Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-12-06NNovembe~ 30, 1978 (Adjourned from November 29, 1978) December 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) 059 Mr. Fisher said guidance to this point has been furnished by the Steering Committee and the Citizens Advisory Committee. He asked that groups with comments to make on the proposed draft, put them in writing so the comments can be studied by the staff. He said it is his hope that the Board can hold its first public hearing on the ordinance on January 11, 1979. Mr. Fisher then called on the public for comments. After a short question and answer session during which several members of the public complained about the short time schedule for adoption of the ordinance, Mr. Fisher noted that he had scheduled a work session on the ordinance for the Board in January and that was the reason he wanted to get the ordinance before the public tonight. He asked the Planning Commission's schedule. Uol. William Washington, Vice-Chairman of the Commission, said they have a work session scheduled for December 4th with a public hearing set for December llth. At 9:35 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. ~airman December ~, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 6, 1978, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G, Dorrier, Jr. (arriving at 7:35 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fishe~ with a moment of silence. Agenda Item No. 2. Request for Central Well. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of letter from JOseph C. Hearn, Jr. requesting permission to install a central well system to serve six one-bedroom cottages to be constructed on 12+ acres on Old Lynchburg Road. The property is known as Tax Map 89, Parcel 53. In his letter, Mr. Hearn noted that the site plan for these cottages has been approved by the Planning Commission and the owner of the property is H - W Associates. Mr. Agnor said the property is located within the Service Authority's jurisdictional boundaries, but is more than a mile from the end of the line, therefore it is not feasible to connect this property to public water. Mr. Hearn was present and said it is a matter of drilling one well to serve these dwellings, or drilling several wells. The parcel is undivided and there will be six rental cottages constructed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve in concept the drilling of a central well as proposed by Mr. Hearn. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3. Amend Section 18-22 of the County Code and Section 17-5-13 of the Zoning Ordinance to establish performance standards for off-site and on-site drainage facilities. (Deferred from November I, 1978.) Mr. Tucker said these amendments will serve to clarify that on-site and off-site drainage facilities are the developer's responsibility. Generally the rate of post-develop- ment runoff will not exceed that which existed prior to development. Increased runoff due to development is a concern often expressed by adjoining property owners at Planning Commission meetings. These provisions will be applicable to areas outside of the South Fork Rivanna River Watershed. The County Engineering Department prepared a study of the' proposed storm water detention ordinance in which it is stated that, "for several years, the attention of the County Staff has been called to the incipient drainage problem which is inherent in the change of large areas of land from natural cover to impervious s~zzrfaces. The consideration of plans for the development of a large shopping mall on.the Meadow Creek Watershed persuades the County Staff that it is time to propose an ordinance for the purpose of controlling storm water discharge to the extent necessary to prevent excessive and unnecessary flooding." Mr. Tucker said the staff of the Engineering Department and the staff of the Planning Department met with representatives from the Blue Ridge Home Builder's Association. The Home Builder's had two primary concerns: one dealt with the ~quare footage of impervious cover that would be exempted under the provisions which were. originally recommended, or 10,000 square feet. The Blue Ridge Home Builder's asked that this be increased to 40,000 square feet. Mr. Bailey, County Engineer, at a Planning Commission meeting, said he felt that without any detrimental effect to the environment, this square footage could be increased to 20,000 square feet, and that change was made and is recommended to the Board. Mr. Tucker said other changes were made by the Planning Commission at their hearing, (shown in italics in the following recommendations), and the~ recommended approval of these ordinances with changes by a 7-1-1 vote. 17-5-13 a~-e¢¢-e~e-eha~-~e-~e~&~e~ (a) Provisions shall be made for the disposition of surface water Punoff from the site, including .such on-site and off-site drainage faciIities as the Coramission, upon the recommendation of the County~Engineer, may O7O December g, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) deem adequate. Except as the Commission may otherwise r~quire in a particUlar case or as expressly provided herein, such faci'l'it'ies shall' be so designed and installed that the rate of surface water runoff from the site~ due to a rainfall of a 10-year return period intensity as Shown on the Frequency Ana'lysis Curve for Charlottesville~ Virginia~ shall be no greater after the proposed development than'~efore; provided that the same ~y be~aaaomplished without un~easonabl'~ adverse impaat on the envi~- onmen£ o4 the'site. The second sentence of this sub-section Shall apply only within the geograp.~ic limits as hereinafter described: the drainage basins of Moores Creek,..Meadow Creek~ Powell Creek~ Redbud Creek, Town Branch and those un-named branches~ whether perennial or intermitt'ent, 5.,000 fee~ o~ greater in length~ which flow directly into the Rivanna River from either side~, beginning at the crossing of U. S. Route 29 over the South Fork of the Rivanna Riv~r~ thence with the South Fork to its confluence with the North Fork of the Rivanna and thence downstream with (b) the Rivanna River to its confluence with Moores Creek; all as shown on maps published by t~.e United States Geological Survey entitled "Charlottesville East~ Virginia~" "Charlottesville West~ Virgi.nia~" "Earlysville~ Virginia~." "Simeon,_..Virginia~" and "Alberene~ Virginia." ~Within the geographic area hereinabove described, the second sentence of this sub-section shall not apply to the following: (1) Lands which are desi. gnated as lying within the flood plain of any stream in accordance with Article 9A of this ordinance; (2) The development of any lot or parcel which results in a total impervious surface coverage of not greater than 20,000 square 'feet; (3) Any development~ the final site plan and/or subdivision plat of which has been approved by the Commission prior to the adoption of this section, as amendedj and (4) In any case where the developer shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the County Engineer and the Commission that o..ff-sit~ improvements or other provisions for the disposition of surface water run-off would equally or better serve the pub.li'c interest and safety; and that such method of disposition would not adversel.y affect downstream properties. In addition, provisions shall be made for the minimization of pollution of all downstream water courses due to surface water ~unoff. ~e-e~-a~ ~a~e-e~-~e~-e~-e~e-a~-e~-e~e-~a~a~e-e~a~-~e-~e~e~e~-~-~e ~e~e~e~e~-~-ee~e~e~ee-w~A-~Ae-~e~e~-~e~-e~-A~e-a~e~ Section 18-22 Flood control and drainage structures. The subdivider shall proiide all information needed to determine what improvements are necessary to provide adequate drainage, including contour maps, drainage plans, and flood control devices. Contour intervals shall be not greater than five feet and shall be at such lesser intervals as specified by the agent. ~,-~~e~ e~a~-a~ee~e~e-~a~e~e~-e~e~-~e~me~e~-~ege~e~-~a-~a~eme~-~em-a p~e~e~-~&&&~&e~ee~e~e~ee~e~a~-~e~e~-~a~-e~e~&m~e~eme~w-- w~e~-~e~e~-~e~&~&e~-w&~&-~e-aSe~a~e-¢e~-~e~e~-~e~e&e~e~ Provisions shall be made for the disposition of surface water ~unoff from the site~ including such on-site and off-site drainage facilities as the Co~ission~ upon the recommenda- tion of the County Engineer~ may deem adequate. Except as the Commission may other- wise require in a particular case~ or as expressly ~rovided herein, such facilities shall be so designed and installed that the rate of surface water runoff from the site due to a rainfall of a 10-year return period intensity as shown on the Frequency Analysis Curve for Charlottesville, Virginia, shall be no ~reater after the proposed development than before; provided that the same mac ~e accomplished w~thout unreasonable advekse[impaat on the environment of the site. The fourth sentence~of this section shall apply only within the geographic limits as herein- after described: the drainage basins of Moores C~eek~ Meadow Creek~ Powell Creek, Redbud Creek~ Town Branch Bnd those un-named branches~ whether perennial or intermittent~ 5~000 feet or greater in length~ which flow directly into the Rivanna River from either side, beginning at'the crossing of U. S. Route 29 over the South Fork of the Rivanna ~nd thence downstream with the Rivanna RSver to its confluence with Moores Creek;~.all as shown on maps pUblished by the United States Geo'l'o'gi'c'a.~ Survey entitled "Charlottesville' E~st~' Vir'g~nia,'" "Charlottesville West~ virgi'nia~'" "Earlysvilie~ Virginia," "Sime'on~ Vi'r'gini'a,"' and "Alberene~ Virginia." Withi'n 'the geographic area hereinabove desor'ib'e'd,' th'e fourth sentence of this section shall not apply to th'e following: (1) Lands which are designated as lying within the flood plain of any stream im accordance with Article 9A of this ordinance; (2) The development of any lot or parcel which results in a total impervious surface coverage of not greater than 20,000 square 'feet; (3) Any development~ the final site plan and/or subdivision plat of which has been approved by the Commission prior to the adoption of this section~ as amended; and (4) In any case where the subdivider shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the County Engineer and the Commission that off-site improvements o~ other provisions for the disposition of surface water run-off would equally o~ better serve the public interest and safety; and that such method of disposition would not adversely affect downstream properties. In addition~ provisions shall be made for the m~fii~ization of pollution of all ~wnstream water courses due' to surface water runoff. The subdivider shall also provide any other information required by the Board of Supervisors, its agent, or the Highway Engineer. December 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) 07:1. Dr. Iachetta asked if this ordinance had been checked against the new state-wide Handbook for Non-Point Smurces in the Urban Area which was recently published. Mr. Tucker said he did not know. Mr. Fisher questioned a sentence in the first section of the proposed ordinance which read: "...those unnamed branches, whether p~rennial or intermittent 5,000 feet or greater in length, which flow directly into the Rivanna River from either side..." He asked if the 5,000 feet was an arbitrary distance. Mr. Bailey said this was to limit the ordinance to those major unnamed branches rather than the smaller branches. It is arbitrary, but on anything shorter than 5,000 feet, nothing would really be accomplished. At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Treva Cromwell, appearing for the League of Women Voters, who read the following prepared statement: "The League of Women Voters believes that in the long run it is less oostly to require adequate design standards for on-site and off-site drainage than to try to pay for and correct damages caused by failure to work with nature. Therefore, we believe this proposed stormwater runoff detention ordinance is necessary for the protection of the small watersheds and will be an effective tool if monitored and enforced. We surely hope that the supervisory and inspection staff is large enough to insure enforcement. The goal, according to the county engineer's foreword, is to control "stormwater discharge to the extent necessary to prevent excessive and unnecessary flooding." In this connection, we wonder why streams of less than 5,000 feet are exempt, especially since such streams flow directly into the Rivanna. We would like to emphasize the importance of another goal indirectly mentioned, and that is the necessity of maintaining water quality standards in the Rivanna River. On page 11 (Study of Stormwater Detention Ordinance by County Engineering Department), the study noted the necessity to meet the national goal of water quality as mandated in Public Law 92-500. Therefore, it seems that the intent of the amendment is to protect water quality as well as to reduce the velocity and volume of water reaching the Rivanna River. The study notes in several places that high development projected for the water- sheds will result india change from vegetation to impervious surfaces and that such change will add to the rate and volume of stormwater runoff. This discharge from impervious surfaces has another result: an increase in pollutant loadings. Urban drainage, especially in the first few minutes of a storm is very heavily polluted--and much of that runoff originates on impervious surfaces. Therefore, we want no more than 10,000 square feet of impervious area exempted, instead of the 20,000 square feet (almost half an acre') that the builders support. We have noted in our reading that the ratio of impervious area to lot size is more often expressed in terms of percentage, rather than square footage. Why c. annot percentage be the criterion, using a sliding scale according to tot size? The Director of Engineering-Planning of the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission at the November 6 Rivanna Reservoir Seminar said that the fallout of pollutants from the air had not been anticipated and was an important factor in increasing pollutant loadings of nitrogen, for instance. However, heavy loadings of minerals and bacteria from the parking areas also contributed to the total increase of pollutants. The Occoquan study provides data to show that displacing woods and fields with rooftops, streets, and parking areas funnels a wide range of pollutants to receiving streams. Another expert wrote "that local officials clearly recognize that sewage is only t! one source of pollutants" and that the dirty byproducts of urbanizations-sediment, pesticides, wastes flushed off rooftops, yards and streets--can offset the pollution control effect of the best sewage treatment plants." We believe this relationship should be kept in mind as we plan land uses that may make it more difficu2t to meet the water quality standards for the Rivanna Rivers. Therefore, we believe that the exemption of impervious surfaces should remain at 10,000 square feet and not be increased to 20,000 square feet. This ordinance recognizes that land acts as a giant sponge to mop up rainwater by providing means of temporary storage and groundwater recharge. What we do not want are techniques which rush water off the land as quickly as possible. We do not favor, therefore, standards that would encourage construction of concrete-lined drainage ditches or large culverts whose, main purpose is to increase veIocity of water and get rid of it. Neither would we support under- ground drainage systems that replace parts or all of runs, creeks, or streams. Such systems not only cause loss of esthetic values but they are also very costly for the developer and increase peak flow of runoff downstream. Paved ditches and valley gutters should be used only where s~pes are too steep or soils too unstable so that control by vegetation alone is not possible. Where the cost of on-site erosion controls may be high, other uses or a layout more compatible with the land should be considered. As the study notes, it may not be possible to develop some lands as fully as the owner desires and still comply with the ordinance. For years it has been recognized that an individual's property is his to do with as he pleases. But it also recognized that when an individual's action with his p~operty degrades the ~property of another, controls must be imposed on the perpetrator to p~event damages to his neighbor. December 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) We believe that the costs of such controls must be borne by those who benefit from the use of the land whose drainage patterns are changed by development. One property owner should not be permitted to increase the value of his property at the expense of his neighbors. A property owner who causes erosion, sedi- mentation, and flooding just as surely pollutes land and water as does an industry which pollutes a stream with its discharges or land with its hazardous waters. Where erosion, sedimentation, and/or flooding are allowed to increase, others, not the polluter, pay for the flooded basements, bridge and culvert repairs, lower water quality, and higher water treatment costs. This is not fair. Responsibility for drainage controls must be placed upon the p~operty owner until the lots are sold--or hold the original developer responsible until completion of the subdivision. [Special covenants could be written into titles, so that home owners know that certain portions of their property, for instance, will be used for temporary water storage as was done in Reston, Virginia, and Iowa City, Iowa. We believe provision for permanent responsibility is very important. Should a severe storm wipe out drainage facilities, who is responsible for their replacement? Responsibility for maintenance of permanent structures and planting should be clearly understood when ownership or management of property transfers from developer or builder to a private owner. The Iowa City experience indicates that such requirements posed no problems to developers. As urbanization threatens the natural reservoirs by reducing the land's capacity for water storage, it only makes sense to require standards for drainage facilities that control volume and velocity of runoff in order that the land ma&ntain, insofar as possible, its role as a sponge to soak up precipitation. At the same time, such standards prevent waterways from increasing their peak flows and becoming courses to carry pollutants downstream. Once these contaminants enter a flowing stream, water quality management options are severely reduced." Next to speak was Mr. Chuck Rotgin representing the Blue Ridge Home Builder's Associa- tion. He said the association f~els that this is a significant ordinance which could raise the cost of building lots and ultimately the cost of housing. The overriding concern of the association is that while the intent of the ordinance is admirable, they are not sure it is really needed. They feel the County Staff has authority under existing ordinances to take care of off-site drainage problems. There has been no cost impact study, no implementation cost study, and no study of the benefits that would be derived by the co~unity as a result of the adoption of this ordinance. If the Board does adopt the ordinance, the association has two areas of concern: 1) the size of the excluded lot, and 2) interpretation. Mr. Rotgin said if the ordinance is to be adopted, it should be adopted in the form recommended by the Planning Commission. With no one else from the public rising to speak for or against the proposed amendments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher began by congratulating the staff for a well-written document. He said with a reasonable interpretation by the Planning Commission, this ordinance might forestall future problems. Mr. Fisher said he was worried about the 20,000 square foot provision since he felt it would be an inducement to divide land into smaller pieces so they would be exempted from the ceiling and 100% of the lot could still be paved. Dr. Iachetta said Albemarle County has been a leader in trying to control runoff. He has not had an opportunity to compare this ordinance against the state manuals which are being prepared in response to potential Federal legislation. Water standards are being promulugated to more stringent levels each year, and they will require that the locality control point and non-point sources from both urban and non-urban areas. He felt this ordinance is a move in the right direction, but suggested that before it is finalized that it be compared against the state manuals. Mr. Roudabush'said in response to Mr. Rotgin's concern, he felt there will be some economies obtained through this type of practice. It has been known for years that smaller and cheaper drainage systems c~uld be installed if some type of storage were allowed. However, Department of Highway's criteria has demanded that pipe sizes be designed to carry off all runoff. This has caused some of the cost of high development. This ordinance will allow some savings through the impounding of water, which in turn will allow for reduced pipe sizes and inlet structures. Mr. Lindstrom said there will be one incidental benefit from this ordinance. By hold- ing the water on the land ~ initially:k: comes to rest2c~% it will permit the recharging of groundwater supplies. ~e~e~ Motion was then o~fered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to defer vote on this matter until December 20th in order to allow for time for the ordinance to be compared against the new state handbook. The motinn carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. ~. Public Hearing: Amend Section 1~ of the Zoning Ordinance by the addition of Sections 14-5 through 1~-5-5 as they relate to conditional or proffered zoning. (Deferred from November 1, 1978.) Mr. Tucker said this mechanism will give added flexibility to the County as well as any applicant for a proposed rezoning. The ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney and the language was taken straight from State enabling legislation. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of November 15, 1978, recommended to the Board that Article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended by the addition of Sections numbered 14-5 as set out beto~ 14-5 CONDITIONAL ZONING December 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) ';:073 14-5-1 Prior to any public hearing before the govering body, any applicant for rezoning may voluntarily proffer, in writing, reasonable conditions to be applied to such rezoning as part thereof. Such conditdons shall comply with the provisions of, Section 15.1-491.2 of the Code; provided that the proffering thereof by the applicant shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such compliance. 14-5-2 Upon the approval of any such rezoning, all conditions so proffered and accepted by the board of supervisors shall be deemed a part thereof and non-severable therefrom and shall remain in force until amended or varied by the board of supervisors in accordance with Section 15.1-491.6 of the Code. Ail such conditions shall be in addition to the regulations provided for the district by the ordinance. 14-5-3 Each such rezoning shall be designated on the official zoning map by an appropriate symbol designed by the zoning administrator. In addition, the zoning administrator shall keep and maintain the conditional zoning index which shall provide ready access to the ordinance creating such conditions. 14-5-4 The zoning administrator shall be vested with all necessary authority on behalf of the governing body of the county to administer and enforce conditions attached to a re.z~ning including the ordering in writing of the remedy of any non-compliance with such conditions and the bringing of legal action for injunction, abatement or other appropriate action or proceeding. In addition, the zoning administrator shall require a guarantee, satisfactory to the governing body, in an amonnt sufficient for and conditioned upon the construction of any physical improvements required by the condition, or a contract for the construction of such improvements and the contractors guarantee in a like amount and so conditioned, which guarantee shall be reduced or released by the governing body, or agent thereof, upon the submission of satisfactory evidence that construction of such improvements has been completed in whole or in part; provided, ~further, that failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required use, occupancy or building permits as may be appropriate. Subject to the approval of the zoning administrator in a particular case, the applicant may provide a single guarantee in an amonnt sufficient for and conditioned upon the completion of all improvements required by this section, by Section 11-2 of this ordinance and/or by Section 18-19 of the County Code. 14-5-5 Any applicant aggrieved by the decision of the zoning administrator in the administration or enforcement of this section may petition the governing body for the review of the decision of the zoning administrator by written petition filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors not more than 10 days after such decision. The public hearing was opened and first to speak was Margaret Melcher for the League of Women Voters. She said the League sees this amendment as being to the advantage of both the general public and applicants for rezoning. It will provide a degree of predictability that will fO~es~g~l public opposition based on fears that land initially rezoned for a use that seems desirable might later be put to a less desirable use. Mr. Richard Collins said after reading the State enabling legislation he questioned whether the Board would be giving up some of the powers they presently have. Mr. St~~ John said before this statute was passed, the legislature had never spoken to the question of whether or not the Board could require as a condition of a rezoning, mandatory dedication of property for open-space, parks, schools, fire departments, etc. The argument is that now that they have finally spoken to this, the legislation specifically~excludes these things, so if they are excluded, the right to impose them n~ver existed. Mr. Chuck Rotgin said the Home Builder's Association is undecided about this amendment, but he'personally feels that it gives the County more flexibility. With no one else from the public rising to speak for or against this amendment, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said it is very similar to conditions under which the Board has be~n opera~,~ $.~[!i$ for a number of years. Therefore, he does not feel it offers anything special to the County, but there have been instances where it would have helped. Dr. Iachetta said he feels this is a step in the right direction since it will eliminate the "pretty pictures" that come in and do not mean anything. MOtion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachett~to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by the addition of Chapter 14.5 entitled, Conditional Zoning", with wording as set out above. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: iMessrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. At 9:10 P.M., the Board took a short recess and reconvened at 9:20 P.M. Agenda Item No.. 5. Review: Rivanwood Subdivision. (Subdivision plat of Section One, Rivanwood, located on State Route 676, Jack Jouett District, drawn by Eurt M. Gloeckner, Engineer, and dated November 15, 1978.) Mr. Lindstrom said he had called up this subdivisio~ plat for review since residents in the area of the subdivision, and himself, are concerned December 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) about the manner in which the Runoff Control Ordinance applies to this proposal. Mr. Lindstrom said although the subdivision plat itself was the only question before the Planning Commission, it was mentioned that the applicant had asked his land planner to do a study of the impact of the Runoff Control Ordinance on the proper~y, and for that reason it became a part of the discussion. This is the first subdivision plat that has come for approval.where the property is located directly on the edge of the reservoir. Mr. Lindstrom said he was surprised that there could be this type o.f development right on the edge. Mr. Tucker then gave the staff's report: Location: Acreage: Zoning: Proposal: On the east side of Route 676, on the Rivanna Reservoir. 38+ acres A-I, Agricultural Subdivision resulting in 16 ~ots of 2+ acres each to be served by a central well (if approved, or individual wells) and individual septic facilities. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 21, 1978, gave conditional approval to the sUbdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. A waiver of double frontage on lots 1,2,4,6,15 and 16 is granted; 2. Written Health Department approval of two septic field locations on each lot; 3. The lots may be served by either central well system or individual wells. In the case of central wells, they shall be approved in accordance with the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law; 4. County Engineering Department and Highway Department approval of road plans; 5. County Fire Official and other appropriate authorities approval of fire pre- vention facilities, including maintenance of such facilities to satisfaction of the Fire Official and County Attorney; 6. Grading permit; 7. Run-off control permit, if required; 8. No building site is to be locate~ on slopes greater than 25 percent; 9. Land disturbing activities shall be limited to roads, homes, driveways, appurtenant structures and other physical improvements wherever~possible. Dr. Iachetta asked if this plat had been examined with respect to the impact of putting flashboards on the South Rivanna River Reservoir Dam, as recommended by the Camp, Dresser and McKee study made last year. Mr. Bailey said only in a cursory fashion. The Camp, Dresser and McKee Report said the flashboards would not be needed until the year's2015. Mr. Fisher then asked for comments from those citizens who were present. Mr. Sandy Fisher handed to the Board copies of a Baltimore County Watershed Protection Zone Ordinance, and several pieces of related material. He also related an experience by the Town of Bloomington, Indiana, and said that he was concerned about the precedent setting effect of this subdivision. Mr. Richard Collins said the Zoning Ordinance provides for conservation of land and asked if that zone could be applied in this case. Mr. Lindstrom said from everything he had seen, this subdivision complies with all County ordinances, and that surprises him, particularly since figures show that there will be a substantial improvement over existing conditions once this development is in place. It does not make sense that a subdivision will turn out to be better once the property has been developed. The County has a Watershed Management Plan Committee working. He is concerned that all he has heard for several months is that the Committee is not making any progress. Also, there is a need to be constantly re-evaluating the Runoff Cmntrol Ordinance to see that it is working. Since the Ordinance has been in effect for a little over a year, the Board should have a report from the Engineering Staff as to the operation of this ordinance and the Board should also request that the Watershed Management Committee make a progress report. Mr. Rolf~.. Benzinger said development is going on faster in the watershed than in the rest of the County. The Betz Report shows that phosphate pollution is 2.5 times higher from developed land than from undeveloped land, so in order to keep pollution at its present level, loadings must be reduced. He also suggested that the flashboards would serve two purposes; more water and cleaner water, and said since groundwater supplies are forcing more people in the watershed to go on the public water system, the flash~oards need to be installed sooner than the year 2015. Mr. James King said he lives in the City and supported adoption of the Runoff Cont~!? Ordinance when it was first adopted, but he feels that it may not be d~ing the job. He hopes that approval of this subdivision will not set a precedent. Mrs. Treva Cromwell next read the following statement for the League of Women Voters: "The League of Women Voters is concerned that development around our drinking water supply will cause further eutrophication and, therefore, we wonder how planners can calculate so precisely that runoff will drop 27 per cent. Why not 25 per cent? Or 28 per cent? Or 30 per cent? The plan's call for several on-site drainage facilities and for the land to be planted in lawn grasses. Have the calculations taken into consideration the heavy fertilization future owners will no doubt use on those lawns? Since grasses are the recommended vegetation in this case, we would like to draw attention to studies regarding the effectiveness for sediment trapping of various kinds of grasses and of planting methods. These studies indicate that grasses used in waterways, for instance, must be able to withstand submergence in water. Grasses planted to tr~p sediment must be able to continue to grow as heavy deposits of sediment accumulate. Inter- estingly to us who consider it an abomination, bermuda grass has been found to be most effective. December 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) 075 As our previous statement tonight (regarding on-site and off-site drainage facilities) indicated, we believe it is necessary to provide for permanent responsibility for maintaining the erosion control techniques. The rmnoff control ordinance requires provision for permanent c~ntrols. Therefore, there shoUld be requirements that restrictive convenants go with possession of the land that cleart~ indicate the responsibility of future owners of Rivanwood. It will do little good to require present owners to develop a site accord- ing to specific regulations and then fail to require future owners to maintain those features or to allow future owners to make changes that increase runoff and pollution." Mr. Perrin Quarles said he recently moved to the County and invited the Board to go on a canoeing trip around the reservoir. Dr. Iachetta said he voted against the change in setback distance when it was recently amended. What really bugs him is the strange lot shapes that result when the property is forced into two-acre lot sizes, ge did not feel it is a responsible use of the land and the County needs different legislation to handle this problem. He said the question of heavy metals has never been addressed. The County has mnly touched on the surface of what ought to be done, and he has come to the conclusion that it will not be handled by a citizen' watershed management group that has no expertise and no money. Mr. Fisher said he thought the Baard should finish with the review of the~!.subdivision plat first, and if there was no motion to change the Planning Commission's approval, it would stand as approved. No motion was forthcoming. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to request an interim report from the Watershed Management Committee, with Dr. Frank Browne and the Chairman of that committee being present. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried, by the following recorded'cote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier~ Fisher, Henley,' Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey said one th&ng that is protracting the completion of the plan has to do with the weather. There are several experimental practices that are being monitored and the runoff is not sufficient to make the proper analysis. Motion was next offered by Mr. Lindstrom to request the County staff to provide an analysis of the impact of the Runoff Control Ordinance during the year in which it has been in effect. Any administrative problems or technical problem's that have been found, inadequacies, areas in which the ordinance might not be. doing anything and items that might be hampering people unnecessarily, with this report being presented at the February 14th meeting. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. ~. Contract: memo dated December 4, 1978: ROute 637. (Ivy Landfill Road) Mr. Agnor presented his "The use of Revenue Sharing Funds in the above referenced project, requiring the inclusion of Davis-Bacon Act wages, will increase the pro~ect by $37,610, from $1~091,845 to $1,129,455, a change~of 3.4%. The State funds that ~ill be derived by the County using Revenue Sharing funds is estimated to be $150,000. The net revenue gain to the project is therefore approximately $112,000. The project~ as you remember, has been bid and the contract awarded. !i~.~The "notice t~ proceed" with the project, which is given the contractor ~y the Highway Depart- ment, has been withheld pending completion of the above estimates The Highway Department has requested concurrence in the contract being amended by "change order" for the above increase, and the notice ~o proceed be released. ~The contractor having been delayed in his starting date, is ready to go to work. Your concurrence in the contract amendment is requested." Motion to approve the contract amendment as recommended by the County Executive was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 7. Other Matters not on the Agenda. Dr. Iachetta requested that the Site Plan for Wendy's~on Route 29 North, be brought to the Board for their review. Dr. Iachetta noted that the consultant's report for the Resource Recovery Study Commission will be received in a short time. Mr. Fisher asked about the change in the schedule for adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission was to have held a public hearing on December llth, but because an advertisement d~d not appear in the newspaper timely, this meeting has been reschedu!ed for January 2, in the Albemarle County Courthouse. However, the Planning Commission will go ahead with their meeting on the llth and receive public comments at that time. 076 December 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting Mr. Fisher noted that the terms of three members of the Planning Commission expire at the end of December and these appointments should be made next week. Also, there is a vacancy on the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and the Welfare Board. Mr. Fisher also noted that a letter had been received from James Craig resigning as a member of the Regional Library Board effective January 1, 1979. Mr. Agnor next presented his memo dated December 6, 1978, in reference to the Airport Parallel Taxiway Project: "The Capital Budget includes the above project estimated to be $569,500 with County funds required in this fiscal year of $14,238. The costs were derived from pre- liminary engineer estimates and were approved by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Virginia Division of Aeronautics for grant funds in 1977. When the design work was completed, it was discovered that the preliminary estimates w~re in error, primarily in volume of earth moving, stabilization of earth for base material requirements determined from subsurface borings, and costs of asphalt. The project was passed back to the engineers, reviewed by the Federal and State agencies, amended, and finally accepted for bid. Bids have been received, and the project budget is now $1,196,160, with the County share being $65,789. The additional County funds ($51,551) will not be required until FY-80 and were planned to be included in the annual revision of the Capital Budget. However, approval of the project in the form of acceptance of grants from the Federal and State agencies ($1,076,544) and signing of contracts for the project need to be completed by the Airport Board by December 13. The Capital Budget carries an unallocated reserve of $2,054,455ffor additiona!h projects or adjusted projects. It is requested that the amended project be approved to proceed, with the additional County funds being appropriated when the Capital Budget is amended in mid 1979, the funds ~$51,551) being derived from the unallocated reserve." Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve this request as recommended by the County Executive. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. ~. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 8. At 11:00 P.M., the meeting was adjnurned.