Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-02-24O66 February 24, 1976 (Adjourned from February 19, 1976) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 24, 1976, at 2:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. This meeting was adjourned from February 19, 1976. PRESENT: Mrs. Opal D. DaVid-and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. OFFICERS PRESENT: Planner. Messrs. J. H. Bailey, County Executive, and Robert Tucker, County At 2:30 P.M., Mr. Fisher called the meeting to order and read the following letter.: "February 20, 1976 It is with real regret that I have to announce my decision to resign from the Albemarle County Planning Commission. The reason for this is that on two occasions, the last one last Tuesday night, I have been harrassed by male drivers while returning home late at night from meetings; and therefore I no longer feel safe on the roads at night alone. I have told Mr. Carr that I am willing to stay on the Commission for another month, spending meeting nights with my sister in town. This is now my fourth year on the Commission, during which time we have seen many upheavals in the County. Hopefully, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, through our various ordinances, are now able to control abuses, and to give some constructive guidance in its growth and protection to its citizens and resources. I believe my last appointment has another year to run. There is no one I can suggest who might be willing and able to take my place. In my opinion, the Commission badly needs another architect to contribute his expertise, especially to Site Plans. (signed) Mrs. William E. Craddock" Mr. Fisher asked the Clerk to place this appointment on an agenda at the end of this month. Mr. Fisher next presented a letter from the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board requesting an appropriation of $50,000 for architectural planning for a new library facility Mr. Fisher noted that %his request has already been brought before the Board and it is to be discussed during the regular budget work sessions scheduled for March. Mr. Fisher announced a meeting of the State Water Control Board on February 26, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. With the chief elected officials within the Planning District. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss "208" planning for waste water and water quality management. Agenda Item No. 1. Discussion: in the South Rivanna River Reservoir. abstaining.) Ordinance for the Protection of the Quality of Water (Continued from February 19, 1976.) (Dorrier a Fisher: At the February 19 meeting, the Board received two proposals which would continue the moratorium on building and~grading permits within the five mile radius of the Reservoir and one which would modify the Soil Erosion Ordinance. Although all of these should be considered together for applicability, for purposes of discussion, they can be considered separately. I think the question of 15% slopes under the Soil Erosion Ordinance is more straight forward than setbacks and buffer zones. Representatives from various State agencies and members of the "Blue Ribbon Committee" have all indicated that 15% is the breaking point beyond which soil erosion disturbing activities become an erosion problem. I feel this change in the Soil Erosion Ordinance should be enacted for the five- mile radius and outside of that five-mile radius 25% should be the cut-off point as is presently in force in the ordinance adopted last September. Do the Board members agree to the 15% within the five mile radius as being the breaking point? Henley: I agree, but I feel we should drop the radius some. Roudabush: There might be some importance connected to the limits of the pooling area of the Reservoir. That might be dropped by about one mile, further reducing the impact on that particular control. Fisher': We have just received a letter from the Blue Ridge Homebuilders. I would like to read it. (Mr. Fisher read silently and did not enter the letter into the record.) Iachetta: We started looking for something that would allow us time to examine the watershed and in particular the high density development potential within the watershed. From the evidence heard so far, it seems to me the question of high density development along the shoreline is one point that lends itself to the thought that we should create a buffer around that body of water to assure us of not changing a use which has a relatively low Pollution potential. I do not see some of the Slopes as ever being lands which can be farmed. I think we should think in terms of a special zone (resource protection) designed to apply some distance from the water line, or some suitable defined elevation line to define the edge. We could do this by taking the slopes which are not outside of the 500 foot boundary and construct a boundary which encloses the greater majority of all of those slopes in excess of 15%. In looking at the proposed modification of the erosion ordinance, it does not address the problem of density on the shoreline. Of the alternatives before the Board, 9 1 and 92 put a distance/slope combination into effect. February 24, 1976 (Adjourned from February2!9,1976) 90 067 Henley: We could use the 15% and a site plan would take care of the distance from the water line itself. Roudabush: Would Mr. Tucker explain the existing procedures for submission of site plans, subdivisions, etc.? Is sufficient data submitted at that time to determine if the area would fall within the area under control? Tucker: A slope analysis would be needed to determine if the area falls within the 15% slope requirement. That can be required. We have required this in cases where a topo may not have been submitted along with a subdivision plat and we felt there should be one. Fisher: Do you not already require information on subdivision plats and site plans that will show if the slopes are greater than 15%? Tucker: In some instances it is not necessary; it may be completely flat land. instances where it is needed, it can be required. Tn Roudabush: If the limits of the moratorium were dropped back to a line four miles from the intake pipe and 500 feet from the waters edge, or the center of streams plus the immediate adjacent slopes of 15% or greater, submissions could show the information needed to know if a project falls within that criteria. David: Amending the Soil Erosion Ordinance further to include the 15% slope requirement will take care of things that may be going on at this time. We really are concerned about not doing anything irreversible that may damage the reservoir. We have to rely to a considerable extent on information that is available on others because that situation does not currently exist on this reservoir. The 15% requirement is going to take care of erosion resulting from construction. Fisher: What do you mean by reliance on information available from others? David: Among other things, the experience they are having with the Occoquan. I know people are saying you cannot relate anything else to our situation here, but I feel it is not necessary to risk that experience. There is also a good deal of general information in reports of the E.P.A. and from states such as Wisconsin and Minnesota where they are perhaps ahead of us in protecting water supplies. Iachetta: There is nothing in this proposed revision to the Soil Erosion Ordinance that says who is responsible for correction 60 days after construction is finished and the developer's bond has been refunded. If a long term problem develops, there is no way it can be addressed. Fisher: Are you saying you are not comfortable with this proposed amend~Lent? Iachetta: I do not see that there is any improvement over what is presen~!y in force except that the slope would be reduced and that would be helpful. It does not address other aspects of the problem. Fisher: Mr. Payne, would you speak about the question of buffer zones and what criteria the Board might use in establishing same. I· realize the question has been asked many times without a definitive answer. If we used 5~0 feet as a minimum buffer for protection of the reservoir, how do you see us standing if called upon to defend that? Payne: The Planning Commission will see tonight a recommendation for a new zoning classification based on the original conservation zone in the proposed 1973 ZOning Ordinance. It follows the first stream valley (which basically follows a series of ridges around the impoundment) and I think that is legally defensible because it is recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. If this is adopted, two criteria must be used: are the regulations of the zone reasonable and do they allow a reasonable use of the property? The first stream valley is a design standard accepted for planning and engineering criteria and it is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan carries a great deal of weight in Court. If adopted, this is of a permanent nature and is therefore a different kind of measure from that before you now. In my judgment, any moratorium type operation must be limited in its terms chronologically and has to expire or terminate. The 500 foot line is defensible. Mr. Roudabush has looked extensively at where the line should be drawn. Iachetta: How would this zoning compare to what is being considered? Tucker: Basically it would take in more of the 15% slopes. It takes in more land if you follow the first stream valley approach. In following the first stream valley and the 15% slope by property lines, if it took in 1/2 of a property, the whole property was included, otherwise there would be an arbitrary line and no one would be able to tell which part of his property ~s~-in~the zone. Fisher: Define the first stream valley. Tucker: ridge lines. We used the first ridge line back from the reservoir and connected those That is how we defined the first stream valley. Roudabush: I would rather wait until the Betz Study is completed before we impose anything of a permanent nature such as a zoning category. The question of downzoning is something we 'should be prepared to face after the study is completed. I would rather look at temporary controls until that time. Tucker: The staff did this study for the Planning Commission's review in response to a resolution adopted by the Board on January 14. Fisher: One of the resolutions adopted on January 14 requested the Planning Commission to look at downzoning property around the reservoir. Roudabush: I did not vote for that resolution. O68 February 24, 1976 (Adjourned from Feb~u~a~y~9,1976) David: If we wait for the Planning Commission to review that proposal, it will be past the point where the Board must have taken action on the moratorium. It seems we still need to consider the possibility of extending the moratorium as was originally adopted, with some revisions, through completion of the study. I think the Planning Commission is reluctant to just address this area, particularly since we are going into a review of the whole Comprehensive Plan. Bailey: There are a number of suggestions that have to do with the present decision. The Betz people have commented that rainfall, even in the remote areas, reaches the reservoir in a very short period of time. I think when the Betz people have all the data before them they will want to address the entire drainage area. I wonder if there is some modification that can be placed on zoning in general by imposing a condition that any developer of a piece of land must come before the Planning Commission as a special case so that restrictions could be imposed rather than trying to tailor the land by changing the zoning. Iachetta: Do you mean to rezone so there would be no uses by right? Bailey: Maybe so. Fisher: I do not anticipate taking a vote today on any decision. It has been suggested that this question be voted on at a regularly scheduled meeting. Are there anymore questions or different proposals to present at this time? Roudabush: Is there any consensus on dropping back to the four miles rather than continuing with the discussion on five miles? Fisher: Are you talking about the distance from the intake pipe to the farthest~ point of the reservoir pooling area or are you talking about a specific four miles? There may be a difference. Henley: The four miles would just take in the reservoir itself. use the 500 feet with the 15% slopes adjacent to the 500 feet. You would have to Iachetta: I do not see any need to do that. If you go for the 15% slopes and the 500 feet you have cut out over 1/2 of the area anyway. Leave it where it is and use the slope and the 500 feet. Fisher: Does the Board wish to continue the public hearing or open the discussion to ~the public at this time. David: Questions might be entertained. Fisher: Mr. Wood, the Board seems to be in agreement that they would be glad to hear you and anyone else for a period of time. We hope it will be brief. Wendell Wood: It looks like the net effect of what you all are basically doing is stopping Panorama. Nobody else will be affected. The proposal that you have affects me and only me. It is the only development going on in the area. It is the only~one that is proposed. Why don't we free everybody else from this? It is obvious that you are going to tie me up in Court until after the Betz study. We are going to be in Court and I am not going to drop this suit. Fisher: Mr. Wood, you have made some statements and drawn some conclusions from the actions that have taken place that are not necessarily the conclusions of this Board nor necessarily the conclusions of anyone else who heard you. Jim Hill: We have been working with the City of Waynesboro. As you know, everytime they have a rain it floods within 30 seconds. We have a piece of property where we have worked out a settlement basin agreement with the Augusta County Service Authority to use this property to stop the flow. This has all been worked out on the 100-year flood ratio and will help the City of Waynesboro. I feel Mr. Bailey was saying this whole area may be conducive to impounding the runoff and it may be in a 15% cut or grade. James Fleming: I agree with Mr. Wood. I think all this has been involved around my property~(E~ergreen), so don't punish other people. All my legal fees are tax deductible and I am willing to be in court forever. Frances Martin: I would like to direct a question to Mr. Roudabush so he will reaffirm what he told me on the telephone. If you decide to amend the Soil Erosion Ordinance to change the slopes to 15%, that would remove one weakness in the Soil Erosion Ordinance. I am also concerned about the size of the sediment basins proposed. I believe they only have to hold a rainfall of an average of every two years. Mr. Roudabush said he felt this should be ten years and I would like to ask if he still supports the amendment if the soil erosion controls are amended. Roudabush: What I said was that if a storm sewer system is piped into the sediment basis and the pipe is designed to carry a ten year quantity of water, then the sediment basin should hold what the storm sewer is going to bring into it. I am not sure whether the sediment basins are all designed to just catch the peak flow or whether they are designed to catch all the storm sewer system water that is piped into tkem. Martin: Do you think a 10 year basis would be a good standard? Roudabush: I think it should be looked into for adequacy. February 24, 1976 (Adjourned from Fa~a~y2~9,1976) Februar 25 _1976 -- R~ular Meetinq 068 Holmes Withers: I used to live in Ivy not too far from Lickinghole Creek. If you have visited there, you know what it is like. If you ever go up the Rivanna on Route 662 you see the bottom. Each time there is a big rain, it runs down in there. It is being fertilized. N~h~n~ahaSab~en~said~about fertilizer. Maybe fertilizer does not hurt the reservoir; maybe it helps. Why get on the builders and not say anything about fertilizer or Morton's? I heard one person say you cannot do anything about Morton's. Fisher: I attended a meeting yesterday at which proposals were presented to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for construction of a sewer line that costs more than $5,000,000. This has been designed to take in all of Morton's, all of the raw sewage at Crozet, all of the treated effluent from Brownsville and the Yancey Mills School area, from Farmington, from the Boar's Head (which is not in this drainage basin) and probably a development in the Ivy area. This will be built as soon as the AWT plant is completed in 1979. I believe the State Water Control Board is going to require that Morton's put their treated effluent into that pipeline. Withers: But, at the present time Morton's can dump into Lickinghole Creek? Fisher: I have been told that Morton's has spent more than $1,000,000 to build and upgrade their treatment facilities and this is still not adequate. This is the problem we get into with any type of industrial or urban storm water problems. The amount of treatment required becomes expensive and complex. ~Withers: It becomes complex for the building industry also. think about that. You all do not seem to Fisher: I want to state that a number of people have spoken to the Board in the past and have said that this is a way to stop development in the County. The land zoned for R-2 and R-3 uses in Albemarle County that is presently vacant and not in this watershed is estimated to be: R-2 land, 1,111 acres and R-3 land, 834 acres. So, I think that while we are talking about the problems of the reservoir, we should not make the mistake of saying that this is going to stop all development in the County. There is no way with that much land zoned for high density development that this is going to stop everything. Wood: That is totally erroneous. You know that land you are speaking of is not served with utilities. The land around the reservoir has water and sewer available. is no good unless it has the utilities. Land Fisher: The public hearing is closed. Is the Board ready to set this matter on an agenda for action? (Consensus - yes.) I will ask the Clerk to place this on the agenda for February 25. At 3:55 P.M. motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn this meeting until 6:00 P.M. in Richmond for the purpose of discussing legislative matters with the local representatives to the General Assembly. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. At the completion of this meeting in Richmond, and upon proper motion, the meeting which began at 2:30 P.M. in Charlottesville, was adjourned. (February 25, 1976--Regular meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 25, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None.. Officers present: County Executive, J. Harvey Bailey; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman who began with Agenda Item No. 4. SP-539, George Cason, deferred from January 28, 1976. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter: "February 24, 1976 To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Re: George A. Cason - Special Use Pemit for a Landfill I hereby withdraw without prejudice my application for a Special Use Permit for a Landfill presently pending before the Board of Supervisors. Respectfully submitted, (Signed) George A. Cason"