applicant submitted a letter which outlines their
proposal (see Attachment C).
The applicant proposes to develop this site in phases. In
Phase I, existing Building 1. will be a church office.
Existing Building 2. will be a day care for ten (10)
children. In Phase II, existing Building 1. continues as an
office, existing Building 2. continues as day care and
proposed Building 3. will be an interim sanctuary. In Phase
III, existing Building 1. continues as an office, existing
Building 2. continues as a day care, proposed Building 3.
will house adult education classes and a fellowship hall,
and proposed Building 4. will be a permanent sanctuary. In
Phase IV, existing Building 1. reverts to an on-site
residence, existing Building 2. continues as a day care (10
children), proposed Building 3. becomes a day care (10
children) on week days and a fellowship/social hall on
weekends, and proposed Building 4. will become a church
office, sanctuary, fellowship hall, Sunday school and adult
education classes. Maximum seating for the sanctuary will
be 300 and day care will not exceed twenty (20) children
total.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
(SUB-81-142) - Marqaret Goodwille Laurent - On November 5,
1981, staff signed an exempt plat which created this parcel.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
This site is located in Rural Area I, adjacent to a
designated growth area, and within the South Rivanna
Reservoir watershed. The property is within the Albemarle
County Service Authority jurisdictional area map showing
Parcel 4 for water service only.
STAFF COMMENT:
The applicant proposes a total of about 9,900 square feet of
building for church use only. The sketch plan shows an
additional 1,200 square feet reserved for day care.
2
staff has identified a total of eight new churches requlrlng
site plans that have been approved since 1980. None of
these proposals involved a church complex of four buildings.
These facilities averaged 1,083 square feet of floor area
per acre while this proposal will average 2,220 square feet
of floor area per acre. staff has identified a total of
three non-growth area churches in the watersupply watershed
approved under current special use permit provisions.
There is a swale on this property and a building/septic
setback from an off-site spring. The Water Resource Manager
has visited the site. After initial review, he stated:
"The applicant has indicated that the spring-fed stream
originates off the property and has drawn the building
and septic setback from the point at which the spring
is evident by surface discharge. The soils report
identifies an area of mottled soils in the northwest
portion of the parcel. This mottling is the result of
soil saturation or wetness. I have concerns about the
proximity of the new two story sanctuary to this area
and potential drainage problems. The applicant should
ensure that this area does not meet federal criteria as
wetlands".
At this time, these comments are advisory as to site
conditions. The Water Resources manager has since reviewed
the concept plan #2 (see Attachment D). He notes this is a
substantial improvement and it appears possible to
accommodate the proposed use with appropriate watershed
management techniques.
This site contains a private waterline easement serving
Parcel 4A. The property owner of Parcel 4A has contacted
the Planning Department regarding this easement. The
applicant has verbally stated he can accommodate the
easement and has shown it on the sketch. The affected
property owner has reviewed this sketch, contacted the
church, and is agreeable to work with the Church during site
plan review. Should the applicant choose to pursue
relocating this waterline, he must obtain the affected
property owner's permission prior to submittal of a site
plan.
The Health Department has reviewed this request (see
Attachment E). Given the site constraints, as well as
Health Department comments, staff will recommend Planning
Commission approval of site plan as a condition of this
special use permit.
3
I'
During its review of SP-91-71, the Planning Commission
deleted recommended condition one which limited adult
education classes to three per week at 20 people per class.
After the meeting, staff met with the Health Department who
expressed concern that this deletion may lead to over use of
the septic fields which are reviewed by each use separately
and by a per day capacity. Specifically, this system
supporting the adult education has been reviewed on a
maximum limit for twenty people per day. Should this
condition be deleted, staff can not ensure that the
facilities will be used as reviewed by the Health Department
and as presented to the Board of Supervisors.
Both the County's Transportation Planner and Virginia
Department of Transportation have reviewed this request (see
attachment F). In staff opinion, most church traffic will
occur during non-peak hours and should not detrimentally
affect Hydraulic Road. However, VDOT recommends
implementation of a right turn lane because of the ultimate
size of the day care which can be expected to generate
traffic during peak hours. Discussions with VDOT indicate
this lane should not be needed after the Hydraulic Road
widening project and, if the applicant limits the number of
day care children to no more than ten (10) prior to the
widening project, the turn lane will not be necessary. The
applicant has agreed to reservation of additional
right-of-way for the Hydraulic Road widening.
Last year, during review of the Covenant Church, staff
expressed concern that the Covenant Church was an "urban"
scale church located in a rural area, but adjacent to a
growth area and intended to primarily serve urban
populations. staff opinion is that the Unity Church
proposal (although smaller than the 800 seat capacity of
Covenant) is similar in its service characteristics and is
more appropriate to an urban area where public utilities are
available (Public sewer is not available to this site).
Staff has reviewed this special use permit for compliance
with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
That such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adiacent property nor chanqe the character of the district.
Staff has identified one watersupply watershed church
adjacent to a growth area approved under current special use
permit provisions (SP-82-64), Lambs Road Baptist Church.
This church is also located within 500 feet of the proposed
4
I'
Unity Church. The area of land disturbance for Lambs Road
Church and this proposal are similar. During review of
SP-82-64 staff stated:
"Except in regard to reservoir protection, Rural Area
zoning does not appear particularly suitable to this
property given surrounding development. Absent church
ownership, staff would expect requests for some rural
area usage of a comparable or more intensive nature
(i.e. county store, public garage, private school, day
care center)".
This church is similar to the Lambs Road Church, except for
the day care component. Generally, commercial activities in
the Rural Area have been limited to those directly related
to agriculture and those which provide support services to
the rural population. Typically, staff has avoided locating
commercial activities, such as a day care, in the Rural Area
in close proximity to designated growth areas. Staff
opinion is that although this proposal encompasses a day
care, it is accessory to the main church use due to size and
should not be interpreted to promote commercial activities
in this district.
Staff opinion is that the church/day care will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property due to the nature
of neighboring development. However establishing a pattern
of permitting urban-oriented uses on growth area fringes
could eventually change the character of the rural areas
adjacent to growth areas.
The use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of
this ordinance, with additional requlations provided in
section 5.0. and with the public health. safety and welfare.
This is a proposal for development in the South Rivanna
watershed. However, a similar request within close
proximity has been previously approved. It should be noted
that uses allowed in the RA zone are intended to be
accommodated without benefit of public utilities. Given
this site's development characteristics and the experienced
tendency for churches to become high activity centers, staff
foresees the potential for future request for extension of
public sewer to this site. From comments from the site
Review Committee, development of the site as proposed
appears feasible from a health and safety standpoint.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff opinion is that certain uses such as churches, day
care, and schools contribute to the well-being and moral
fiber of the community. Staff has expressed policy concerns
5
~
(i.e. - watersupply watershed development, urban service
characteristics and extension of public utilities) .
However, staff notes prior legislative decision to grant a
similar use request within close proximity. Further, staff
feels the day care as proposed will be of a scale that is
accessory to the main church.
Regarding issues of physical development, development of the
site appears feasible as proposed. The applicant has agreed
to reservation of right-of-way for improvements to Hydraulic
Road.
staff recommends approval of SP-91-71 (church) and SP-92-09
(day care) subject to the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
SP-91-71 Unity Church
1. Adult Education classes not incidental Sunday service
shall not exceed three per week and shall not exceed 20
people per class;
2. The property may not be further divided;
3. The interim sanctuary shall not exceed 150 person
seating capacity and shall convert to a fellowship hall
at issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 300
seat sanctuary;
4. Construction of the 300 seat sanctuary shall commence
within four (4) years or approval for the new structure
shall expire. Construction of the 150 seat sanctuary
shall commence within two years of approval of the
special use permit or approval for the structure shall
be expire;
5. There shall be only one residential dwelling on this
property;
6. Planning Commission approval of site plan;
7. Reservation of land for additional right-of-way to
accommodate road improvements as outlined in VDOT
letter dated January 16, 1992;
8. Expansion of any use or construction not outlined in
this approval shall require additional review and
approval by the Board of Supervisors.
6
SP-92-09 David Allen
1. Day care shall not exceed 20 children or such lesser
number as the Health Department may specify based on
adequacy of the septic system;
2. Planning Commission approval of site plan;
3. No such use shall operate without licensure by the
Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center.
It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to
transmit to the zoning administrator a copy of the
original license and all renewals thereafter and to
notify the zoning administrator of any license
expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3)
days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
4. Periodic inspections of the premises shall be made by
the Albemarle County fire official at this discretion.
Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such
inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with
the provisions of this ordinance;
5. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated
herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the
requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare,
Virginia Department of Health, Virginia state Fire
Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency;
6. Day care shall be limited to ten (10) children until
completion of the Hydraulic Road widening. Should the
applicant pursue a higher number of children prior to
the completion of this road project, the applicant
shall install a right turn lane as required by Virginia
Department of Transportation.
---------------
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Sketch Plan
C - Letter outlining proposal
D - Water Resource Manager Comments
E - Health Department Comments
F - Transportation (Virginia Department of Transportation)
Comments
7
l'
c
:'V'l~.TfI ~
f'Rt fl'1
I
I... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..
u
~ATTACHMENT Al
~.
o
\.
'(;('0
'\-~
0"
"" "',
~'....
~o
~....
'"'-'t-
" 7'~ <').",:;,,\
'\ '0 ,
"\ )
~ I
'--I
\ "-
'~:./
'(:\{
,
,\'
-, "
-\ ...
\., ~
.r
i!
~
..,
"
''\
\
;1
I
\
,
"
'---"--..
~'
~
"-~ '\
.'I'q..'
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
m 45 __111/ '''y
?:' - I gitl -' ~ ~ z ~,/~'" (~l'
'.' I='o~_~._ W~ " r ."
~" .'" ~. ~~~r:c.--:- __ --- ~fl. 'lO "b_y, ./..'
-,-.., . '.Ml 'eM' .,." , " -' 'I ,w '7, '" '"
1---0 .' w J~ · Ec;:~~:'-<"'".~ 'ill "o.f&j,:' ill
,,\. ..:\ -".., '" -"~~:~ if, .. ~ "'" ,J
~ 1)0
'/.
~)4 '- " ".\' _;;'I f/, 'I, 'lC..'~',
T, --" 'II " ." " " ".. "'" .
. ,ff..._ . II 1/ '" ...., "~,
· /0' 1/ " ~ I'=;.;~ -.I;it~";:"" ~"o<
~".'IL... ~ /"'/1111/.. '1 'I ~ _ .... _ .". .
'. "o. I, , · l!ti\'1. _
' ~~ ,II "';J =, ""''''0''>' ~-::,,~ ~.'r/+ ~i~~l~':~
~ ~l;,~" ~~, , -- 'rr, .,.co" "'~ IJ~ '/~..._
~~' ~\~I~" ") -' ~~~' :;;Fff;iiii;c~~"1~i" ~ffl'" :.'" t
.. ',,,,,,"-? '8 " "- '= , '. ~ ="",0'0", '/',.."" '\
' a.'.,~ %% ~ '" ~ ~ ~ "_,, "'" __,'~,~" ~_,'" ,,'. " " "-
.,< ". ". ~~ '?' ~""'" "'--~" ~'~,:!;"1 · ~,~. ~'." ,,. f-~
"~"'-"'~ ~ ~ --', - -~" """ ~ K
,. '" "" ': '^"-"',, ,~. ,..
-- "'" ' .f .' '"r / ,.., . ill' "
~~, ~ 38:<~,"'L '/'-"'f''',~_ 2~_~ .,,"'0....)>.....
,'~, ;\.::K.._~ ,'S'h.' , . ~. '.,,.. _ ,'f..
"tTOOO" ~, dZ~"./ ~:"\",,y , //.
~ :;>~~. '_~v"ff:' . ,7 --.~"! '~.;t, I~';" IM~~ ~ 52
~ '///$', I " I.T' ~ ~
' '. w: "" _'V,'I/ " ?; r~<
\\" "N/ .. I . '( i= v.=,
,.. '" ' / ~ '11h 7 EITY _ if . _ ~
! 6O~_,,\\ II " OF '0 '" "' '. ~~
I Y /;, ,"AReOrT"''''"-' , I ~
\ A H/ \ 'I<~"
I~"/ / '<:'= . /
('V" " II "~r..
' J 110 /' ~
' ~-,,~
r- -y
#~'d~ .~ J/J, / 1~.1J"'1J.l
)// '^ J/, ". X ~...., ,."'=
//. / /' ~~ ",~ .J//g' /.<-< 0,=
"I, -/ J'~\..,,- ~~ ~ , "1
ii$""'- "~-j 1 "\' _ _!!f . ~1~~',,~ I.....~
' -. ,. '" ~,,~
~'711/ '; ~~~,
71// 09 /'j ';\"'-" . '~VW~
,?/ - DAV~~ ;2 ALLEN .:: ~M I~ ~~
'. \\ ~\ ~?C7/"=\-\ ~:.'~ ~~~. "0 ~-;rX."
' ,r V' I.lr,~:~.. '/.!h.J~ \
'\..J. ..:y 7/r -\ -"< ...':-.' ,.. j_ -',,. 1...00""......,. \
"j\ , ~ 1.11 \~, ,,_, >----,
" \ \ \:::;7 71'/ .. I 19' iF
. --'" -I" / // / ~ 'U"
'\ /. .
~ ~. ~
\\' //1 -q;: i
[II/- 1--........
IIlH Ii . J I
-'""N I
I.rl&.,
/ II 1
1// ~~,
'1'/ .A.
J// .,..
77 IVANNA AND
JACK JOUETT~. R _
~ T........,IIIf:'
f-
t-
~
f-
r-
r--
-
--
r'
Page 2/
ATTACHMENT A
II
-
'nA~
12~
.n
."
"'-.":""'~
:0....... ~~...........
",,~ ...,:,~~~f"
,~ '. .-.:--...
",.
:--
41N1 t
s'c "0.
..~..
~
-
-
-
...
..~.
-
-
--
\
I
I'ICA,.( NI ,.,.
SECTION
61
\
1\
~l f
JI
./
./'
.........
I ~ I
:l: :1
~ ~I ~ ~~
w .1 "J.
~ li~! Ii
I ,~ Ii II 11
, ~ 3U" i ~ 12
~ i ~ ill III ~~Il
m
.... -.1-
Z
W
:E
J:
()
~
: '- :!
---
{
'1-'
Or- .
~
II ~ II ~i
:l:l: :~:l: !
"'! -2" "! -;1 .. i
;2 ~~; it ~i ~~;~ ill
II li~! ~~ d li~! ~~ i
I~ II it II ii I~ II it II ~ .Ili
!ilH ~mii 1 !ii \U · ~ ili ~ ~tnii ~!u il ~lli
&
I I~ I i ~
~~ ~~ i ~l ! ~
!~ !~~ !I I ~ !
I Ii Ii: II I! ~ft
! II II 19 Illli ~ d II !
! B!li j~li ~ ~ il! Iii iUlilii ;
r.x:4
~
~~
u> N
~ UJ. ""==
~~j
Gb~
~~t
E-c~~
~<~
Z~o
U u
~
Z
~
~
o
III
~
.......
.........
"
"
\ ., ,,)..
Ol'Ut
3 "IlO.tO.llt S
--...
~i0
.. .
oz ./
Wo~
~~o
op..lz
o:WO
n.on.
hl~
~~.I
~~~~
~:i~
!
J
I
~
I
...
~
8q
!;~
z
"(~, '~ \
~
I ~-----------, ~-----------,
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / /
/ tI "OO1ll CT13IMVlIO .uMWd / / / ~
/ I ' . / / tI ':xno C13L1NIVllO :w!3S311 /
/ L- I I I
/ / / --... /
~-----------~ ~-----------~
Ol'Ut
II. .IlL.7:t.Lt N
2
o
co
a $I
'.-
~:?
Vlb
~ti~
~!Ii' ~ ~
~!i~ ~ ~
~~~ ~ ~
I
I
\
\
\ I
~ I I
II I
I i \ \
HI I
nl I
I i- \
;..\ 10
~I. 'd
~ ~ (t::
I~~ I '"'
1II I U co
- I')
-.Jl'
1~ ~
. (t::""'"
I~
II
~~ I I
:::J~ ~
b ~II I
e~~ ~I~ I
~I ~ I
~~ \ \
I
I
R.T!"; (~l':: !'~ l!::!)
). _.~..... - ~ 1_:0.
MAR 2 3 1992
18 March 1992
Ms. Yolanda Hipski
Department of Planning & Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Special Use Permits
Unity Church SP-91-71
Unity Day Care SP-92-09
Dear Yolanda:
Pursuant to your request, attached please find outlines of the
proposed uses of the existing and proposed structures as shown
on the preliminary concept plan currently under review in
conjunction with the referenced special use permits.
It is my understanding that these special use permit
applications will be heard by the planning commission on April
6, 1992, and by the board of supervisors on May 13, 1992.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
~C--/
Susan Aitken Riddle, P.E.
SAR/zan
Susan Aitken Riddle, P.E.
1006 East Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
804-296-3293
Unity Church in Charlottesville
PHASE I
Ex. Bldq. # 1:
Church Office
Hours: Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Occupancy: 2 full time employees including the minister.
Classes
Hours: Three evenings per week (M-F)
Occupancy: Approximately 10 persons
7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Ex. Bldq. # 2:
Day Care
Hours: Monday through Friday 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Occupancy: 10 children (over 2-1/2), 1 fulltime employee.
PHASE II
Ex. Bldq. # 1:
Church Office
Hours: Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Occupancy: 2 full time employees including the minister.
Ex. Bldq. # 2:
Day Care
Hours: Monday through Friday 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Occupancy: 10 children (over 2-1/2), 1 fulltime employee.
Sunday School
Hours: Sunday Only 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.
Occupancy: 15 children, J adults
Prop. Bldq. # 3:
Classes
Hours: Three evenings per week (M-F)
Occupancy: Approximately 10 persons
7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Interim Sanctuary
Hours: sundays only
Occupancy: 150 seats
unity Church in Charlottesville
IAITACHMENT cl
Ipage 31
PHASE III
Ex. Bldq. # 1:
Church Office
Hours: Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Occupancy: 2 full time employees including the minister.
Ex. Bldq. # 2:
Day Care
Hours: Monday through Friday 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Occupancy: 10 children (over 2-1/2), 1 fulltime employee.
Sunday School
Hours: Sunday Only 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.
Occupancy: 15 children, J adults
Prop. Bldq. # J:
Classes
Hours: Three evenings per week (M-F)
Occupancy: Approximately 10 persons
7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Fellowship Hall
Hours: Sundays after church serVlces once or twice per month
Prop. Bldq.~:
Permanent Sanctuary
Hours: Sundays only
Occupancy: 200 seats
unity Church in Charlottesville
PHA8 E IV
Ex. Bldq. # 1:
Reverts to an on-site residence.
Ex. Bldq. # 2:
Day Care
Hours: Monday through Friday 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Occupancy: 10 children (over 2-1/2) I 1 fulltime employee.
Prop. Bldq. # J:
Day Care
Hours: Monday through Friday 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Occupancy: 10 children (over 2-1/2), 1 fulltime emproyee.
Fellowship/Social Hall
Hours: Special events Sat. or sun.,ie. wedding receptions
Prop. Bldq. # 4:
Church Office
Hours: Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Occupancy: 2 full time employees including the minister.
Permanent Sanctuary
Hours: Sundays only
Occupancy: 300 seats
Fellowship Hall
Hours: Sundays after church serVlces once or twice per month
Sunday School
Hours: Sundays Only
Occupancy: 25 children, 4 adults
Classes
Hours: Three evenings per week (M-F)
Occupancy: Approximately 20 persons
7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
401 McINTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901-4596
(804) 296-5841
ALBEMARLE - CHARLOTTESVILLE
OFFICE OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Yolanda Hipski, Planner
FROM: J. W. Peyton Robertson, Jr., Water Resources Manager
dwl'/2--..d,
DATE: March 25, 1992 / ~
RE: Unity Church - "Concept Plan #2"
I have reviewed the revised sketch plan for Unity Church
entitled "Concept Plan #2" and the accompanying letter from
Susan Riddle dated March 22, 1992.
This concept plan represents a substantial improvement
over what was previously submitted. Total site development
(especially parking) has been scaled back and oriented in such
fashion as to concentrate development in appropriate portions
of the site while preserving the northern corner as open space.
This northern quadrant is particularly important for drainage
and stormwater management as the headwaters of an intermittent
tributary to the South Rivanna Reservoir.
While I realize that this is a concept plan, it appears
possible to accommodate the proposed use within the confines of
the site if clustering of development along the road frontage
and southern quadrant of the property is accomplished.
Additional watershed management techniques can be incorporated
at the time of site plan submittal.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need
additional information.
;-to.. '.'
,,-,>;., ".,;';" . ''-'\~
.-- '- "\
.ld30 eN\NNVld
l661 ~ l H'4W
a3/U303'=i
I
_.1
r
wr92-44
L
I ATTACHMENT E/
IN COOPER liON WITH THE
STATEDEPAR MENTOFHEALTH
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Thomas Jefferson Health District
1138 Rose Hill Drive
p. 0. Box 7546
Charlollesvillc, Virginia 22906
(804) 972-6219
ALBEMARLE - CHARLOTTESVILLE
FLUVANNA COUNTY (PALMYRA)
GREENE COUNTY (STANARDSVILLE)
LOUISA COUNTY (LOUISA)
NELSON COUNTY (LOVINGSTON)
April 1, 1992
s. Yolanda Hipski
lbemarle County Planning Dept
01 McIntire Road
harlottesville, VA 22901
RECEIVED
APR 6 1992
PLANNING DEPT.
ear Yolanda:
I have reviewed the latest site plan submittal for four
hases planned for the Unity Church located on Hydraulic Road.
t would appear that there are sufficient drainfield areas
(existing or proposed) to support each phase, however, additional
rainfield ditches must be installed for Building #2 in order to
eet requirements for Phase II.
Please understand also that any drainfield which lies under
arking or driveway areas must be paved (asphalt or concrete).
Specifics for newly constructed buildings (i .e. 300 seat
sanctuary) will be addressed during each phase of development.
I hope this will clarify this department's review of the
above mentioned site plan. Should you wish to discuss any
problems or questions regarding this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me at the Thomas Jefferson Health Department
(972-6259).
&&~
G. Stephen Rice,
Environmental Health Specialist
cc: Susan R i dd 1 e
GSR/mrn
''IIDH VIRCINtA
I , D[I'ARTMlNT
or ItlALTH
rro'('('fi,,~ )'0(1 .lUff ro", I m.;'OII11I<<'III
STAFF PERSON:
JUANDIEGO R.
TRAFFIC CALCULATION FOR UNITY CHURCH EXPANSION PLAN
Land Use
Church
Day Care
Residential
Classification
and Size
Sanctuary
4,200 sq. ft.
Church, classrooms
and offices
7,200 sq. ft.
Church, classrooms
and offices
7,200 sq. ft.
Day Care
20 children
Weekday
Peak a.m.
7:00-9:00 a.m.
Peak p.m.
4:00-6:00 p.m.
Single Family
Detached
ITE Trip Rate
Trips
36.63/1,000 sq. ft.
Sunday
154
9.70/1,000 sq. ft.
Saturday
70
9.32/1,000 sq. ft.
Weekday
67
4.6S/per student
93
0.82/per student
16
0.83/per student
17
9.SS/per dwelling
unit
10
-----------
TOTALS Total Church 560 vehicle trips per week
Total Daycare 465 vehicle trips per week
Total Residential 70 vehicle trips per week
GRAND TOTAL 1,095 vehicle trips per week
EXISTING
TOTAL
(Under RA
Zoning)
2 dwelling units x 10 x 7 days = 140 vehicle trips
per week
IATTACHMENT Fl
I Page 21
Page 3
January 16, 1992
Ronald S. Keeler
Specia Use Permits & Rezonings
Route b9 and the existing shrubbery restricts the sight distance to the west.
Therefpre, the Department recommends that both the northern entrance on Route 29 and
the entrance on Route 866 be closed in conjunction with this request. At this stage
it doe~ not appear that additional right of way will be needed on this property for
the R01Jte 29 improvements, but it has not been determined whether any easements
(possi~ly utility) will be needed and should that be necessary the Department
.recommends they be dedicated or reserved. As part of the overall improvements to
Route 29 an interchange at the intersection of Routes 29 and 866 was approved.
There are no dates set for when this construction would occur and it is very likely
that this entire site would be taken for the construction of the interchange.
5. S1-91-71 Unity Church in Charlottesville, Route 743 - Under the existing RA
zonin~ the 5 acres could generate up to 20 VPD. There are no traffic generation
figurES for a church based on the number of seats, but this request would result in
a sigl ificant increase in traffic from the current zoning. Route 743 is currently
non-t lerable. This property is outside of the designated growth area. The
Depar ment is developing plans for the improvement of this section of Route 743.
The p oposed right of way is approximately 50 feet or so from the existing
cente line of Route 743. The Department recommends that the necessary right of way
and e~sements be dedicated orat least reserved. Once the plans are finalized the
Depar ment can then determine exactly what would be needed. As a minimum, a
comme cial entrance with adequate sight distance would be needed to serve this site.
Sincerely,
~_.Q
J. A. Echols
Assistant Resident Engineer
~
JAE/ dw
Page 2
March 23, 1992
Hr Ronald S. Keeler
Sp cial Use Permits & Rezonings
4. SP-92-09 David D. Allen, Route 743 - This request is for a day care facility for
up to 25 children which would result in a traffic increase of 125 VPD. Since the
tr ffic generated by this request would occur during peak hours, the Department
re ommends a 200 foot long right turn lane and whatever taper length can be
ac ommodated along the property frontage. Additional right of way would have to be
de icated at this time to accommodate this turn and taper lane.
5. SP-92-12 Ednam House Limited Partnership, Route 250 V. - This request for a
re Itor office would result in some increase in traffic. The existing entrance at
Ro te 250 for this development is currently adequate.
6. SP-92-13 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation, Route 29 B. - This
re uest is to allow supporting commercial uses and research development activities
1n conjunction with 13 above. This request should not result in traffic generations
gr ater than what could be expected from the current zoning.
Sincerely,
j-.o
t:JL~
J. A. Echols
Assistant Resident Engineer
j E/ldw
c R. V. Hofrichter w/attach.
~')- " ~ \</ ),
(:';) ,.. I -/~/ -- 7:2'7
I""" I, _,"..1 c),;)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Plannlllg & Communit~1 Development
401 Mcintire HOdel
C harlottl'svilll', Virginta L29() 1-4:)t)()
(H()4) 206 SH2J
May 1, 1992
Caleb stowe
1100 Dryden Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ZMA-92-01 Ednam Associates
Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A1
Dear Mr. stowe:
The Albemarle County Planning commission, at its meeting on
April 28, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
agreements:
Recommended Revised Agreements for ZMA-80-19 to Incorporate
Aqreements for ZMA-92-01:
1. Approval is for a maximum of 140 dwelling units in
locations and types in accordance with land use summary
of the approved plan. (Commission approved the amended
land use summary.) Specifically, multi-storied
residential structures shall be restricted to site A, E
and G; (Land Use Summary enc.);
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of commercial entrances and road improvements
as shown on the approved plan;
3. County Engineer approval of internal roads and parking,
drainage, grading plans and impoundment dam;
4. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water
and sewer plans including booster station and other
appurtenances;
5. Fire Official approval of fire hydrant locations and
fire flow requirements, emergency access provisions,
and handicapped parking;
Caleb stowe
Page 2
May 1, 1992
6. County Attorney's approval of Homeowners' maintenance
agreements;
7. The Existing Manor House on Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A1 may
be converted into three dwellings.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on Mav 13. 1992. Any new or
additional information regarding your application must be
submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
vdL~ /~
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
-" !.]
- ~-y -9~
q -, .-;-::::---
-L ,~ - t/ \"/3, J~,' l>
-----.-.'7'. _.___ ::;./ tJ
! ..'::'~(;,~ ;,~ 'U j\
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
[)ept of Plannmg & Cf)[nl11l1nity [)evellJpnll'nt
401 McIntire Rn"d
C harlottcsville. Virginia 22901 -4S9b
(H04) 2965H23
May 1, 1992
Caleb stowe
1100 Dryden Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-92-12 Ednam Associates
Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A1
Dear Mr. stowe:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
April 28, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1) Permit is issued for use by Caleb Stowe only;
2) Off-street parking shall be limited to the approved
parking areas on TMP 60-28A1 and adjoining TMP
59D(2)-06-01 indicated on Attachment C and initialed
WDF 4/9/92.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on Mav 13. 1992. Any new or
additional information regarding your application must be
submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
vJL-/~
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: ~ettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
.~
"
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
APRIL 28, 1992
MAY 13, 1992
'i)
)
i, C1 ('1 t:: ~," I ,I
ZMA-92-01 AND SP-92-12 EDNAM HOUSE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
ZMA-92-01 Ednam House Limited Partnershio petitions the
Board of Supervisors to rezone 1.892 acres from R-10,
Residential [proffered] to PRD, Planned Residential
Development to permit three dwelling units in the existing
Manor House. Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel
28A1, is located on the south side of Worthington Drive in
Ednam in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site
is located in Neighborhood 6 and is recommended for low
density residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre).
SP-92-12 Ednam House Limited Partnership petitions the Board
of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a home
occupation class B [19.3.2(5)] for a realtor on 1.892 acres
zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development. Property,
described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A1, is located on the
south side of Worthington Drive in Ednam in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. This site is located in
Neighborhood 6 and is recommended for low density
residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre).
Character of the Area: This request is for the existing
Ednam House which is located in the Ednam Development.
Residentially developed properties are located adjacent to
this site.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant has two requests pending. ZMA-92-0l is a
request to rezone the property from R-10 [proffered] to PRD
to allow the conversion of the existing Ednam House into
three dwellings, one dwelling per floor. The special use
permit, SP-92-12, is a request to permit a home occupation
for a realtor office in the Ednam House. [This office is
currently permitted by previous actions. However, due to
the rezoning a reapproval of this activity is required].
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has reviewed these requests for compliance with the
provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and
recommends approval of ZMA-92-01 and SP-92-12.
1
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
The Ednam Planned Residential Development was approved under
both rezoning and special use permit petitions in 1980
(ZMA-80-19 and SP-80-62). While the majority of land was
zoned under a planned development designation, the main
Ednam House and grounds were designated high-density
residential with proffers and special use permit in order to
allow use of the house as a clubhouse and professional
offices for Ednam residents.
In 1984 revisions to the previous approval were made to a)
add Caleb stowe Associates office use to the approved uses
and b) in the alternative, permit sale of the main Ednam
house as a single-family dwelling (ZMA-84-12 and SP-84-25).
In 1990 revisions to the previous approvals were again made
to permit the use of the Ednam House by a broader range of
office uses (ZMA-90-11 and SP-90-68).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
This site is recommended for Low Density Residential, 1-4
dwelling units per acre, in Neighborhood 6. The applicant's
proposal will result in a density of 1.58 dwelling units per
acre. (The approved overall density for Ednam is 4.15
dwelling units per acre)
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
This report will address both the rezoning and special use
permit request. A site plan is being reviewed concurrently
with the rezoning and special use permit request. The site
plan proposes to construct covered parking to serve the
Ednam House. These covered parking spaces will replace
those currently existing on the property. Parking is also
available in the common ground as shown on attachment C.
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, and previous actions
on this property and the Ednam Development. Staff opinion
is that the conversion of the Ednam House into a three
dwelling structure is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and existing character of development in Ednam and will
result in a density compatible with the Ednam Development.
Changes to the character of the site are limited to the
construction of covered parking (SDP-92-016) and an addition
to the existing manor house to provide for an elevator.
2
Agreements governing this request have been submitted. They
are identical to the original agreements for the Ednam
Planned Residential Development (ZMA-80-19) with the
addition of agreement 7 which specifically addresses the
Ednam House. These agreements are intended to bring the
Ednam House under the same zoning as the adjacent Ednam
Development. Staff recommends approval of ZMA-92-01,
subject to the submitted agreements.
Staff has reviewed the applicant's request for a home
occupation class B for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance
and previous approvals on this site. The Ednam House has
been permitted to house office uses since 1984. The 1984
approval allowed office use by Caleb Stowe Associates, while
the 1990 approval broadened the permitted office use. The
current special use permit would permit Caleb Stowe
Associates to operate a realtor office with two employees.
Staff sees no change in circumstance since the original
approval and is aware of no complaints regarding the
operation of Caleb stowe Associates. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of SP-92-12, subject to conditions.
Recommended Revised Aqreements for ZMA-80-19 to Incorporate
Aqreements for ZMA-92-01:
1. Approval is for a maximum of 140 dwelling units in
locations and types in accordance with land use summary
of the approved plan. (Commission approved the amended
land use summary.) Specifically, multi-storied
residential structures shall be restricted to Site A,
E and G; (Land Use Summary enc.);
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of commercial entrances and road improvements
as shown on the approved plan;
3. County Engineer approval of internal roads and parking,
drainage, grading plans and impoundment dam;
4. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water
and sewer plans including booster station and other
appurtenances;
5. Fire Official approval of fire hydrant locations and
fire flow requirements, emergency access provisions,
and handicapped parking;
6. County Attorney's approval of Homeowners' maintenance
agreements;
3
7. The Existing Manor House on Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A1 may
be converted into three dwellings.
Recommended Conditions of Approval for SP-92-12:
1) Permit is issued for use by Caleb stowe only;
2) Off-street parking shall be limited to the approved
parking areas on TMP 60-28A1 and adjoining TMP
590(2)-06-01 indicated on Attachment C and initialed
WOF 4/9/92.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Plat of Property
4
/--\.. ..:
IATTACHMENT A,
FOX MUUN AIN
I
)
'tJ'J L""" ~.~
ll__) "\.~. -~-----L-'::f.., 0, ,I) ....
il t, ::-/1.'
......... / .. ...
~ ~
\
-
(1
..~,~-r-
~,
.,
..
.'
J
"
',,-
,,\,'-
:1'
,-::z?~------ ';;
h.p-~i"" {/
ffu (
4~',\""f
~..."" )
[ill).: ,
!~~
/
/
c
(, i
.
.
.,
...
...
59
ALBEMARLE IATTACHMENT BI
....~) \ "~1J 'r"J ~/,,"t--'~ \ T :"kl
}';~, - ( ~ ~ ...
'/ rA ., 800 eOCco
'..-"I(). .~ I ...,... .~[\
I/~~(~~ 1 A- I J '~ ,-,,--'-'\~'!:-;:~,
l/ '/ ~~'.f:) '(, \~ ..... . - '"
[I ~ ~ '/;~< ~~ 6' (~ . '" \\ J
r/ '/ /// .,//:%0/ Ie \ -.....-...___-J\ .
~V/ ///,/ /// i"'C'+ 'l If! C"..t ,~''-...... (
.~/~jJ!?:/, ~ ~ ) l .~~ 7814 \
~ V~~/ ~~,) II '. ,-~ ~.
~~ ~ ~"-}, f"~, ~
t\~ '\ ~... ~~.. ~~Jth.!t\ .:
~ ~~"\ ~ ~~ ~ "'\ '-~'~ ~. 7714 ~ ~
.~ · ~ ~~ ~: ",2 F.;t ~: ;.. '" ~
:--., ~~ . 4 J /~ ,0< 'b.., ...
0- ~, " . r---.. ~ .... :.:...0.. L, 1\)Q ~ 70V 1Ul2 ..
~ " \ 4K 6'-" II ~~i1\~~..' ~'O '
~ ~LI 6<<4 ",--",,;JI, ~ 70. ,d'> 70U ,o1~ ;.
~" "'~S.... TOG 701 :1 101 l,O~ src. lOAI
4~.~~'~ ~J . <or ~<J>.~;,. ,0
~ ~~~_-:P~ ~ 68 _ ~ ~~ .
"4F _ ;;:: ~
~ ~I_ ~... 698
.~ ':.~ 1i ~ I ~L '/~ ;jf
~- ZM{i-92-01 _ ~ ~
~I EDNAM HOUSE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ~
.--~ .. /.
.. - EDNAM IlOUSE ~~~~~;~2 PARTNERSIlIP , .4. '>
~~.. ~:o / (/
C'~ ~.~~7 . u' ~ ~~
.~~~< ~~g ~. U ~ " .... "'...." / ~. ~ ~'J I - y~ / - ':;
"" "'~. ~'. . ~\ '\\'~~;~'Y -JR '
~"- ~ ~ .. 24C r'..j r\J \ \ \ \ ,A~ t.O~
~> /~I ~' ~J II ~\\ ~~ ')~ ~;'"L;Y
~~:>- 28C 'i ~ ~__;...( J" ~ .~ ~~ ii\ \ '\,~\\v~ 1;r"U_
I SEE ~~~~.... · , ~ ,'~~~ '/~ \J\ \ \ ~ t'K D"
~~t'..W' .rn'.. l \^ \ \ \ \ \ \ \'" N: /I
~~'~ "I/////., ..~ ^ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\T\ \ \T l'>)
\\"~~~~ '. ' If 9 48A 48 . "AlIlI \ \ \ \ \ SEE 7614 \ Yf
~ 1~ ;- 41 . J..\A.v \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ y\ Y . IJ
::::~ 'n = H ~ ~ ""'~\\ \" n "
'Y HeT ...c?J. :L JI'" ilf. \' \ \ \ \'1\\\.\ ,
~ ' -?"........~I 4......". ,;....~~.OCI ,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ nIT, \, ~
f""SEE 7~-6J l7Y///~/h / JO >>8 h~~ OlIO \ '""-l. \ \ y ~
~ 1'-'1 ' 34A ~ 000:.
V. T~/, ( iJJ, t,~~--- ~ /"':'0< ~~ ~
~~ //)-...t. ' IL/' I~". ,,~.~~ ~
&A/~ If' ~ '~' --!tO~ 1.~' III(~ ,'~ I'~
"GnIC LlUn^L a. F'ORE5TAL D'STIlIC1 .' 76 "-
SCAU:., rUT SAMUEL MILLER, JACK JOUETT AND
... 'M' .... .... CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICTS
.",,',~~~~
,,,-: l'\...'\...'\...'\...~~ .'\..: \.'\
~
" ~ "-
':J. ~":--,,
f' ~~~~
s~
~~
~ ~~ 0::
FAR"'NG~~N
SECTtO~N~S
GOECll
. GO((2
60(131
~
SEC.
'"
6
,OJ
~.p:
,-
"10:
lU!2N
o '\.~
'10..""
......
.SECTiON 60
!JO(
'1 ler /q)-
..~~ATTACHMENT cl
...
...
...
ATl')oQltm C
'f', r~. 'I'Jt:J-,
. "vnvc.t~u IM~ t'liVt'tR1V SHOWN ON THIS MT "NO THe Tint liNn
AND WAUS 0' THE SV1~OINQ ARE SHOW~ HEll tON.
Sl.llJ.J~C:1 PlloPtRYY OClld 1.1(\'1' (/(
IW .AS ~tOClD J.lA~At:lO AIUA A~
O~"f)J~O 6Y H, u. O.
1. U, ~O. ,~" I
PA~CEl /J.t
~- ..
~
,,~
-- tJ. .. All. no J:.
':>
~
...
....
~
,
<!
~
~
" ~
.\V ':i
~~
.~ '"
-.....
~~
~...
~~
~~
t.:
,
-f.
'"
11\
() .
.~
.~~
Q
~Cl)'~
).q~
~~I:l
::>~~
~ ...
" ~ ::t;
'" " J't...:
~I:\.~
\r~~
....~~
~c.~
)....0
~I...
C\. Wi)o..
'l"
III
~
'r
"'-
~
~.
....
)J07,..
U11L1TIt"fJ AA ~
u AlOI I)d!l(lO!./(),
StI IlCOIUJl{} PLATe AT
A '. 1elf. 41/ A IJD D.~. "~/. 0_1
rOA AC'''.. 6A'IM~IJT TO
U. 't. 6C"TI ,.,0.
. tJ~IJ~T~'
ROUDABUSH, QAIEN l QALE. INC.
c;;UT1'IID LAND 8UIIY(YOI\ - (~INttl\
c;;I1IU'ILOTTIIVlI.U, VlIIO''''''
OAT!, M.4~. t1. M~
5CAI.' I , · . (l .
"U NO. (,/7(1
fino '001<
t. t,
.. w.......~ -~:-',::"":"l"T~o:-...7~;"'.;'': .....~ . .. .:.r:-'...."";I..';.l~--...--:--____.. ...,,77~..
..~
STATEMENT OF DAVID P. BOWERMAN, CHAIRMAN
ON BEHALF OF THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TO THE GOVERNOR'S ADVISORY COMMISSION
ON THE DILLON RULE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
May 19, 1992
IRMAN MacFARLANE AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, I'M DAVID
G VERNMENT HAS HAD, IS NOW HAVING, AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE A
WERMAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY.
BEHALF OF OUR BOARD, I WELCOME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU
THIS CRITICAL ISSUE. THE DILLON RULE'S APPLICATION TO LOCAL
GNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON OUR ABILITY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
BEMARLE COUNTY IN A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE MANNER.
ADDITION, THE PASSING OF FEDERAL AND STATE MANDATES AND
SPONSIBILITIES DOWN TO THE LOCAL LEVEL, WHILE NOT PROVIDING
IN THE FACE OF LIMITED LOCAL REVENUE
HORITY, PLACES LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN AN UNTENABLE POSITION.
AT DOES THIS MEAN TO ALBEMARLE COUNTY?
THIS, ADDED TO THE
FROM CONTINUED POPULATION GROWTH AND A DYNAMIC
SFORMATION FROM A LARGELY RURAL COUNTY TO AN URBAN/RURAL COUNTY
BEING UNDULY CONSTRAINED IN MEETING THE NEEDS OF OUR
IT IS A SITUATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES WITH LIMITED
TO MEET THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES. WE, THEREFORE, ASK FOR
UR CONSIDERATION IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS:
. EQUAL TAXING POWER WITH CITIES. THE INEQUALITY IN TAXING
WERS BETWEEN CITIES AND COUNTIES IS AN IMPEDIENT TO EFFECTIVE
SCAL MANAGEMENT. WHILE GRANTING SIMILAR POWERS TO THE COUNTIES
"
I A FIRST STEP, THE GREATER ISSUE OF HOME RULE TAXING AUTHORITY IS
S PPORTED TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE.
. EQUAL BORROWING AUTHORITY AS CITIES. BROADER AUTHORITY IN
B RROWING SUCH AS ISSUING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS WITHOUT
R FERENDUM.
. BROADER AUTHORITY IN REGULATING LAND USE IS CRITICAL.
S GNIFICANT EMPOWERMENT OF LOCALITIES TO MANAGE THEIR LAND USE IS
N CESSARY.
W OPPOSED THE RECENT LEGISLATION ON GIVING SITE PLANS A FIVE-YEAR
L FE; WE SUPPORT THE OPTION TO USE IMPACT FEES, TRANSFERRABLE
D VELOPMENT RIGHTS, AND USE VALUE TAXATION IN THE URBAN AREAS.
A REVIEW OF SOME OF THE TREATISES ON THE DILLON RULE IN VIRGINIA
S
TO THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU. OUR
E PECTATION IS SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE. WHETHER YOU CALL IT A
LAXING OF THE DILLON RULE BY FUNCTIONAL AREAS OR A CHANGE TO HOME
LE WITH STATE LIMITATIONS, THE NEED TO PROVIDE GREATER AUTONOMY
T LOCALITIES IN MEETING LOCAL NEEDS IS THE CENTERPIECE OF THE
LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY
S
PARTICIPATE IN FUTURE EFFORTS OF THIS COMMISSION.
\
9
(j' l\
, I ~
5-.-':> .,).)
,. . ,.'; //'. .'.'" ..... , .' ,.~ .--,
/-i' .)C'I:5 j 1
; "....:L . .1...~,~. ""
,
STATEMENT TO THE GOVERNOR'S ADVISORY ,COMMISSION
ON THE DILLON RULE AND LOCAL GO~~ENT
; .': \~ " " 2
May 19, 1992
" t.
:, ",
C IRMAN MacFARLANE AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, I'M DAVID
ERMAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY.
ON BEHALF OF OUR BOARD, I WELCOME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU
ON THIS CRITICAL ISSUE. THE DILLON'S RULE APPLICATION TO LOCAL
IS NOW HAVING, AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE A
IMPACT ON OUR ABILITY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
EMARLE COUNTY IN A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE MANNER.
ADDITION, THE PASSING OF FEDERAL AND STATE MANDATES AND
SPONSIBILITIES DOWN TO THE LOCAL LEVEL, WHILE NOT PROVIDING
REVENUES IN THE FACE OF LIMITED LOCAL REVENUE
THORITY, PLACES LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN AN UNTENABLE POSITION.
MEAN TO ALBEMARLE COUNTY?
THIS, ADDED TO THE
FROM CONTINUED POPULATION GROWTH AND A DYNAMIC
SFORMATION FROM A LARGELY RURAL COUNTY TO AN URBAN/RURAL COUNTY
BEING UNDULY CONSTRAINED IN MEETING THE NEEDS OF OUR
IT IS A SITUATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES WITH LIMITED
TO MEET THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES.
. EQUAL TAXING POWER WITH CITIES. THE INEQUALITY IN TAXING
P
BETWEEN CITIES AND COUNTIES IS AN IMPEDIENT TO EFFECTIVE
F
MANAGEMENT. WHILE GRANTING SIMILAR POWERS TO THE COUNTIES
I A FIRST STEP, THE GREATER ISSUE OF HOME RULE TAXING AUTHORITY IS
'"
SUPPORTED TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE.
. BROADER AUTHORITY IN BORROWING SUCH AS ISSUING GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS WITHOUT REFERENDUM.
. BROADER AUTHORITY IN LAND USE IS CRITICAL. SIGNIFICANT
EMPOWERMENT OF LOCALITIES TO MANAGE THEIR LAND USE IS NECESSARY.
WE OPPOSED THE RECENT LEGISLATION ON GIVING SITE PLANS A FIVE-YEAR
LIFE; WE SUPPORT THE OPTION TO USE IMPACT FEES, TRANSFERRABLE
DavELOPMENT RIGHTS, AND USE VALUE TAXATION IN THE URBAN AREAS.
A REVIEW OF SOME OF THE TREATISES ON THE DILLON RULE IN VIRGINIA
SEEAKS WELL TO THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU. OUR
EXPECTATION IS SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE. WHETHER YOU CALL IT A
RELAXING OF THE DILLON RULE BY FUNCTIONAL AREAS OR A CHANGE TO HOME
RQLE WITH STATE LIMITATIONS, THE NEED TO PROVIDE GREATER AUTONOMY
TO LOCALITIES IN MEETING LOCAL NEEDS IS THE CENTERPIECE OF THE
SOLUTION.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PARTICIPATE IN FUTURE EFFORTS OF THIS COMMISSION.
\dbm
92.018
t.::
...;.,., '-'::-.\.;
ON_
")- --/ - ~/. -~_..
--......-....-...-----.....
County of Albemarle
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA
Dillon
STAFF C
Messrs.
BACKGRO
Governo
public
authori
and will
. <..!,t':1 \
AGENDA DATE: ' .
May 6, 1992
'fW~i~R:
)r') :7~y/: 3" /
q",.., . A~;(_ r ,-4J?
ACTION:~ INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
/1;:-
REVIEWED BY: /e/'1/ !
Wilder's Advisory Commission on the Dillon Rule and Local Government is holding
earings on the application of the Dillon Rule as it affects local government
to operate in an effective and efficient manner. Hearings commenced on March 17th
conclude on May 20th. The remaining hearings are:
Thursday, May 14th, 10:00 a.m. - Fredericksburg
Tuesday, May 19th, 10:00 a.m. - Harrisonburg
Wednesday, May 20th, 10:00 a.m. - Leesburg
The Vir inia Association of Counties is requesting support of two proposals outlined in
Attachm nt A.
statement supporting the VACO proposals is provided for your consideration and
RECOMME ATION:
For dis ussion and approval. Staff is prepared to present the statement if the Board so
chooses.
92.069
C. DffiUNG. lR.
STAFF
NEALl. ARBER
DEPAR NT OF HOUSING
AND CO MUNITY DEVELOPMENT
205 NOR H FOURTH STREET
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
GOVERNOR'S ADVISORY COMMISSION ON THE
DILLON RULE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
February 26, 1992
TO: Chief Local Government Administrative Officer
FROM: J. Granger Macfarlane, Chairmi;PIIl/
I am pleased to announce the schedule of public hearings to
be conducted throughout the Commonwealth by the Governor's
Advisory Commission on the Dillon Rule and Local Government.
The Commission has been established to study the application of the
Dillon Rule as it affects local government authority to operate in an
efficient and effective manner. The Dillon Rule is a legal principle
that limits local governmental powers to only those expressly granted
by the state legislature. Enclosed is our hearing schedule and the
Executive Order creating the Commission.
I would appreciate it if you would circulate this information
to the members of your governing body and appointed citizen
boards, as well as other appropriate local officials. I am very
interested in the viewpoints of local government on this issue and
encourage everyone to participate at the hearing most convenient to
their schedule. Advance registration to speak is not necessary:
everyone will have an opportunity to address the Commission.
I look forward to the involvement of Virginia's local
governments in the Commission hearing process.
Enclosure
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
r.~. '1;,...."'; f'~'" ~,l";:j '" ~~" '. \',~
")." t!.-a:\ 4i '. 2
I ..,,;,J_<__, , II
t,V'~- - ~ 2"1 lq92 .~
t ;;\..~ I
1<.,' -'.:r-;' -". --..y'......-r-'''. ~
it ti ~\.-'_')~r, r:n,~" :;-':..:.:! '> 'Y"''''! ~f.;l'a'
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219
(804) 786-1575 (FAX) (804) 225-3822
T
FRO
FAX MEMORANDUM
.
All County Board of Supervisors
(804) 788-6652 · (ax (804) 788-0OtB
C. Flippo Hicks
General Counsel
Commission Study of the Dillon Rule
March 31, 1992
chedulc of the remaining hearings' locations and times are attached. Your
county is encouraged to have a representative to appear before the Commission at ..
I would request that you speak in support of the following two
propos Is. They come from provisions already in the Code which municipalities
have r may have.
A county shall have and may exercise all powers which it now has or
which ma.y hereafter be conferred upon or delegated to it under the constitutional
and la s of the Commonwealth and all other powers pertinent to the conduct of the
affairs and functions of the county government, the exercise of which is not
expres ly prohibhed by the Constitution.and the general laws of the
Comm nwealth, and which are necessary or desirable to secure and promote the
genera welfare of the inhabitants of the County and lhe safety, health, peace, good
order, comfort, convenience, morals, trade, commerce, industry and protection of
the en ironment and orderly development of the land of the county and the
inhabj ants thereof.
umeralion of specific powers shall not be construed or held to be exclusive
or as limitation upon any general grant of power, but shall be construed and held
to be n addition to any general grant of power. The grant of powers by this
provisi n or by a general grant of power shall be liberally construed to grant broad
author"ty to the county to conduct the functions of local government.
2. county may raIse annually by taxes and a.ssessment of property, persons,
and ot er subjects of taxation, wbich are not prohibited by law, such sums of
money as in the judgement of the governing body of the county are necessary to
pay th debts to defray the expenses, accomplish the purpose and perform the
, functio s of the county in such manner as the governing body of the county deems
necess ry or expedient.
It is ost. important that counties make a presentation before the Commission if the
county' has a position on the Dillon Rule. Advance registration to speak is not
necess ry; everyone will have an opportunity to address the Commission.
Day
uesday March 17
uesday March 24
uesday April 14
uesday May 5
ednesday May 6
ursday May 14
uesday May 19
ednesday May 20
esday May 26
MEETING AND HEARING SCHEDULE
TIme
9 a.m.
& 2 p.m.
10 a.m.
10 a.m.
7 p.m.
2 p.m.
9 a.m.
10 a.m.
10 a.m.
10 a.m.
10 a.m.
Location
Richmond, Senate Room B,
General Assembly Bldg.
Danville
Chambers,
Comer of
Streets.
City Council
Municipal Bldg.,
Patton and Court
Abingdon, Martha Washington
Inn, Grand Ballroom.
Roanoke, Virginia Western
Community College, Whitman
Auditorium in the Business
Science Bldg.
Portsmouth, Tidewater
Community College-Portsmouth
Campus, in the 'Theater".
Accomac~ Eastern Shore
Community College-Melfa
Campus, in the Lecture Hall.
Fredericksburg, Martha
Washington College, Klein
Theatre in duPont Hall.
Harrisonburg, Blue Ridge
Community College,
Auditorium, Weyers Cave Exit,
1-81.
Leesburg, Loudoun County
Courthouse, Board Room.
Richmond, Senate Room A,
General Assembly Bldg.
Organizational
Meeting and
First Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
First Work
Session
STAFF
NEALJ.
DEPAR ENT OF HOUSING
AND CO MUNITY DEVELOPMENT
~,
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
GOVERNOR'S ADVISORY COMMISSION ON THE
DILLON RULE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
February 26, 1992
TO: Chief Local Government Administrative Officer
FROM: J. Granger Macfarlane, Chairmasjlll/
I am pleased to announce the schedule of public hearings to
be conducted throughout the Commonwealth by the Governor's
Advisory Commission on the Dillon Rule and Local Government.
The Commission has been established to study the application of the
Dillon Rule as it affects local government authority to operate in an
efficient and effective manner. The Dillon Rule is a legal principle
that limits local governmental powers to only those expressly granted
by the state legislature. Enclosed is our hearing schedule and the
Executive Order creating the Commission.
I would appreciate it if you would circulate this information
to the members of your governing body and appointed citizen
boards, as well as other appropriate local officials. I am very
interested in the viewpoints of local government on this issue and
encourage everyone to participate at the hearing most convenient to
their schedule. Advance registration to speak is not necessary:
everyone will have an opportunity to address the Commission.
I look forward to the involvement of Virginia's local
governments in the Commission hearing process.
Enclosure
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
':~"~ ;;'} ,r;' "~.. :It''-''I
' .-..:., ,. -;~~..""":l:~~ ~ ..'
c' .,~ '
. ~ ';<1 ,q92)'~ 1
'^J
~ """. ....,..".r.. R.. '
'f ~ . i,~ ".;..-...,~ ~:'~>1)i. j,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219
(804) 786-1575 (FAX) (804) 225-3822
1
/
COMMONWEALTfiI of VIRGINIA
Lawren e Douglas Wilder
Governor
Office of the GOtlemor
Richmond 23219
EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER fORTY-TWO (91)
CREATING THE GOVERNOR'S ADVISORY COMMISSION ON THE DILLON RULE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
By v1rtue of the authority vested 1n me as Governor under Art1cle V of the
Const1tut10n of V1rg1nia and, 1ncluding, but not l1mited to, Section 2.1-51.36
of the Code of Virginia, and subject to my continuing and ult1mate authority
and responsib111ty to act 1n such matters, I hereby create the Governor's
Advisory Commission on the 01110n Rule and Local Government.
The Adv1sory Commission is classified as a gubernator1a1 adv1sory
comm1ss10n in accordance with Sect10ns 2.1-51.35 and 9-6.25 of the Code of
Virginia.
The Commission shall have the spec1fic duty of advis1ng the Governor
relative to the following 1ssues:
1. The Commission will review current local government powers in the
Commonwealth.
2. The Commission shall assess the 'ability of the Commonwealth's local
governments to deal with local and regional issues with1n the
existing framework of the Code of Virginia.
3. The Commission will evaluate the need for changes to the Code of
Virginia and make any recommendations deemed necessary to provide
local governments with the ability to address local and regional
issues.
The Cha1rman, V1ce-Cha1rman, and members of the Commission shall be
app01nted by the Governor and shall serve at his pleasure. The Commission
shall cons1st of no more than twenty members, including locally elected
officials, county and city administrators, business and civic leaders, and a
representative of the Office of the Secretary of finance.
ill," ';;62211
roD ,171 8UtS
EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER FORTY-TWO (91)
Page 2
Such funding as is necessary for the fulfillment of the Comm1ssion's
business during the term of its existence will be provided by such executive
branch agencies as the Governor may from time to time designate. Total
expenditures for the Commission's work are estimated to be $17,000.
Such staff support as is necessary for the conduct of the Comm1ssion1s
business during the term of its existence will be provided by the Department
of Housing and Commun1ty Development or such other executive branch agencies
as the Governor may from time to time designate. An estimated 5,200 hours of
staff support will be required to assist the Commission.
Members of the COITmission shall serve w1thout ~0mpensat1on and shall not
receive any expenses in~urred in the discharge of their official duties.
The Commission shall complete its examinations of these matters and report
to the Governor no later than November 1, 1992. It may issue interim reports
and make recommendations at any time it deems necessary.
This Executive Order shall become effective November 2, 1991, and shall
remain in full force and effect until November 1, 1992, unless amended or
resc1nded by further executive order.
Given under my ha~np under the Seal of the Commonwealth
this~ day of tJ ~~ 1991.
, ~d
Governor
of Virg1n1a
~~_...~,-
, fj~,,"~G.~~,-;~ ~~.~:,
J :!-';"14~ . .~;),. '. '~
'.~1 . i'f':'j~ . t\, .'.';
. '.( -1
- 0:...._r.1'. -{, c'"
- :.: '~l'-' ivt,__, Ill!
- .-.....~;~\~~jJI
. J:" '_'_ ~ .
--~
~i;JL
..&
.-',1
It'l, :JGW\J--
Secretary of the Commonwealth
,i<....;.~..,.:,."'_~~ , '"if ....Io,l')
D,,'lIjUl.l~" tJ lJD<l,ll "__.__,_.~_,.
fwc:"ri.' .:'. >!....2;;L/J 5J3..:.}'1 t-
Edward H, B n. Jr,
Samuei Mill r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296.5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. umphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
M E M 0 RAN DUM
T
Board of Supervisors
F
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC
D
May 8, 1992
S
Reading List for May 13, 1992
J ne 12, 1991 - pages 24 - 46 - Mr. Perkins
pages 47 - 67 - Mr. Bowerman
pages 68 - end - Mr. Bain
S ptember 18, 1991 - pages 1 - 21 (#8) - Mr. Bain
pages 21 (#8) - end - Mrs. Humphris
L :ec