Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-04-12¥-12-73 An adjourned meeting of the Board of County Supervisors~of Albemarle County, Virginia was held en April 12, 1973 at Red Hill School, said meeting being adjourned from April 11, 1973o Present: Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order and stated that the Board was here this night to hear public comments an SP-20~ for the City of Charlottesville, however, the Board would not take any official action~at this time. Mr. Fisher gave a short report from the Landfill Committee stating that this committee had been meeting for over two months and were considering other landfill sites and hope to have a report ready for the Board of Supervisors and City COunCil very soon. This public hearing was ~dvertised in The Daily Progress on March 21 and March 28, 1973: SP-203. The City of Charlottesville has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate and operate a landfill sanitary solid waste disposal facility. The subject land is located on the west side of Route 29 South, five miles south of Interstate 6~ interchange with Route 29. Property is described as County Tax Map 88, Parcel 26B, containing 16~ acres in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner gave a review of the staff's report. He stated that the Planning Commission and the staff agreed that the City, the County and the University of Virginia should pursue a joint landfill use and when accomplished this Should be placed under the control of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, however, the Planning Commission had recommended denial of SP-203. The staff's recommendations regarding any approval of this application were: 1. The site plan as submitted and made a part of the file be adhered to. This site plan is dated July 31, 1973 and was prepared by the City Engineering Department. And with th~ adde~oonditions: a) The retainment of the existing pond area or a debris basin with earthen berm being placed to the west and east to parallel the activity area. b) The roads on site be paved to prevent dust and mud. c) d) There be no signs identifying the activity taking place. During no time will bhe activity be visible from the north or southbound lane of Route 29~ A permanent chain-link fence be placed around the boundaries of the activity area. f) The conclusions of the report of Metcalf & Eddy Engineers by their letter of July 2~ 1972, addressed to the City Manager of Charlottesville, Items I through 4~ Pages 1 through 3, be made a part of any approval~ g) All stated control measures found in the letter of July 28, 1972 from Metcalf & Eddy, Items 2, 3, ~, 7 and 8 be made a part of any approval. That the permit be granted for a 2 - ~ year period, renewable~at the end of the selected period at the discretion of the Board. This is suggested to give a second look into methods of sanitary landfills and also new methods of joint operations as they may arise under new technolog~ 4-12-73 24 3- That no disturbance of the natural cover for the landfill be beyond the area of some 37 to 40 acres located centrally in the ~65 acres. last In light of this/recommendation~ Mr. Humphrey stated that he had received information this date from Mr. Earl Brunger, Soil Conservationist, stating that 63% of the land has severe limitations as a landfill s~lte. He stated that in keeping with the objectives of the conservation area~ aryapproval should restrict any operation from using the steep slopes as they now exist in that area. This would result in a total of 37 acres that could be used. Mr.Humphrey stated that he had reviewed the area several times and he feels the area is reasonably screened from Route 29~however~ one point of-concern is possible pollution ~Dom streams nearby. He did feel that proper'management could take care of this problem through silt basins and treatment of water that may run off before it reaches these stremms. Mr. Guy Agnor~ Director of Public Works for the City of ~arlottesville spoke next. He stated that the City had been searching for a landfill Site since 1968 and after employment of Metcalf & Eddy for a study, the Massey tract had been selected using the following guidelines: (1) accessibility by all weather roads and adequate bridges; (2) soil conditions and the availability of cover material; (3) topography of the land; (g) depth of the water table; (~) proximity of streams and rivers; (6) visibility from adjacent properties; (7) development cost for preparation of the site; (8) the degree of development on adjacent property; (9) purchase price of property; and (10) distance from points of collection. He also stated that the City administration is pledged to develop~ a sanitary landfill that will negate the normal nuisances associated with the disposal of solid waste. At th~s timer the Chairman opened the floor for comments from the public. Mr. Willis Carson stated that he objected to the City's plan fidding no justification for the City to dispose of garbage in this'area and he felt that this matter was brought about by lack of long range planning by the City administration. Mr. Charles Haugh~ representing several landowners near the Massey site~ spoke in opposition. He stated that all arguments are based on advantages to the City and he has not heard of any advantages to the County. He asked the Board to consider the following: (I) this area is designated in the County master-plan as a conservation area; (2) does the County need another garbage dump in the County~ (3) ~s it wise to establish a 20 to 30 year ~arbage dump; (4) the site selected by the City fronts on a major north-south highway through the County; (~) if the City established a Rump on this property~ it is no longer taxable and represents no income to the County~ such as other joint ventures with the City on property __~ located in the County~ He named the Community College~ the Joint Jail and the Vocational Technical Center. (6) The establishment of a dump on this property would adversly ~affect three historic properties in the vicinity~ namely~ Anchorage (year 17~0), Arrowhead (year 1800) and Moreland (year 1800). (7) Construction of 2-73 a new two-lane Route 29 South will begin in Julys1973 and this will further impede traffic through this section of the County. (8) This land is located in a watershed that flows to the North Fork of the Hardware River. (9) Irregardless of what experts say this use of this property will result in noise~ dust and dirt, insects~ birds~ odor and rats. Mr. Haugh also stated that the City had stated in three different annexation suites against the County that they had better facilities for solid waste disposal than the County. He felt that the Board should not consider this petition until the City has withdrawn the annexation suite which is still pending. He felt that if this suite goes to court any action by the Board would prejudice their case. Mr. Edwin G. Leer Jr. stated that this area of the County is referred to as the Switzerland of Albemarle County. The only open area has been bought by the City in order to establish a landfill and he felt that 16~ acres is a large amount of land to take from the limited open area. He stated that he lives ten miles from this proposed landfill and is very concerned. He took a count of the cars on 29 South and counted 6~0 cars in two hours. With Route 29 being constructed to dual lan~ the traffic count will be higher and very much higher in the summer. Mr. Lee stated that this area has been subdued, financially~ but now that more people are moving into this area land values are just moving up to match those in other areas of the County and he felt that a landfill on this Site would again depress this area. MB. John W. Williams spoke in opposition stating that a public dump should not be located on any primary road. He stated that Route 29 South carries 5~220 cars per day and when the dual lane road is completed this count will increase tremendously. Mr. Williams sa~id that in 19~9 the County had built a dump adjacent to the City dump since the City at that time refused to let the County use their dump. They gave insufficient area as the reason for this refusal. He also stated that most land in this area has been in the same families for generations and he thought this should be considered. Mrs. Betty McClanahan from Covesville spoke in opposition. She said that she had a mental block where the Massey site is concerned as she did not feel any other sites are being considered. ~he then presented to the Board~ petitions containing ~92 signatues, all expressing opposition. Mr. M. Y. Sutherland spoke in opposition. He gave a short history for this ~ece of land and felt less productive soil~ should be used for a landfill. He also felt that a landfill would be a blight since the adjacent property could not be used county for residential use and ~Eav~ the present/landfill site as an example. Norma Deal spoke stating that she is a citizen of 29 South and a biologist. She gave a lengthy report on water run-off as it relates to this property and gave the Board several pictures taken after recent rains. She also stated that there is inadequate site distance at the exit from this property and also stated that engineering studies for the reconstruction of Route 29 South show that the road has been moved 4-t 2-73 westward and this will elevate the road 22 feet at the entrance to the proposed landfill site and there will be no way to keep the landfill from being seen ~om Route 29. Jean Shannon from Covesville Spoke in opposition. She felt that a landfill in this area would be a blight on the coHntryside. Leroy Yancey~ President of the Red Hill ?.T.A., spoke in opposition. Ann Marie Carter stated that she travels Route 29 going to and from work and asked the Board to 8on~ der that the City could find another location. Bob Dolan asked that the City find another loc~tion for their landfill. Tony ~achetta'said that he supported Mr. Agnor in his original allegation that a sanitary landfill should not be referred to as a dump. He offered free engineering services for energy burning incinerator to produce steam and asked that serious consideration be given to stop burying tons of coal every time solid waste is buried. Mr. Wheeler then called an end to the public hearing and complimented the people present for their presentations. He then asked for comments from the Board. Mr. Wood stated that this was obviously a pressing problem. He stated that he had asked that the landfill committee have an alternate site ready by this date and none had been presented. Mr. Fisher stated that the committee is investigating other sites but at information on this time has/only one site and they are trying for more than one. Mr. Wheeler said that the Board's instructions to the committee were not to hurriedly Dick another site and he recommended that a decision on this petition be deferred until a full report is received' from the Landfill committee. In light of this recommendation~ Mr. Henley offered motion to defer action on this petition. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fishery Henley, Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Motion was then offered by Mr. Carwile to adjourn this meeting until 2:00 P.M. on April 18~ I975, in the Board Room of the CQunty Office Building for discussion of personnel matters. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fishery Henley~ Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Chairman