Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-09-29383 September 29, 1977 (Adjourned from September 28, 1977) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 29, 1977, at 7:30 P. M, in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from September 28, 1977. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David amd Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: M~ssrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner; and J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:37 P. M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No 2. Public Hearing: An Ordinance for the Protection of Water In Public Drinking Water Supply.Impoundments. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 14 and September 21, 1977.) Mr. Fisher made a few opening remarks and then asked that Mr. Agnor to present an outlin, of the ordinance which is presented for public hearing tonight. Mr. Agnor said this was prepared by Betz Environmental Engineers in consultation with the County Attorney's Offi~ the County Engineer's Office, a Technical Committee of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and the Citizen's Advisory Panel that served during the Betz ~tudy of the Reservoir Project. He said the ordinance provides that development in any w~tershed which serves as an impound- ment for drinking water purposes must follow certain runoff control permit procedures. These procedures are similar to soil erosion permit procedures, but are supplemental to and more restrictive than those requirements. At one of the work sessions the Board directed the to prepare an amendment to this advertised ordinance to provide that the work of the runoff control official will be overseen by a technical review committee instead of an appeal body. There are appendices to the ordinance entitled, "Guidelines for the Preparation and Review of Runoff Cmntrol Permit Applications", which are highly technical in nature. These appendices were also prepared by Betz Environmental Engineers and reviewed by the Technical Committee of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board. Following completion of work on this ordinance, it is the intent of the County staff to present to the Board a completed Watershed Management Plan which will cover all aspects of potential pollution sources as indicated in the Betz Report. Mr. Fisher asked that Mr. Agnor give a report on funding of the Regional Sewer Plant. Mr. Agnor said the Rivanna Authority was advised by telephone that funding for Virginia pro- jects has been reallocated to projects which already have approved plans and are simply waiting for funding. The project on the top of the list of the State Water Control Board for allocation of funds is the Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant on Moore's Creek. Official written notification should be received sometime next week. Mr. Fisher then opened the floor for public comments. First to speak was Mr. Paul Stacy speaking for Citizens for Albemarle, Inc., who read the following statement: "In light of the unprecedented nature of this proposed ordinance, our organ- ization .would like to offer for your consideration the following comments and suggestions relative to the proposal. We wo~ld like for you to consider: 1) That the county proceed with all due speed to promulgate regulations for the control of agricultural runoff and industrial pollution of all streams and impoundments in the county's watershed area. It is my understanding that such guideline information will soon be available from the State Water Control Board. That the penalties for non-compliance be specifically stated to read f'$1,000 per day' instead of ;~'a maximum of $!,000.~i That a 'purple dye' seepage test be considered for those properties in the watershed that are 'grandfathered' by this ordinance. That the period of develop'er~liability for developed property be extended to a minimum of five years~ or longer if necessary. Furthermore, that the bonding arrangement with respect to the maintenance of runoff control mea- sures be made more specific as far as the length of time such a bond shall be required to insure the adequacy of those measures; and that the Technical Review Board be empowered to make such arrangements. That the proposed Technical Review Board be made responsible for the review and approval of all Runoff Control Permits and not just the Runoff Control Officer. It is our belief that the Technical Review Board should be made the decision-making entity that implements this ordinance and that the Runoff Control Officer be made responsible for enforcing the provisions of the ordinance. That the Board of Supervisors and/or Technical Review Board consider employ- ing a full-time specially-trained environmental engineer as the Runoff Control Officer instead of adding this function to the County Engineer's Office. 7) That a Conservation Area be established around each impoundment with a building density of no greater than 1 d.u./5 acres of land; that the area proscribed around each impoundment reflect the particular terrain charac- teristics intrinsic to each impoundment; and that any developer adversely affected by the creation of a Conservation Area be compensated by allowing him a corresponding transfer of his lost development rights to any other properties he may hold in the city or county only to the extent of his loss and subject to the approval of either the Board of Supervisors or City Council. September 29, 1977 (Adjourned from September 28, 1977) 384 8) That the cost of implementing and enforcing the provisions of this ordi- nance be borne by those developers and/or Property owners whose activities invite the scrutiny of this ordinance~ and that such a cost allocation should not be borne by water users. I would like to stress this point be- cause we strongly feel that a principle must be established here with re- gard to the type of 'h~t and run' development that foists upon the county the long-term financial responsibility for correcting a negligent developer's careless and inadequate creation. Obviously, we feel very strongly that it is time to stop this type of third party bailout of irresponsible development." Mr. James F. King said he was secretary for the Charlottesville Federation of Neighbor- hood Associations. The Federation understands that this ordinance is only the first step toward a ~total water management program for the Albemarle/Charlottesville area, and supports its enactment as an essential part of the~effort to protect the water supply. The Federatio~ recommends the first six points just made by'Mr. Stacy, but adds: Number 7; that a conser- vation area be established around each area with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per five acres of land~ Number 8, that the Technical Review Board include representatives of the City as well as the County; and Number 9, that the cost of implementing and enforcing this ordinance be borne by the developers and/or property owners and not ~he water users. Mr. Tim Lindstrom said several weeks ago he had urged the Board to amend the proposed ordinance to provide for a five-acre conservation zoning of land immediately surrounding all public reservoirs in the County and their major tributaries, because he believes a conser- vation zone is the only way to protect the public's water supply. Without the incorporation of a provision for a conservation zone, the ordinance will remain complicated, costly and difficult to enforce, and ineffective in stopping the deterioration of the reservoir. Private interest must be respected, but when a resource as vital to the public health and welfare as its main water supply is at stake, the public interest must prevail. Although a change in existing zoning may prevent some landowners from proceeding with plans for high-density development of their land, it must be recognized that a five-acre zone will not deprive these landowners of all ownership rights. In fact, a five-acre zmne will permit affected landowners to realize substantial profits from their investment. Because of this. fact, he believes there is neither a legal nor ~m~ra! obligation on the part of the public to purchase the land in question. Mr. Lindstrom said that after two years of efforts to save the reservoir, he hopes the Board will not adopt a measure that does not give the public the protection it needs. Mr. Pat Janssen, representing the Albemarle County Taxpayers, said they understand the facilities to control the affluent may be dedicated to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and will then be maintained by public funds. They are concerned particularly with the provisions for financing the maintenance, repair and replacement of the pollution control devices and the cost of providing the manpower necessary for implementing the ordinance. There is mm logic in making all the users of the water, both City and County, pay these costs; that is asking the water users to pay for the treatment of the affluent from develop- ment. Fairness dictates that all costs of maintaining such required pollution control devices should be borne by the property owners. As the Albemarle County ~axpayers have done many times in the past, they r~quest the Board tonight to establish a conservation zone around the County's reservoirs and their streams to protect them from pollution; to take whatever action is necessary to have the State Water Control Board enforce the laws to re- quire industry to clean up their affluent flowing into our water supply. They hope the Board will take the necessary rezoning steps for the benefit of all the citizens in t~e County, because the lack of ready drinking water supply will have a devastating affect on everyone. Ms. Peggy King, President of the Jefferson Park Avenue Neighborhood Association, said they support the enactment of the ordinance and hope the Board will ~ive favorable considera tion to the points mentioned in the Charlottesville ~ederation of Neighborhood Association's statement which they have also endorsed. Mr. David Carr said a Runoff Control Ordinance is needed but it is only one of many needed actions. He proposed that the County consider acquisition of key parcels of land in the immediate vicinity of the Rivanna Reservoir which are now zoned for high-density develop ment. The purchase of this land would not solve the reservoir problems, but it would be a step in the ~irection of meeting the findings of the Betz Report. Such acquisition could be a joint Yenture of the City and the County, although it would involve major expenditures by both.' Downzoning land presently zoned for high-density development would provoke law suits. Mr. Carr said he proposes that the money saved in fighting court battles would constitute a large down-payment on'~the land. If high-density development occurs on presently zoned lands the County, or the water users, will have to pay the cost of monitoring the development and implementing the provisions of the Runoff Control Ordinance. Both the Betz Study and the proposed Comprehensive Plan call for low-density development with runoff controls on land immediately surrounding the reservoir. The purchase of this land would be in consonance with County guidelines and would facilitate the development of a zoning ordinance to imple- ment the new Compre~ensiYe Plan. The land itself could be set aside for recreational use and rezoned accordingly. Mr. Carr said his plan is not a panacea, but it does propose a direct and significant action which can be pursued immediately. The steps that he proposed the County take in pursuing this possibility are summarized as follows: 1) The County should continue the present moratorium on development for at least thirty days, or longer, in order to evaluate and pursue this proposal. If the moratorium is allowed to expire, development steps can begin almost immediately. 2) The County should move to carefully investigate the acquisition of these parcels. I~'~should communicate on the matter with the City, with the landowners involved, and with the University of Virginia. Further, it should examine its own capacity - legal and financial - to act in this regard° 3) Delay action on the proposed Runoff Control Ordinance, which is in part designed explicitly to meet the water protection needs stemming from high-density development activities adjacent to the reservoir~ until the possibilities for acquisition have been examined. Ms. Jo Stanley from Crozet spoke in favor of the ordinance. She also asked that while the Board is considering the Crozet section in the Comprehensive Plan, to keep this ordinance in mind since Crozet is an important part of the watershed. She believes the density proposed for the Crozet area is in conflict with the proposals of the ordinance. 385 September 2.9, 1977 (Adjourned from September 28, 1977) Ms. Ruth Wadlington, President of the League~of Women Voters, said the importance of the Rivanna Water supply i~ apparent to all in this time of drought. Many people agree that the County should never have permitted high-density zoning adjacent to the reservoir, or that the City should have bought more land for protection when the Reservoir was constructed. In the past, conservation zoning seemed the surest answer to protection and the League of Women Voters has long advocated:same. Given the present situation, the League supports this ordinance as one method of dealing with the problem, but feels it is unfortunate that the public has not had time to debate the relative merits of combining this ordinance with down- zoning, or the purchase of land as a protective measure, or to weigh the financial implicatior of these approaches. If the Board does adopt the ordinance, it should be wary of giving the enforcement of the ordinance as an added duty to an already existing position since false economy might lead to tremendous expense in the future. The League supports a Technical Review Board to support the enforcing official, and since the protective devices can be turn- ed over to the County for maintenance after only one year., a trust fund to cover these costs should be required of the developer. The League feels that this ordinance should be consider- ed as only one facet of a program to insure water quality. Other steps to get rid of known-point sources that are polluting the reservoir should be undertaken immediately. Agricultural practices should be studied and legislation permitting their regulation should be requested of the General Assembly, if necessary. Mr. Daniel Melcher said as a land speculator he feels the interest of the community comet first and although land speculators have a right to speculate, he does not feel they need to be guaranteed that any piece of land will rise in value. Mr. Dennis Hutcherson of Crozet said he agrees with Mr. Melcher. The land speculator has no guarantee when he purchases land that circumstances will allow it to be developed to its maximum profit. 'He feels this should be taken into consideration when the Board decides what is to be done with the land around the reservoir. Ms. Martha Seldon asked about the legality of downzoning. Mr. Fisher said legal opinions would be discussed later. ~ Ms. Treva Cromwell said she feels this ordinance is an attempt to rectify mistakes re- garding land acquisition made in the years when the relationship between land and related water resources were not recognized. Although this ordinance is an innovative approach to the problem~ it actually presents a risk. If it does not work, the citizens lose a major source of water supply. As for enforcement of the ordinance, she has not been impressed with enforcement of the County's Soil Erosion Ordinance. Therefore, she would not support the enactment of this ordinance for high-density development, but would support the extension of a moratorium and consideration for purchase of land as proposed by Mr. Carr. Ms. Elizabeth Conant said she has been struck by two new elements that have ~ome up in the discussion of this ordinance in the last few days. Number 1 is Dr. Iachetta's suggestion that nothing more than one dwelling unit be allowed on each five acres around the reservoir, and Number 2 is Mr. Carr's suggestion that the land be purchased around the reservoir. The di!emna seems clear when all evidence suggests that the public good would be served by low-density or no-density residential around the water supply, but private good is served when local government is fair and not confiscatory in what they are asking of their citizens. She suggested that a price be tallied by adding together all known costs, adding an inflation factor, and a reasonable profit. If the landowner could not make money by selling his land in five-acre lots, the City and County could pay the difference. Mr. Hugh Davi~son said the ordinance before the Board is complicated, risky, and will be difficult to carry out. He felt Mr. Carr's proposal would be the best idea and is worthy of serious consideration. He urged the Board to extend the moratorium to consider the feasi- bility of the proposal and the implications of the ordinance being discussed tonight. Mr. Gordon Tice said he has been holding some Property for twenty years with the anticipation of its increasing in value. However, he agrees with other speakers that there is no reason why a speculator should be guaranteed a profit. If the Board wanted a conserva- tion zone, he felt it would be more attractive if there were a reduction in the appraised value and the taxes that are now being paid. He also felt the County should have more low-density housing. He felt this ordinance would be very unpleasant and probably very cost- ly. He agreed that the average citizen should not have to pay for maintaining filtering devices or whatever are required by this ordinance after someone has put in high-density development in a place where it never should have been in the first place. He felt that Mr. Carr had a very good suggestion and that the County and City should acquire such property if it is available at a fair price. Mayor Nancy O'Brien said in general City Council supports the ordinance. Nobody can give a definite answer to the question as to whether this is the final answer to the po!iutio~ problems around the reservoir. The Council commends the Board for its willingness to go even this far in pioneering in a new area. However, ~the Council is concerned and would like a clarification on the Technical Committee. Mr. Fisher Said this portion of the ordinance has been rewritten while the advertisement,was running; - The change proposes that there be a technical review board to review every permit application. MaYor 0'Brien said the Council also feels that the runoff control official must be a person with background in environmental engineering. The Council also asks that the Board give immediate attention to those areas not addressed in the ordinance, such as present development, agriculture and existing point sources. In contrast to total outright p~urchase of land or downzoning as recommended tonight the City and County might consider adopting a development budget, which has been suggested before, in which a limit is set on the amount of change allowed in the reservoir basin for a per$od of from one to two years. During that period, the ordinance could be tested and at the end of that time a review made. The Council is concerned about the allocation of costs contained in the staff report on this ordinance. Mr. Curtis Crawford said in the minds of many citizens in the County and the City, a great deal rides on this ordinance. The impression has been given that more differences will be made to the state of the reservoir by failure to pass this ordinance than might in fact be the case. He asked if the. County staff had prepared'any estimate for savings of phosphoru: loading to the reservoir which might result after adoption of this ordinance. Mr. J. Harvey September 29, 1977 (Adjourned from September 28, 1977) Bailey said calculations have been made. Mr. Crawford said that in the presentation of the ordinance there was no attempt made to qualify, even in rough terms, the actual benefit to the reservoir in phosphorus loadings. ~He emphasizes "phosphorus loading" because the Betz Report concludes that phosphorus is the limiting nutrient which is controlling the develop- ment a~increase in the algae growth in the reservoir. Mr. Crawford said he has not made any cost benefit analysis of the ordinance, but feels that any legislation enacted ~ho~!d show benefits equal to the cost. Dr. Iachetta said he does not think there is sistency in the numbers that are proposed in the Betz Report as far as the allowable load-~ ings per acre. The concept of non-degradation is what the Board is trying to apply to those- lands which are now in a minimal impact condition. The Board has set a number, which hope- fully is reasonable, for any of the lands which might develop within the~reservoir area. Dr. Frank Browne of Betz has said there is no mechanism he knows of that will guarantee 100% removal of anything in the runoff. As far as the criteria in this ordinance are concerned, Dr. Iachetta said he feels they are reasonable based on the information presently available. Mrs. Madelyn Manley, President of the Ridge Street Neighborhood Association, said the Association supports the enactment of this ordinance with modifications as suggested by Mr. King in his statement for the Charlottesville Federation of Neighborhood Associations. Mr. Peter Agalasto from Norfolk said he owns property on the reservoir. He asked if it would be possible to consider tying this ordinance directly into State Health Department ~regulations. His concern is that his septic tank was approved in its current location by the Health Department, but he questions whether if a repair were necessary if he might become in violation of this ordinance. Mr. Agalasto said he did not think that if he obtained a permit for some facility to be installed on his property that the County should have to take over the maintenance of that facility. He could find no Justification whatsoever for the general taxpayer to take over these costs. He felt the penalties and legal remedies proposed are slight, and he would like to see these made as high as possible. Mr. William Woodworth said the suggestions made by Mr. Carr, Mr. Lindstrom and Dr. Iachetta ~ound like the most worthy ones for this Board to pursue~ either purchase the land zoned for high-density or declare all of the land around the reservoir and its tributaries (to an agreed upon depth) as a conservation zone. He finds difficulty with the fact that ~his ordinance is confi~ed strictly to surface runoff; underground seepage is omitted. There are several places in the ordinance which seem to be arbitrary in fixing a footage limit. The ordinance also does not take into account such variables as steepness of slope.or porosity of the soil. Also, in measuring from the centerline of a stream for setback, the ordinance does not take into account the fact that streams are of varying widths. Mr. Woodworth said that to escape both of these arbitrary figures, a no-degradation policy should be declared; however it is achieved. The ordinance is written to make it appear that the County is obliged to accept any offer of dedication of facilities and Mr. WoodWorth said he felt the County should either keep its right to maintain the facilities or refuse same. He also suggested-that there were some definitions needed for terms used in the ordinance and said he would ~e happy to participate in a redrafting at some date in the future. Ms. Karen Lilleleht, a resident of Westmoreland Subdivision, said this subdivision has experienced a great deal of problems with septic tanks and she felt the residents would be very upset at receiving higher water bills, because a few people want to live right on the lip of the reservoir. She felt most of the residents would rather see some other method of solving this problem. Mr.~ Richard Collins said if he were to use his property in a way there would spoil the use of his neighbors ProPerty, that would be called a nuisance. If he and his neighbor wanted to be sure that a factory would not be put in between their properties, they would accept a zoning restriction as being in their mutual interest. In this case, it seems that if someone wishes to use his property in such a way that will distribute cost ~o many citizens over long periods of time and induce risk to the community, refusal of this is considered no-growth. He felt a downzoning would be the most secure method of assuring a reduced ~phosPhorus runoff into the reservoir.~ Mr. Paul Stacy said this ordinance applies to all of the fire'major impoundments in the County and he asked if the proposal to purchase the property is restricted to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Mr. Fisher said the letter from Mr. Carr indicates that the Board should consider carefully the acquisition of key parcels of land in the immediate vicinity of the Rivanna Reservoir which are zoned for high-density development. Mr. Carr said he was not aware of any high-density property in the immediate vicinity of any other impoundments serving the County at this time. With no one else rising to speak for or against the ordinance, the public hearing was closed and the Board recessed at 9:23 P. M. and reconvened at 9:35 P. M. Mr. Fisher said he felt it was time for the Board to make a decision. He asked if the Board members felt the advertised ordinance, with some minor modifications, is adequate to protect the reservoir from all of the types of development that can. occur within the water- shed. Mr. Dorrier asked if the ordinance being considered tonight would be as effective in protecting the reservoir as downzoning to a conservation zone. Dr. Frank Browne from Betz Environmental Engineers, said the technology.in this field is still experimental. If it does not work, the County might have to go into downzoning or conservation zoning. Some people say it will be too late, that the reservoir will be ruined, but that is not true. The other way is to do nothing and just let the moratorium continue. Mr. Fisher said the Board needs to know that this Ordinance will indeed create no worse situation than if the land were to remain forever in its present condition. There has been a good deal of skepticism about that question tonight. That is the risMfactor that the ~a~ Board is attemPting to access. Dr. Browne said based on his knowledge and experience, there would be some risk, but it is a controlled risk. Mr. Agnor said the technical guidelines take into consideration not only the types of soil and the slopa of the soil, but also the density of the useage, and there may be some lands that will not~ meet the criteria. Dr. Browne said he felt that if the ordinance is implemented, there are a lot of built in safe- guards. September 29~ 1977 (Adjourned from September 28, 1977) Mr. Roudabush asked if there were a greater possibility of land not meeting the criteria within the areas immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the reservoir than for lands located remotely from the reservoir. Dr.~Browne said the soil conservation people have all agreed that once the sediment gets into a stream bed it will eventually get into the reser- voir, so there is basically no difference. Mr. Fisher said the Board is at a point where they have to make a decision. The technicaI experts have done all that they can do. Dr. Browne has indicated that a continuing monitoring program will probably indicate changes need to be made to this ordinance. Mr. Fisher asked if in the judgement of this Board, the ordinance is adequate to protect the reservoir and to let development occur on land as presently zoned. Mrs. David said she did not feel this ordinance is the total answer to all of the conclusions of the Betz report. This ordinance is the first and most obvious step to take. Mr. Fisher asked if Mrs. David was willing to adopt this ordinance, let the moratorium expire~ and have business go on as usual. Mrs. David said she did not have the same faith in engineering structures that the engineers have. Dr. Iachetta said when the Board first began working on this ordinance several months ago, he felt the ordinance would be satisfactory for the long-term requirements of the community as far as the water supply is concerned. He has come to the conclusion that this ordinance by itself will not do the job. The Board should address the issue of what the people on lands closer to the water do to that part of the environment as compared to those people further removed from the water's edge. Second, they must look at what people do to the environment regardless of where they are in the watershed. These two criteria applied to this watershed lead him to the conclusion that a limit must be set on the number of persons on steep lands that are close to water supply impoundments. There is a statement in the Betz Study that says the input of phosphorus to the reservoir must be reduced by 60% to 80%. Dr. Iachetta said he interprets the data he has read to mean that if you convert an acre of low-~ntensity forest land, currently undeveloped, into an acre of highly developed land, you are multiplying the phosphorus loading of that acre by a factor of seven. Therefore, if the objective is to reduce the loading by 60% to 80%, the land cannot be converted from low use to high use. If that proposition is accepted, then the question is how good are the struc- tures proposed. None of them are 100% perfect so he has come to the conclusion that the Board is walking on thin ices ~n terms of what is really knowns ~ would be better to err in the direction of requiring stricter controls initially, and if in the future it is found that the controls are too strict, they can be relaxed. Based on this reasoning, he had made several suggestions last week. (See page 360, Minute Book 15) Dr. Iachetta said he did not agree with Mr. Carr's suggestion that the land around the reservoir be purchased, although that may be an alternative to be discussed later. He felt it should be made clear that whatever is done to the property owners involved, no one wants to deprive them of their rights. On the other hand, he did not think they should be allowed to infringe on the rights of others. Dr. Iachetta said the Board members cannot excuse themselves by saying this is not their responsibility. They certainly have the ability to ask the State Legislature to do something about the problem. They also can ask the State Water Control Board to do something about the short sewer line from Crozet to Brownsville, and the phosphorus input from Morton. Mrs. David said she did not think Mr. Carr had suggested that the County go out and buy every piece of property on the reservoir. The suggestion was to concentrate on key properties. Mr. Fisher said if the County were to pay some property owners and not pay others, they would find themselves in a mess. He felt that all people should be treated alike. He again asked if the Board felt the ordinance is adequate to permit development to begin in the watershed. Mr. Henley said he had a l~ttle more confidence in the people who have drafted this ordinance than Mrs. David. He would be in favor of trying it for a period of time with the understanding that the Board would not rezone any more property adjacent to the reservoir to a higher-density use during that trial period. Mr. Roudabush agreed with Mr. Henley, although he felt there are a lot of other things'~ the Board will have to do. He did not feel there had been overwhelming opposition from the people present tonight to purchasing land around the~s.~r~. Mr. Roudabush said he can support the adoption of this ordinance until other correct,ye measures can be considered and put into effect. Mr. Dorrier said it is too bad the clock could not be turned back fifteen years and then the County would have held the land in conservation zoning and not have this problem. The potential expense of purchasing this land around the reservoir proposes serious questions as to whether the general taxpayers of the County would endorse spending that much money out of the General Fund; although he might support some sort of purchase if it were deemed critical. He said this ordinance will limit the effects of phosphorus loadings into the reservoir and he feels confident that the constant monitoring of specific areas of concer~, and the eventual connection of Morton's to the interceptor line, will go a long way in solving the problem. Mr. Dorrier said he will support the ordinance~ as amended; with the technical re- view committee being an advisory body to the runoff control official. Mr. Henley said this issue has bean going on for some time and if the Board does not ad~pt this ordinance tonight, he feels it will be a year before anything will be settled. himself is not excited about the purchase of land, and if the Board gets into these other alternatives that have been mentioned, he thinks it is going to be"a tough nut to crack". He Mr. Fisher said he has always felt that it makes no sense to have high-density zoning adjacent to a public water supply. Since receiving the report on alternative water supply sources, he is even more convinced that the Board must deal with these "hard nuts". He cannot support this action alone and although he knows other alternatives are messy and difficult and expensive, he is prepared to go that extra mile. Mr. Henley said he also did not feel this is the only thing that can be done, but he feels it is time to put this ordinance into effect. Dr. Iachetta said in the past ten days,.several propositions have been made by a number of persons who are trying to determine what financial responsibility the City would have in this matter should citizens choose to get re~ress through court. In the absence of any such assurance, he hesitates to commit County taxpayers alone, particularly non-water using tax- payers, to paying the total bill. He feels the Board should settle this question since at September 29, 1977 (Adjourned from September 28, 1977) offered motion to defer final action on this ordinance with the specific purpose of determin- ing Just how far the City support goes with respect to potential future financial involvement with the County on any matters that require same; and that the Board. re-enact on an emergency basis the ordinance for protection of waters in the South Riva~na River Reservoir, known as Sections7-10 through 7-14 of the Albemarle County Code. Mr. Roudabush said the Board had promised several times that they would resolve this question with adoption of a pertinent ordinance. He feels committed to that promise. Mr. Dorrier agreed and said he ~elt the ordinance should be adopted tonight. Mrs. David said there have been a lot of new ideas produced suddenly. Also, she feels the Board's~promises about reaching an agreement on the situation were predicated on exaggerated ideas of what the Betz Report would state. Now the Board has found that they do not have all of the answers, and she feels this deadline has produced some ideas that h~ld a lot of promise for a ~eal solution. She then seconded Dr. Iachetta's motion. Mr. St. John said the two motions should be separated into first a motion to re-enact the current moratorium ordinance, and second, a motion to defer action on the ordinance advertised for tonight. He then stated the following ordinance for the Board's consideration BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Article II of Chapter 7 of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Said Article being entitled "Protection of Water in the South Rivanna River Reservoir", said Chapter being entitled "Erosion and Sedimentation Control", said Article li consisting of S~ie~$.~Qm~ 7-10 through 7-14 inclusive, be and the same hereby is re-enacted to be in effect upon re-enactment and to remain in effect until re- pealed by the Board of Supervisors, provided however, that this Article sha!Z terminate and be of no further effect on or after December 31, 1977, unless the same shall theretofore have been re-enacted according to law; this Section of the Ordinance to be known as Section 7-16 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Board of Supervisors finding that an emergency exists, this Ordinance is to take effect immediately upon ~ma~e~ Mr. Fisher asked if Dr. Iache~ta would accept this change. Dr. IacheSta said yes. Mr. Fisher asked if Mrs. David accepted the change. Mrs. David said yes. Mr. Fisher asked the purpose of the continuation of the moratorium ordinance. Dr. Iachetta said it is specifically to allow the Board time to determine to what extent, if any, the City government is willing to support any financial burden that may accrue if the Board p~ts into place a strong ordinance that ~gh~ be contested. Also, this would give the Board time to study the several proposals made tonight that amount to a potential spending of a substantial amount of taxpayers dollars. He did not feel the Board had the right to obligate the citizens to this kind of expenditure without gaining some input from those citizens. Mr. Roudabush said he thought the City had endorsed this ordinance. Built into the ordinance, is a 45 day period before any plan submitted reachs final approval. He felt this 45 days would give the County time to hear from the City as to how this might be worked out along with implementation of watershed management pro~rams. Mr. Roudabush said he could see no good reason to delay if the Board intends to turn around and adopt the ordinance if the City says no. At this time, the roll was called, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher and Iachetta. NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Roudabush. Mr. Dottier then offered motion to adopt the ordinance as advertised for enactment tonight with the following amendments: Under Article I, Section 2, add a paragraph entitled "Technical Review Committee" to read as follows: "T~he body charged hereby with the duty of advising the runoff control official with regard to the re~iew of plans and specifications submitted pursuant to this ordinance. Except as otherwise provided by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, the committee shall consist of one rep'reSentati~e from the Public Works Department of~the City of CharlotteSville, one representative from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and one representative fr~n' the Albemarle County Service Authority. The committee shall have the authority to formulate rules of procedure for its own operation." Under Article II, Section 2, Sub-paragraph (b), strike the third sentence in that Sub-paragraph and include the following wording: "In addition to any other review, the runoff control official shall submit the same to the technical review committee for its recommendations. The recommendation of the technical review committee shall be accorded due weight by the runoff control official but shall not be binding upon him.",~ th~ ~tinue with original wording in that sub-paragraph. Article III, "Review by' technical review board" is to be stricken and Article IV, "Penalties and Legal Remedies" is to become Article III. The Board also adopts the Guidelines fore.~he ~reparation and Review of Runoff Control Permit Applications as present/wwith Revision No.' 5 of the Runoff Control Ordinance dated 9Z29/77. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Fisher~ said it is clear that if this motion fails, the Board will ~find themselves in a position~hot having a runoff control ordinance or a moratorium ordinance. Mrs. David said many of the people spe~king at this meeting tonight have done just what the Board has been doing; not necessarily addressing themselves to the ordinanc~ which was the subject of the public hearing, but addressing alternative proposals. There is a conserva- tion district in the zoning ordinance, but the Board has never taken steps to place land in that zone because they felt the new. Comprehensive Pian~should be adopted first. Mrs. David 389. September 29, 1977 (Adjourned from September ~28, 1977) for a reconsideration on the question of extension of the moratorium for a period of sixty days during which time the Planning Staff can identify lands that should have conservation zoning. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John for a legal opinion as to whether both ordinances could be placed on the books at the same time. Mr. St. John said he felt the runoff control ordinance is inconsistent with the so-called moratorium ordinance. The moratorium ordinance says that no development can take place in the watershed that~ will have an adverse effect on the reservoir. The runoff control ordinance is a regulatory ordinance and it states what must be done in order to develop land. Mr. Fisher said statements have been made that the runoff control official can deny or reject the plan submitted if he finds the application does not meet the criteria in the ordinance. He asked if the burden would be on the runoff control official to tell the appli- cant what to do, or if the burden is on the applicant to continue revising the permi~ until it is approved. Mr. St. John said the runoff control official has the duty to tell the developer in what respect his plan does not conform to specifications. He does not think the runoff control official has a duty to draft an acceptable plan for the applicant. Mr. Fisher said the bonding provisions in the ordinance have no stated time ~imits. Mr. St. John said the runoff control official will have to decide how long a bond should run. This would work inaa manner similar to those bonds posted for erosion control. Mr. Fisher said when the bonding provisions were first discussed, a parallel ~as drawn to Highway Department approval of roads where bonds are given for a period of one year. In discussions with members of the City Council this past week, they a~ked that the time period be extended, possibly for as long as five years so the burden of correcting any failures will not fall on the water users. Mr. St. John said there is no such thing as holding a bond in perpetuity. The Board will either have to set a definite time limit or have the runoff control official set it on a case by case basis. Mr. Henley said the means of controlling runoff is going to vary from site to site. He feels some structures will require a bond for longer perio~ of time than others and he did nol think the runoff control official will go contrary to the advice of the advisory committee. Mr. Fisher said he wanted everybody to know that he did not think implementation of this ordinance will be cheap, nor does he think the alternatives mentioned are less costly. Dr. Iachetta said he feels this ordinance has more holes than swiss cheese and he is not going to support it. Mr. Henley said if everybody is so excited about buying things, the County could buy Morton's and take care of a lot of the pollution right now. Mrs. David said she is prepared to support adoption of this ordinance aS one move toward protecting the re- servoirs. She feels it certainly is better than having the moratorium ordinance expire. Mr. Dorrier said before the Board voted, he would like to ask if the fees from the developers will not halp pay for the maintenance ~runoff control facilities. Dr. Iachetta said the water users will be paying these costs. Mr. Fisher said the public is going to bear the cost. The water users may do it if the County can work out that kind of agreement with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the City, but that has not been agreed to. If this ordinance is adopted tonight~ the Board must assume that the County is going to have to bear the~hurden unless some other agreement is made. Mr. Agnor said there is a draft contract whic has been prepared between the County and the Rivanna Authority. That contract has not been brought to the Board because the ordinance was to be adopted first. Mr. Fisher said he was aware of that, but he is concerned about the fact that there are no time periods for bonding, particularily for the maintenance portion of the ordinance. He feels that if the ordinance is adopted without having a contract with the Rivanna ~uthority, or the City, there is no one guaranteeing to pay the cost of remedial measures required under this ordinance except the County. Mr. St. John said even if a five-year time period were included for the bond, it eventually would expire and after that the public would have to pay the costs. Mr. Fisher said he was aware of that, but he is concerned that the problems may not show up in the first three months. They may show mp in a year or two. Mr. St. John said Mr. Fisher was talking about ~:~ defects in original workmanship of the structures, rather than a bond to cover ordinary maintenance, and repair. The staff could not figure out any way to have a developer, or his successor in title, be responsible for these facilities in perpetuity. The public is going to have to pay for maintenance, replacement and repair of these facilities. Mr. Agnor said the staff had made this recommendation based on the need for uniformity of maintenance. There is no mechanism for attaining uniformity unless it is through public agencies who have those responsibility assigned to them by elected officials. The staff did examine the possi- bility of assessing those costs back to the property owner, but found it is not legal. Mr. Fisher said if there were~no further discussions, he would ask that the roll be call- ed, although he found himself in a position of not wanting to be without an ordinance, but not being able to support the motion. AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Roudabush. Messrs. Fisher and Iachetta. (NOTE: The 0rdinance~ as adopted, is set out on the following pages.) September 29, 1977 (Adjourned from September 28, 1977) 390 ~O~"!~ ~.¥~-'i~.~N ORDINANCE-FOR THE PROTECTION OF WA~TER IN PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLY IMPOUNDMENTS ARTICLE I. GENERAL Section 1. Purpose and construction of ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect against and minimize the pollution and eutrophication of the public drinking water supply impound- ments in Albemarle County resulting from land development in the respective watersheds thereof. It is hereby found by the board of supervisors as a matter of legislative determination that this article is necessary to prevent pollution of such impoundments and to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the county. This ordinance is declared to be remedial in nature and protective of a paramount public interest and shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose. The provisions hereof shall be deemed to be supplementary to any other provision of law relating to the control of land development, to the prevention of soil erosion and sedimentation, to the pollution of water or any related matter. Section 2. Definitions. For the purpose of this ordinance, the following terms shall be defined as follows: Development. Any construction, external repair, land disturbing activity, grading, road building, or other act'ivity reSUlting in a change of the physical character of any parcel of land, except as herein otherwise expressly provided. Watershed. That portion of the county lying Within the watershed of any impoundment. Impoundment. Any impoundment of surface waters in Albemarle County designed to provide drinking water to the public. Permit. Any building permit, erosion control Permit, or other permit, including the approval of any- subdivision plat or site development plan, which is required to be issued by any board, committee, officer, employee or other agency of the county as a prerequisite to any development. Runoff control official. The officer or employee of Albemarle County authorized by the board of supervisors to enf~orce this ordinanc-e. Technical review committee. The body charged hereby with the d~uty of advising the runoff control official with regard to the review of plans and specifications submitted pursuant to this ordinance. Except as otherwise provided by the board of supervisors of Albemarle County, the committee shall consist of one representative from the Public Works Department of the City of Charlottesville, one representative from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and one representative from the Albemarle County Service Authority. The committee shall have the authority to formulate rules of procedure for its own operation. ARTICLE II RUNOFF CONTROL PERMITS Section 1. Permit required for development. (a) Except as otherwise herein expressly provided, it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in any development which is otherwise permitted by law in the watershed of any impoundment until a runoff control permit for such development shall have been issued by the runoff control official pursuant to this article,. It shall thereafter be unlawful for any person willfully to fail to conform to the provisions of such permit in carrying out such development. It shall also be unlawful for any person to construct any sewage disposal system any part of which lies within two hundred horizontal feet of the edge of any impoundment at normal pool or within two hundred horizontal feet of the centerline of any perennial or intermittent stream flowing, whether directly or indirectly, into any impoundment, and no permit shall be issued for the construction of any such system. (b) No permit shall be issued by any officer, board, commission, or agency of the coUnty for any development requiring a permit for which a runoff control permit is required hereby unless and until the requirements of this article have been complied with; provided, hoWever, that nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the approval of any subdivision plat or site development plan where no physical development is to be carried out within any watershed. (c) In the event of any change in any plan for development subject to the provisions of this article, the developer shall submit to the runoff control official such additional data, plans and specifications as may be reasonably necessary to insure the control of any additional surface water runoff occasioned by such change. The procedure for the submission of such additional data, plans and specifications shall conform to the procedure for the submission of any original application for a runoff control permit for such development. September 29, 1977 (Adjourned from September 28, 1977) (d) Whenever any development is proposed to.~e carried out by any person other than the owner of the land, the responsibility for complying with this ordinance and with all conditions imposed pursuant hereto, including, but not limited to, the maintenance, repair and replacement of any temporary or permanent runoff control measure, shall remain on such owner. (e) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) hereof, no runoff control permit shall be required for any of the following activities, provided that the same are otherwise permitted by law: (1) The tilling, planting or harvesting, of agricultural, horticultural or forest crops or products or engineering operations under Section 21-2(c) of the Code of Virginia, as amended; (2) The installation, repair, replacement, enlargement or modification of any water supply or sewage disposal system serving not more than two dwelling units; provided, however, that no such sewage disposal system, or part thereof, shall be located within two hundred horizontal feet of the edge of any impoundment at normal pool nor within two hundred horizontal feet of the centerline of any perennial or intermittent stream flowing, directly or indirectly, into any impoundment; (3) T~e interior repair, remodeling or reconstruction of any existing structure; (4) The construction, reconstruction, remodeling, rep-air, enlargement or demolition of any development otherwise permitted by law resulting in a total impervious lot coverage of not more than five percent of the area of the parcel on which the same is or is to be located; provided, however, that, after such develop- ment, no division shall be made of such parcel without the issuance of a runoff control permit, post hoc, for such develop- ment; or (5) Any development involving the establishment of not more than five hundred square feet of impervious cover and disturbance of not more than one hundred cubic yards of earth. Section 2. Procedure. (a) Any person applying for a runoff control permit pursuant to this article shall' submit with his application to the runoff control official a runoff control plan with specifications for the temporary and permanent control of surface water runoff in such detail as the runoff control official shall deem reasonably adequate, considering the nature and extent of the proposed development. The runoff control official shall have the power to establish reasonable procedures for the administration of this ordinance which shall be'available to applicants. These administrative procedures_~shall be approved by resolution of the board of supervisors. (b) The runoff control official shall review the plans and specifi- cations so submitted to insure that there will be occasioned by such development no greater rate of surface water runoff than would be present in the absence of such development; and he shall further review such plans and specifications to insure that such runoff, after development, (1) will be of no lesser quality, upon leaving the site, than would be in the case in the absence of such development, or (2)-will have a maximum suspended solids loading of one hundred thirty-five pounds per acre per year and a maximum total phosphorous loading of 0.68 pounds per acre per year; which- ever of the foregoing shall be less. In carrying out such review, the runoff control official may seek the advice of any other person having knowledge or expertise relevant to the review of-such plans and specifi- cations. In addition to any other review, the runoff control official shall submit the same to the technical review committee for its recom- mendations. The recommendation of the technical review committee shall be accorded due weight by the runoff control official but shall not be binding upon him. ~n the event that the runoff control official shall determine that the plan.s and specifications so submitted are deficient in any respect, he shall promptly notify the applicant to correct the same. In addition, the runoff control official may require the submission of such additional data as may be reasonably necessary to carry out a thorough review of the application. (c) In the event that the plans and specifications submitted by the applicant shall be found to be adequate, the runoff control official shall require,.prior to the issuance of a runoff control permit, a bond with surety or other security of the type satisfactory to the runoff control official in an amount determined by him to be sufficient for and conditioned upon completion of the controls specified in such plans and specifications in the manner and within the time prescribed in such permit. In addition, the runoff control official may, if he deems the same to be reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, require a bond or other security for the maintenance, repair and replacement of any permanent runoff control measure, including, but not limited to, the creation of any entity with power to require assessments for such maint- enance, repair and replacement. September 29, 1977 (Adjourned from September 28, 1977) 392 (d) Upon approval of the plans and specifications so submitted and upon receipt in proper form of the bond and/or other security required by subsection (c) hereof, the runoff control official shall issue a runoff control permit for the development in question not more than forty-five days after the submission of the original application therefor. In the event of the failure on the part of the applicant to comply with the provisions of this article, the runoff control official shall deny the permit within forty-five days of the date of such application. Failure of the runoff control official to act within forty-five days of the date of such application shall be deemed approval. Section 3. Standards for runoff control official's review (a) The runoff control official shall prepare and adopt guidelines, to be entitled Guidelines for the Preparation and Review of Runoff Control Permit Applicatioas, for the calculation of pre-development and post- development runoff flow and characteristics, and for runoff control. Upon adoption of such guidelines the runoff control official shall submit the same for approval by the board of supervisors which may be done by resolution or otherwise. After approval by the board of supervisors, such guidelines shall govern the review of all runoff control applications submitted pursuant to this article; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the runoff control official from approving any runoff control measure which he shall find to provide protection for any impound- ment to an equal or greater extent to the measures set forth in the said guidelines. (b) Nothing herein shall be construed to require the approval of any application or any part thereof which is found by the runoff control official to pose a danger to the public health, safety and general welfare or to deviate from sound engineering practice. Section 4. Inspec-tions and enforcements. (a) The runoff control official and his designated agents shall have the right to enter upon the property subject to this article at all reason- able times for the purposes of monitoring surface water runoff and of making inspections and investigations relating to compliance with the provisions of this article. (b) If, upon complaint of any citizen or upon his own observation, it shall appear to the runoff control official that any permit holder has failed to comply with any permit previously issued pursuant to this ordinance or that the measures provided in accordance with such permit have proved to be inadequate to protect the quality of water in any impoundment or that any development within the watershed is occasioning any significant degradation in the quality of such water, the runoff control official shall immediately serve upon the permit holder and the owner of the property in question by registered or certified mail to the address shown on the tax records of the county for such owner a notice to comply with the provisions of such permit or to submit a plan in accordance with section 1 of this article. Such notice shall set forth specifically the measures needed to come into compliance herewith and shall specify the time within which such measures shall be completed. Any person failing to comply within the time specified shall be subject to the revocation of any such permit previously issued and shall, in addition, be deemed to be in violation of this ordinance. (c) In the event that the person so notified shall fail to comply with a notice as provided in subsection (b) above, upon finding that such action is reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, the runoff control official may cause the necessary measures to be taken and shall proceed to recover from the owner of the land and/or permit holder the expenses of such action, including all reasonable administrative costs incurred in connection therewith. (d) Notwithstanding any provision of l'aw to the contrary, any holder of a permit granted pursuant to this ordinance may dedicate to public use such facilities required by such permit as the runoff control official may deem appropriate to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, together with such easements and appurtenances as may be reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of this ordinance. After the acceptance of such dedication and the expiration of any bond or other security required pursuant to the last sentence of section 2(c) of this article, the responsi- bility for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the facilities so dedicated shall be that of the county, and the permit holder shall have no further responsibility therefor; provided, however, that nothing in this section shall relieve any person of the responsibility of otherwise complying with this ordinance and with any approved plan; and provided further that any person who shall willfully damage, destroy or otherwise interfere with the construction, .operation, maintenance, repair or replacement of any feature of any such plan shall be deemed to be in violation of this ordinance. Any dedication made pursuant to this section shall be deemed accepted only upon recordation in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county after written approval by the runoff control official. 393 September 29, 1977 (Adjourned from September 28, 1977) ARTICLE III PENALTIES AND LEGAL jREMEDIES (a) Any person vioIating any provision of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding thirty days or to both such fine and imprisonment. (b) In addition to.any other remedy, the runoff control official may institute any appropriate proceeding, either at law or in equity, to prevent violation or attempted violation of this ordinance, to restrain, correct or abate such violation or prevent any act which would constitute such violation. ******** Mr. St. John suggested that the Board appoint~a, runoff control official before adjourn- ing the meating. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor for a recommendation. Mr. Agnor said he recommended that the County Engineer be named the responsible agent. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley~ Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mrs. David said she would like to ask that the Board have a work session at the earliest possible time to consider the alternatives that were presented tonight and attempt to establish some mechanism for pursuing them. Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. David if she wished to adjourn this meeting until 9:00 A. M. tomorrow morning. Mrs. David said she would p~efer putting something down in writing and bringing it to the next regular meeting. Claims against the County for the month of September 1977 were examined, allowed and certified to the Director of Finance and ordered charged against'the following funds: Commonwealth of Virginia - Current Credit Account General Fund School Operating Fund School Construction - Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Rental Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville - 1% local sales tax Federal Revenue Sharing Fund General Operating - Capital Outlay TOTAL 594.42 349,809.08 1,272,206'.42 247,770.49 87,202.78 54,203.54 132.87 23,190.52 9,908.86 $2,045,018.95 At 11:03 P. M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adjourn this meeting until October 3, 1977, at 2:30 P. M. in the Board Room. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. (Clerk's Note: The proceedings of the September 29 meeting are set out in a full transcript which is on file in the Clerk's Office.)