1984-10-03October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
435
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
October 3, 1984, beginning at 7:30 P. M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T.
Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:37 p.m.), and Peter T. Way.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney,
George R. St. John,; and Director of Planning and Community Development, James R. Donnelly.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p'~m. by the-Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Fisher asked that Item 4.6, "Scope of Study for
City/County Athletic Needs" -- Memorandum dated September 24, 1984, from Robert W. Tucker, Jr
be removed from the consent agenda and discussed separately. Motion was then offered by Mrs.
Cooke, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve items 1 and 2 and accept the remaining items as infor-
mation. Roll was called and the motion carried'by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Statement of Expenses of the Regional Jail for the month of August, 1984, was
approVed as presented.
Item 4.2. Change Orders Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 -- Court Square Project, were approved in
accordance with the following memorandum from Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive, dated
September 18, 1984:
RE: Change Orders 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 - Court Square
DATE: September 18, 1984
Attached are Change Orders 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 which I failed to get on your
August agenda. These five Change Orders were discussed with the architect,
contractor, Bill Sullivan and myself in early July. These five Change
Orders combined with the first four increase the contract a total of $81,039
and reduce the contingency from the original $136,770 down to $55,731. The
total cost of Change Orders 5 ($4 813), 8 ($5,037), 7 ($3,967), 8 ($8,884)
and 9 ($8,037) is $30,738.
As is the case in renovations, the Change Orders resulted from conditions
uncovered during construction.
Change Order 5 - The major cost was due to the fact that the west wall of
the Courthouse had no footing. The bricks were found to be laid right on
the ground, so a concrete footing and blocking wall had to be installed to
correct the condition at a cost of $4,813.
Change Order 6 - The entire sanitary sewer line and storm drain had to be
replaced at a cost of $5,037.
Change Order 7 - The plumbing for a toilet serving Judge Helvin's office had
to be relocated plus some other structural changes at a cost of $3,967.
Change Order 8 - Revisions on the third floor and addition of a toilet and
shelving combined with "beefing up" the structural support costing $8,884.
Change Order 9 - This was required additional work not specified on the
original specifications that was necessary to tie the two buildings together
plus some additional fire protection and supports costing $8,037.
Originally, it was assumed that the contingency allowance would cover moving
expenses at the Courthouse plus all Change Orders. As we approach the end
of the contract, it appears this may not be true. Up until September 14,
Bill Sullivan was serving as clerk-of-the-works on this contract. However,
Bill had knee surgery to remove a bone chip. He will be out for several
weeks and on crutches for several months. SinCe the County has no one with
the expertise to fill in for Bill, I notified the architect that he will
have to provide this service which will add to the County's cost.
The estimated completion date on the project has been~extended to March 1985
due to the unanticipated additional work (change orders) encountered during
construction.
Item 4.3. The County Executive's Financial Report for August, 1984, was received in
accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-605.
438
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Item 4.4. Monthly Building Activity Reports from the Department of Planning and Commu-
nity Development were received for the month of May, June, July and August, 1984.
Item 4.5. Report from Karen L. Morris, Director of the Department of Social Services
was received for July, 1984, as follows: ·
With the beginning of the new fiscal year, we have implemented an increase
in payment rates (effective state-wide) in the Aid to Dependent Children
(ADC) and General Relief (G.R.) Programs. This 5% increase is, in actuali-
ty, minimal and has had no significant impact on the buying power of our
clients.
The higher priority for us was to be successful in upgrading the payments to
the highest level of payments. The State is divided into three payment
level groups. A locality's group is determined primarily by the shelter
cost. Two years ago the State re-evaluated the groupings and found that
Albemarle was eligible to go from our current Group II to Group III. We
formally made the request to be upgraded -- along with seven other
localities -- and were denied.
The ADC and Food Stamp caseloads have stabilized at approximately 300 and
750, respectively. These are low in comparison to the past ve or six years.
With further policy changes expected, the ADC caseload may decline still
more.
On the service (non-financial) side, we are experiencing an increase in
caseload. Overall, there was a 34% increase in persons requesting/needing
services in FY 1984 over FY 1983. If this trend continues, as we expect it
will, staffing will become a serious concern.
Item 4.7. Albemarle County 1983-84 Secondary Improvement Budget Operational & Fiscal
Summary -- Letter dated September 18, 1984, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer.
Mr. Roosevelt made one comment in his cover letter "Please note that there remains a balance
of improvement funds at the end of the fiscal year of approximately $708,000. Most of this
balance is intended for outstanding bills on Route 637 (Ivy Landfill road project) and as.an
initial allocation for improvement on Route 671 and the Meadow Creek Parkway."
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-84-50. John & Dorothy M. Collier. Request to locate a single
wide mobile home on 59 acres which has existing one house and three mobile homes. Located on
the southwest side of Rt. 663, 1200 feet west of its intersection with Rt. 603 and zoned RA,
Rural Areas. County Tax Map 9, Parcel 8. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on September 18 and September 25, 1984.)
Mr. Donnelly gave the staff's report as follows:
Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
Mobile Home
59.0 acres
RA, Rural Areas
Property, described as Tax Map 9, Parcel 8, is located
on the southwest side of Route 663 about 1/4 mile west
of Route 603.
History:
SP-77-58 Janice Collier: Request for mobile home approved
administratively.
SP-80-45 John & Dorothy Collier: Request for mobile home
approved administratively.
SP-81-57 John & Dorothy Collier: Request for mobile home
approved administratively.
Site Plan Waiver: Request denied but administrative site
plan approval granted subject to conditions.
Character of Area: Three existing mobile homes are located near the
western property line and a single family dwelling is
near the eastern line. Two other mobile homes and 17 single
family dwellings are visible from Route 663 between Route
603 and 810. A twelve-lot subdivision is west and adjacent
to this property.
Staff Comment: Under Section 10.5.1, if this petition were approved,
no additional dwellings (mobile homes or conventional) could
be located on the property without an RA, Rural Areas,
special use permit or division of the property. The
applicant proposes to locate the fourth mobile home on an
individual drive, separate from the other three units.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve the
petition, staff recommends the following conditions:
1) Planning Commission approval of a site plan showing all
four mobile homes served by a common entrance and unit ~4 to
be located at least 150' from western property line and at
least 150' from unit $3.
2) No division of the 59 acre tract without amendment of
this special use permit.
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
437
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 18, 1984, made a
motion for denial of SP-84-50, but the motion failed by a 3/3 vote. The Commission then made
a motion for approval of SP-84-50, but that motion failed by a 3/3 vote. The petition,
therefore, has no recommendation of any kind from the Planning Commission.
The public hearing was opened. The applicant, Mr. John Collier, said that one of his
neighbors, Mrs. Graves, was giving him a hard time. There is a wooded area between his house
and where she lives, and he is willing to put up a fence in order to get this permit
approved. He lives in the house on the property.
Mr. Fisher asked if the three existing mobile homes are rented. Mr. Collier said his
son and daughter live in one mobile home, and he rents the other two. He has a niece who
would like to return to this area, and she would like to rent one also.
Next to speak was Mrs. Brenda Graves. She reminded the Board that several letters of
opposition were sent concerning this request. She said she is concerned that if this fourth
mobile home is allowed on the property, at some future time Mr. Collier will request a permit
for a mobile home park. If Mr. Collier wants a fourth mobile home, she does not see why he
can't place it on the property behind his house, which is a good distance from Mrs. Graves'
house. The wooded area mentioned by Mr. Collier is small. Mrs. Graves then handed to the
Board photographs of the property in question. She said that the three mobile homes on the
property are located along the side of her property, and most of the woods are actually on
her property. The mobile homes sit in an open field, and are very evident. She does not
feel the existing mobile homes comply with area requirements, and she feels that the fourth
could not either. A site plan shows Mr. Collier's 10t to be 105 feet wide and 860 feet long.
That is against Subdivision Ordinance requirements, and the lot does not have 150 feet of
road frontage. There is one well serving two mobile homes, and the septic field does not
seem to be in the right place. Also, Mr. Collier has one acre taxation for his house and the
three mobile homes, and the remainder of the property is in'land use.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said the
Board has been following a policy of approving certain mobile home permits when the owner is
to be the occupant. He is not willing to make this the beginning of an informal mobile home
park, and he can't support the application.
Mr. Henley said he has similar feelings. If Mr. Collier wants to put a number of mobile
homes.on the property it should be done in the right way. He will not support the request.
~r. Bowie said taking care of family needs is one thing, but rental units are another
thing. Mr. Collier already has space for whatever family members want to move in, and he
will not support this request.
Mr. Cooke said she cannot support the request. Although she knows there is a need for
space for this type of unit, in this case she does not believe the Board can be swayed by the
need.
At this point, motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, that
SP-84-50 be denied.
Mr. Fisher agreed with the previous comments. He said this is already a de facto mobile
home park with no planning. With all the recent publicity about mobile home parks, the staff
has begun to take an inventory, and he was astounded to learn there are about 1500 mobile
homes already in Albemarle County. He will vote for the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-84-52. Walter F. & Lydia P. Gibson. Request to remove an
existing single wide mobile home on two acres and replace same with a double wide mobile home
on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Located 300 feet off of private easement on east side of
Rt. 710, 0.4 mile north of its intersection with Rt. 22. County Tax Map 65, Parcel 119C.
Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 18 and September 25, 1984.)
Mr. Donnelly gave the staff's report as follows:
Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
Mobile Home
2.0 acres
RA, Rural Areas
Property, described as Tax Map 65, parcel 119C, is lo-
cated on the east side of Route 740 about 0.4 mile north
of Route 22.
Character of Area: Visible from Route 740 between Routes 22 and 231,
staff counted 15 single family dwellings (about 1/3 of
which were modular units) and five mobile homes. While
landscaped, the existing mobile home on this property
is visible from Route 740.
Staff
Comment:
The applicant proposes to replace a nonconforming single-
wide mobile home with a double wide model. Due to the
current construction of Section 6.0 NONCONFORMITIES, a
special use permit is required (replacement with a unit
of equal or lesser size is permitted while special use
permit is necessary for a larger unit).
438
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this
petition, staff recommends:
1) Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Donnelly said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 18, 1984,
recommended approval of SP-84-52, unanimously, with the following condition: "1. Compliance
with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance."
The public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. Frank Johnson of Valley Suburban
Homes, representing the Gibsons. He said they have contracted to purchase a double wide
home. The objection was from a neighboring owner who resides in New York. The Gibsons have
lived on this property since 1966 and have had their present mobile home since 1977. It is
only 12 feet by 60 feet so is very small and has only one bath. They seek to replace that
home with one containing 1280 square feet, three bedrooms and two baths since they have two
teen-aged children. They are only trying to raise their standard of living in the fashion
that is available to them.
Mr. Fisher asked if the mobile home will be in the same location. Mr. Johnson said it
will be about 50 feet further back on the property from the existing home. Mrs. Cooke asked
if the existing home will be removed. Mr. Johnson said yes. Mr. Bowie asked is this is a
pure replacement, and not an addition to the property. Mr. Johnson said an area has already
been cleared that is more suitable to the style of home they are purchasing. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if this will be the primary residence for the Gibsons. Mr. Johnson said it will be.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to ask Mr. Gibson if he plans to live in the mobile home
himself. Mr. Gibson said yes.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve SP-84-52 with the
condition recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher said in order to make the
intent clearer, he would like to add a condition reading: "Existing mobile home shall be
removed as soon as new mobile home is occupied." Mr. Lindstrom said he would accept that as
part of the motion. Mr. Bowie also accepted the additional condition. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
(The two conditions of approval were:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Existing mobile home shall be removed as soon as new mobile
home is occupied.
Agenda Item No. 7. Otic Realty Service Corporation. Request to locate a pharmaceutical
laboratory and production facility in an existing industrial building on 0.67 acres zoned LI,
Light Industrial. Located on the south side of Rt. 738 west and adjacent to Murray
Elementary School at Ivy. County Tax Map 58, Parcel 37C (part). Samuel Miller District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 18 and September 25, 1984.)
Mr. Donnelly gave the staff's report:
SP-84-57
Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
Otic Realty Service Corporation (UNOGEN)
Pharmaceutical laboratory and production facility.
9.67 acres.
LI, Light Industry.
Property, described as Tax Map 58, parcel 37C, part, is
located on the south side of Route 738, near the Village
of Ivy.
History:
July 16, 1970. Board of Supervisors approved CU-140,
W. T. Dettor, Jr., to locate a wholesale facility on the
Dettor, Edwards, Morris property. Also approved ZMP-129,
W. T. Dettor, Jr., to rezone 20 acres from A-1 to B-1 and
12 acres from A-1 to RS-1 on Tax Map 58, parcel 37.
April 25, 1973. Board of Supervisors approved SP-244,
Herbert G. Tull, to locate a mechanical engineering
facility on 20 acres zoned B-1.
May 21, 1973. H. G. Tull Site Plan approved under SP-244.
October 25, 1975. Board of Supervisors approved ZMP-332,
W. T. Dettor, Jr., to rezone parcels 37 and 37B from
A-l, B-i, and RS-1 to M-1 with the exception of 400' depth
of RS-1 £rom Route 738 and 200' buffer of A-1 on west
side; 100' buffer of A-1 on east side.
June 21, 1978. Board of Supervisors denied SP-78-18,
Bearing Technology, Inc., due to improper zoning (B-l)
for proposed use.
August 7, 1978. Board of Supervisors accepted withdrawal
of SP-78-41, Bearing Technology, Inc., and approved ZMA-78-11
Bearing Technology, Inc., to rezone 12+ acres, part of
parcel 37C from A-1 and B-1 to M-1 reclaiming RS-1 zoning
for a depth of 350' from Route 738.
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
439
October 24, 1978. Bearing Technology Site Plan (to produce
custom bearings) approved.
December 10, 1980.
as R-1 and M-1.
A-1 buffers removed - property shown
September 27, 1983. H. G. Tull, III Rental Units Site Plan
approved on 37C, part, zoned R-1.
October 5, 1983. Board of Supervisors rezoned frontage
from R-1 to RA in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan.
September 10, 1984. H. G. Tull Final ~Plat signed dividing
5.086 acres, zoned RA (rental units) from 9.661 acres
zoned LI, Light Industry (Unogen site).
Character of the Area: Parcels 37C (part), 37B, 37G, and 37 (part) are zoned Light Industry, a total of about 45 acres.
The remaining, surrounding area, including the frontage along
Route 738 is zoned Rural Areas. Three dwellings are
located in the frontage area to the west of the entrance
road. The frontage area to the east is wooded and vacant,
but has site plan approval for rental units which will
expire on March 27, 1985. There are two dwellings located
directly across Route 738 and scattered dwellings all
along this road. The land to the west is used for pasture.
Murray School is located to the east, about 475'+ from
the proposed UNOGEN building. Dettor, Edwards and
Morris warehouse facility is located to the south. Single
family dwellings are located on the south side of the
railroad.
Comprehensive Plan: Rural Area III, located about 1/2 mile from
the Ivy Village limits.
Applicant's Proposal: UNOGEN proposes to use the existing Tull
building for the purpose of developing, producing, packaging
and distributing pharmaceutical products based on biolog-
ical processes specifically monoclonal antibodies. A
detailed description of the applicant's proposal has been
prepared by CH2M Hill, Inc. of Reston, Virginia, dated
September 17, 1984. The report has been submitted to
the County Engineer in order to address performance
standards as required by Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant has no immediate plans for expansion of the
existing facility. UNOGEN proposes five employees initially
with 10 employees within two years. Eventually, that number
may double to 20 employees.
UNOGEN will be in operation during normal business hours,
with traffic limited to package services and employee
traffic, and licensed hauler pickups twice annually.
UNOGEN intends to expand the existing 300 gallon per day
septic system by installing an additional 1500 gallon, septic
tank and by also substantially expanding the drainfield to
double the capacity. The existing well on site has been
approved as a central well to serve a small industrial
f ~a~cility and five rental units. It has a capacity of
10 gallons per minute. UNOGEN intends to install two
or three monitoring wells as necessary to monitor
groundwater quality.
Staff Comment:
Staff has met with the applicants at their Berkmar Drive facility
and with Dr. Peter Dierk of the Biology Department at the University
of Virginia, in an attempt to better understand the procedures
involved in this application. Because of the technical nature of
the proposal, staff has had to rely heavily on the opinions of other
professionals who are familiar with the bio-technological procedures.
The procedures and equipment used by UNOGEN are routinely used
in clinical laboratories which conduct diagnostic tests for physicians.
Similar research techniques are currently in progress at the Univer-
sity of Virginia. UNOGEN will be using small quantities of hazardous
chemicals and radioactive isotopes which are safe if properly handled
and disposed of, but which must also be considered in terms of a pos-
sible spill or accident. The bacteria strain used in the procedure
is considered safe because it cannot survive outside the laboratory
environment.
The finished product, monoclonal antibodies, will be packaged and
shipped for use in medical, research, and veterinary applications.
The product is relatively small in size and quantity and will not
generate heavy truck traffic.
' 40
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Staff has several concerns regarding this application. The site
is located within the South Fork Rivanna River watershed. The first
concern is protection of the reservoir from contamination. The
site is adjacent to Murray Elementary School and residential uses
which are served by wells. This makes groundwater quality a second
important concern. In order to insure water quality protection,
the application must be reviewed for the possibility of a "worst
case" spill or accident as well as normal operating procedure.
Staff is also concerned about a possible change in ownership or
procedure which would alter conditions at the site.
Staff would likely have these same concerns with other industrial
uses. The location of this zoning adjacent to a school and
close to residences, within a reservoir watershed and in a rural
area not served by utilities will continue to be a problem.
Staff Recommendation:
The performance report indicates that the operation is reasonably safe.
The report addresses noise, vibration, glare, air and water pollution,
radioactivity, electrical interference and spill prevention and concludes
that the proposed facility will comply with all the County standards of
performance and use. In addition, the report states that UNOGEN is making
every effort to ensure ongoing compliance with State and Federal
regulations. The applicants have cooperated in every effort to provide
information to the staff. The Zoning Ordinance lists several criteria
which must be satisfied in order for a special use permit to be issued:
1. The proposed use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property;
2. The character of the district will not be changed;
3. The use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with
supplementary regulations, and with public health, safety, and general
welfare;
The proposed use is less intensive than many of the uses permitted
by right in the LI, Light Industrial, zone. The appearance of the
neighborhood will not be affected by UNOGEN. The question of water
quality is a possible detriment to adjacent properties. If the
LI zoning were located in an area served by public utilities, then
water quality would not be such a concern. Both the LI statement
of intent and the Comprehensive Plan industrial standards recommend
the use of public utilities.
The staff's recommendation is largely based on the County Engineer's
acceptance of the performance standard report, as well as opinions
from professionals who feel that the facility will not pose a hazard
to the adjacent user. Staff will recommend approval subject to
conditions.
No site plan is required for the proposed change in use. A sketch
is needed to confirm that the existing parking is adequate and that
the existing vegetation buffer will remain.
At this writing, staff is awaiting final comments from the School
Board, the Fire Prevention Officer, the Health Department, the
State Water Control Board, and the Watershed Manager.
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has approved
the existing entrance on Route 738. The County Engineer has approved
the existing private road as adequate for this new use. The existing
parking lot and private road are gravel, and the building area does
not exceed the amount of impervious cover which would require a
runoff control permit.
Staff has received five letters in support of the application.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Watershed Management Official recommendations;
2. Fire Prevention Officer approval;
3. Health Department approval of septic system. Septic system
to be used for domestic waste only;
OR
Health Department and State Water Control Board approval
of septic system, including specific materials to be dis-
charged into system.
4. No aerobic sewage treatment units to be permitted unless
special use permit is amended;
5. Quarterly testing of wells at UNOGEN and Murray School
sites for contaminants to be determined by staff in
consultation with State Water Control Board;
6. No floor drains to be permitted except in vivarium (animal
facility);
7. Employees limited to 20 persons;
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
441
10.
11.
12.
Approval is based on compliance with performance standards
as submitted by UNOGEN, Inc. and prepared by CH2M Hill,
Inc., dated September 17, 1984. Any changes or modifications
to these standards will require approval by the Board of
Supervisors;
All chemicals listed in Appendix G of the performance standards
report shall be secured in a manner to prohibit vandalism;
Site plan to be approved by staff to show adequate parking
and maintenance of existing vegetation buffer;
Licensed haulers shall pick up materials for off-site disposal
at times other than normal school hours;
All State Health Department requirements to be met, including
approval of materials to be landfilled, and report submitted
to Bureau of Toxic Substances Information.
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 25, 1984, recom-
mended approval of SP-84-57, with the conditions recommended by the staff, but made changes
in No. 3, No. 5 and No. 11:
1. Compliance with Watershed Management Official recommendations
(in following letter);
2. Fire Prevention Officer approval;
3. Health Department and State Water Control Board approval
of septic system, including specific materials to be dis-
charged into system.
4. No aerobic sewage treatment units to be permitted unless
special use permit is amended;
5. Quarterly testing of wells at UNOGEN and Murray School
sites for contaminants to be determined by staff in
consultation with State Water Control Board. Test results
to be submitted to School Board and Planning Staff for dis-
tribution to Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission;
6. No floor drains to be permitted except in vivarium (animal
facility);
7. Employees limited to 20 persons;
8. Approval is based on compliance with performance standards
as submitted by UNOGEN, Inc. and prepared by CH2M Hill,
Inc., dated September 17, 1984. Any changes or modifications
to these standards will require approval by the Board of
Supervisors;
9. All chemicals listed in Appendix G of the performance standards
report shall be secured in a manner to prohibit vandalism;
10. Site plan to be approved by staff to show adequate parking
and maintenance of existing vegetation buffer;
11. Licensed haulers shall pick up materials for off-site disposal
at times other than normal school hours which includes busing
times before and after school;
12. All State Health Department requirements to be met, including
approval of materials to be landfilled, and report submitted
to Bureau of Toxic Substances Information.
Mr. Donnelly then introduced the following letter from William K. Norris, Watershed
Management Official:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Board of Supervisors
William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official
SP-84-57 Otic Realty Service Corporation (UNOGEN)
October 1, 1984
On Wednesday, September 26, 1984, I compiled a packet of
materials on the UNOGEN special permit application and sent them
to Joe Fromal of the State Water Control Board (SWCB). These
materials included the UNOGEN Performance Standards Report dated
September 17, 1984, the Staff Report dated September 25, 1984,
and a packet containing a site plan, location map and detailed
biochemical assays obtained from UNOGEN.
Mr. Fromal and I have discussed these materials at length
and I have requested a formal response from the SWCB. However,
at this time, Mr. Fromal and the SWCB are unable to supply a written
response to the application. Mr. Fromal has given his approval for
me to mention several items from our conversations.
1) In order for the SWCB to officially respond to the project,
an application must be received from the applicant containing a
detailed report of the proposed activities.
2) Until an application is received and a complete review has
taken place, the proposal cannot be ruled on.
3) The information received to date has been too general for
the SWCB to adequately review.
4) After reviewing the materials in hand there are several
chemicals and compounds which could present a problem. (One
specifically mentioned was the possibility of a sodium imbalance which
would destroy the soil structure and make a drainfield fail to
function.)
442
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
5) Details on handling procedures and methods of inactivation
of certain compounds are not sufficient for a complete review.
6) Due to the type of work being proposed and the uncertainty
of the ultimate techniques to be used there is concern over the
volume of culture medium and waste materials that would be generated
and ultimately disposed of.
7) After the initial review it appears that UNOGEN'S spill
prevention techniques have not been defined sufficiently. Therefore,
a proper evaluation cannot be made until additional details are
submitted.
8) With the number of unknowns and questions raised to date,
the SWCB would like to see wastes from the lab, lab sinks, and any
floor drains, isolated and collected for separate handling instead
of disposal in the septic system. Additional areas of waste
generation will also have to be evaluated to determine the ultimate
disposal mechanism required.
9) The preliminary review of the proposal seems to indicate
that there is little or no risk to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
from activities on the site.
10) The potential impact on groundwater in the area cannot be
determined at this time due to a lack of information.
Given this response from the State Water Control Board, I would
like to state the following:
A) I do not feel that this type of use is compatible or
consistent with local efforts to provide protection to the area's
water resources.
B) If this application is to be approved, it should only be
done following receipt of approvals from the Health Department and
the Virginia State Water Control Board regarding the ultimate
disposal of wastes and wastewater from the site.
C) I would recommend deferral of this item until the SWCB has
received, reviewed and responded to an application from UNOGEN for
this use.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff's recommendation would change in view of the memorandum
from Mr. Norris. Mr. Donnelly said the staff would recommend that this matter be deferred
until it had time to restudy the petition. Mr. Fisher asked if "aerobic sewage treatment" is
the package treatment plants with which the County had so much trouble in the past. Mr.
Donnelly said that was correct. Mr. Fisher said Condition No. 5 recommends quarterly
testing. He asked what would be done if contaminants were found in the water. Mr. Donnelly
said it is just a process for determining the presence of same. There is not much that can
be done once they are found.
Mrs. Cooke noted that the number of employees is limited to 20. She asked if there is
any reason to expand from the current number to 20. Mr. Donnelly said 20 would be the
maximum number of employees that could be housed in the existing building if there were no
expansion, and their plans do not show an expansion of floor space.
Mr. Bowie said the letter from the Watershed Official was only written two days ago.
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Office just received a copy. Mr. Bowie said it is a different
department, but in the same building, and it seems it was written after "this whole.thing is
over."
Mrs. Cooke asked about the existing well on the site which is noted as having been
approved as a central well to serve a small industrial unit and five dwelling units. Mr.
Robert Tucker said the property the five rental units are to be located on is owned by Mr.
Tull who will be leasing the property to Unogen.
Mr. Lindstrom noted a letter in the Board's information packet from the Fire Official in
which he states: "The only way I could recommend approval of this use for this site would be
with adequate built-in fire protection and an acceptable outside water supply."
Mr. William Norris, Watershed Management Official, said there were several questions
raised at the Planning Commission meeting due to the lack of information from the State Water
Control Board. It was then decided to send all of the materials which Unogen had furnished
the staff to the State Water Control Board to review. These were sent on September 26. Mr.
Norris said he has discussed the request with Mr. Joe Fromal who replied that they cannot
make a reply without a formal written application for a no discharge permit from the appli-
cant. Mr. Bowie said he just feels the timing sequence is off. The Watershed Management
Official's original memo is dated August 17, the School Board met at length on September 11,
and the Planning Commission met on September 25. He asked if all of this came up after those
meetings. Mr. Norris said the Planning COmmission had a copy of his memo, but nothing was
said because Mr. Fromal has not given any information for release while still reviewing the
materials forwarded.
At this point, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Fred Landess was present to represent the applicants. He said because of the
technical aspects of this application, he had many technical people here to speak about the
October 3, 1984 (Regular -
Night Meeting)
443
proposal. He would like to mention the letter from the Fire OffiCial. He had spoken to him
twice along with Mr. Woodard, Chief Scientist for Unogen. In the memo it mentions a sprin-
kling system and outside water, and that should actually be "or", not "and". Mr. Cortez said
that if there was a complete sprinkling system in the building that would be satisfactory.
That is a condition Unogen is willing to go along with. The real issue on this request is
water control. The Planning Commission recommended approval subject to the State Water
Control Board and the State Health Department. The public has some concerns about this
application. Unogen does not want to get in the "chicken and egg" situation, where the
matter is never resolved. Compared to other uses that might go on this property which is
already zoned LI, he feels Unogen is a good use. The property has an existing, usable
building which is why Unogen is interested in the property. A piece of the property along
the road is being kept by Mr. Tull and he plans to build rental units on that portion. The
well is on the Unogen portion of the property, but Mr. Tull insisted on having a right to use
that well for his five units. Unogen needs a safe water supply, so as soon as they can,
Unogen will be drilling a new well.
Mr. Landess said the first by-right use shown in the LI District, is: "Compounding of
drugs, biological products, medical and chemical as well as pharmaceutical." That is what
Unogen expects to do. Also there is "Manufacture, processing, fabrication, assembly, distri-
bution of products such as but not limited to: ... Surgical, medical and dental instruments
and supplies." The product which Unogen expects to make will be a medical supply; something
to be used to diagnose cancer in its early stages. Another by-right use is: "Research and
development activities including experimental testing."
Mr. Landess said Unogen feels it is a good company, and it will be safe. Unogen repre-
sentatives held a public forum for the neighbors to this facility, went to the School Board
to explain its operation, and also invited the members of the Board of Supervisors to that
meeting. Unogen is the kind of clean, high-tech industry, employing highly trained profes-
sional people, which this community has indicted it wants to attract, and which other commu-
nities in the Commonwealth are trying to attract. Mr. Landess said a letter was addressed to
this Board from Mr. David V. O'Donnell of the Governor's Office in this regard.
Next to speak for Unogen was Dr. Michael P. Woodward, Staff Scientist. He said they
make monoclonal antibodies which will be used in research and for medical diagnoses. Highly
trained people work in a clean, and generally sterile environment. Elements are very criti-
cal, and clean water is immensely important. Without high quality water, it would be impos-
sible to conduct this research work. Dr. Woodward said this evening is the first time that
Unogen has had a communication from Mr. Norris. He has spoken with Mr. Fromal several times,
and has endeavored to find out what he needs to know before rendering an opinion.
Dr. Woodward said in reply to the question about the limit of 20 employees, that is all
the employees needed to go into full-scale production. He would like to mention three areas
of concern - biological hazards, chemical hazards and radioactivity. There are no biological
hazards in Unogen's work. Neither the bacteria, nor the tissue culture cells that are used
will survive outside of the laboratory. Another hazard is chemicals. For example, Clorox is
hazardous and is not supposed to go into a septic system. Phenol is another, and probably
the most toxic chemical that Unogen would use. Isopropyl in sufficient concentrations is
hazardous, as is acidic acid. Dr. Woodward showed to the Board a bottle of Lysol which he
explained is a household disinfectant containing about 5.8 grams of phenol compounds. If
this bottle of Lysol went into a septic tank, it would raise the septic tank above the EPA
limits on phenol. Dr. Woodward said Aaron Mills at the University of Virginia, a research
scientist, did some work for Unogen and found that phenol is degraded in the septic system so
it does not percolate down with the groundwater.
Dr. Woodward said there was an issue raised about the American Recovery Company. Unogen
had thought about using them to transport waste because they are used by the University of
Virginia, and that would cut down on the number of trucks coming into Albemarle County.
Unogen has recently found that Eastern Chemical Waste System, located in Washington, D. C.,
can haul its waste, and this company is not under indictment or scrunity by any agency.
Also, Teledyne, which is the radio isotope hauler, is not under indictment anywhere according
to the EPA. Unogen will have radioactive isotopes, but not many, and really does not wan~ to
use them if it can be avoided. There are alternative ways of conducting studies. The whole
isotope use falls under NRA safety standards. A license is needed to use isotopes, and the
license has to be renewed regularly. If there should be a spill, they will have spill kits,
and monitoring equipment. The research labs will not have floor drains.
Dr. Francis Macrina, Chairman of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the
~edical College of Virginia, spoke next. He said he is a microbiologist involved in DNA
research, also called genetic engineering or genetic splicing, for the past eight years.
Methodologies have allowed scientists to genetically program simple bacteria to produce
useful quantities of biomedical products. A number of recombinant have been produced and
marked in this country and abroad, most notable in this context is insulin. Scientists at
Unogen propose to use only well-defined and highly characterized recombinant bacteria to
~roduce proteins. In turn, these proteins will be used only in the laboratory to trigger
~nimal cells to produce highly specific substances called monoclonal antibodies. These
~ntibodies will be the marketable product of Unogen.'s efforts.
Dr. Macrina said the recombinant DNA methodology and its practical and philosophical
Lmplications were debated in the 1970's and from that came some highly specific guidelines
~or DNA research. In researching the issues revolving around Unogen's efforts, he used these
~uidelines and also spoke with staff members at the office of recombinant DNA activities at
:he National Institute of Health. The nature of Unogen's use of recombinant DNA research is
.ncident to their overall production efforts. The kind of recombinant bacteria cells that
~hey use do not even fall within these guidelines. In short, any recombinant organism
lonstructed or grown at Unogen would be exempt from the current NIH guidelines governing
· ecombinant DNA research. Despite this, Unogen will voluntarily use physical containment
.evels that are in line with NIH recommendations. The recombinant organisms that will be
~mployed at Unogen have been shown to be unable to survive in the environment or in the human
~ody.
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Dr. Macrina said to summarize, as a scientist, as a parent, as a concerned citizen, he
cannot find fault with Unogen's proposed use of recombinant organisms. He found their
proposed use of such biologicals to be prudent and safe, and such utilization will in no way
endanger the environment.
Next to speak was Dr. Jon K. Hutchison, Assistant Professor of Urban and Environmental
Planning in the University of Virginia School of Architecture. He said that Unogen contacted
him in March seeking a site for their facility in the county. They found that there are a
limited number of industrial sites in the county. They found this site which meets both the
terms and conditions set out in the Zoning Ordinance and the Land Use Plan. Unogen is the
type of land use that is being actively sought by some of the most intensively zoned and
controlled communities in the country. This bio-tech firm may be less familiar than other
uses, but poses less of a hazard than many of the common hazards that have existed in the
county for years. Most of the chemicals used at Unogen are chemicals found under the kitchen
sink, next to the home washing machine, or at photographic sites. The "worst spill case"
might be compared to a leaking radiator. As a professional planner, and an environmentalist,
he has no problem in recommending Unogen as a good addition to the County. The level of
toxic materials within the building is quite low, and the staff is highly trained and very
competent. He feels the children at Murray Elementary School will be better protected after
this development of the Ivy Industrial Park then they are now because more testing will go on
as a result. He feels Unogen will be a good neighbor and presents no hazard to the watershed
or the groundwater of the county.
Mr. Fisher asked what would be done if pollutants.were found when monitoring the wells.
Dr. Hutchison said Albemarle County is well-suited to septic systems because of the clay
soils and bedrock conditions. Materials will not move quickly or great distances. Most of
the acquifers which supply the wells in this area are highly localized. Even if something
went undetected for years, the chances of it moving to the site of Murray School are quite
low. If the worst case happened, interception wells could be drilled, the water pumped, and
removed. In that case, the contamination would be in the ground for years to come, and one
of the things that concern Unogen is the possibility of TCE, or trichloroethane, a common
grease cutter having been used in the facility previously and having gotten into the well.
So far, no evidence of that has been found.
Dr. Hutchison said to deviate slightly, he feels there is a major policy issue before
the county, and that is providing industrial sites with water and sewer. It is quite clear
that one of the bi-products of this is a need to do prescriptive planning. Mr. Fisher said
it is quite clear that this site should never have been zoned LI because of the lack of
public utilities.
Dr. Hutchison said a question was also raised about the aerobic condition to the sewage
treatment. There are no plans for a package treatment plant on this site, but there has been
some concern that the cell tissue cultures used would have high biochemical or biological
oxygen demand, but that has not been found to be the case. The materials coming out of the
septic tank are aerated and go back into the ground, so it is an augmentation devi~e~ on the
septic system rather than the type of devi~e used at the Camelot Sewage Treatment P~lant.
Mr. Bowie asked if in the matter of a worst case spill, the interceptor well would
detect something seeping in that direction long before it got to the school. Dr. Hutchison
said yes, and the interceptor wells could be used to draw off the water before it went
further. Unogen has been concerned that they might have to shut down their own operation
because of materials in the well.
Mr. Fisher said any company has the right to go out of business at any time it wants to.
What would the county do if contamination were found, and Unogen did not want to deal with
it. Should there be some type of bonding posted to cover removal of contaminated soil and
waters to provide protection to the public from an agency that has no institutional charac-
ter. Dr. Hutchison said a drive down Route 250 West would show a lot of other things in
similar circumstances. He would suggest putting together a technical panel to advise the
county on issues such as this.
Mr. Landess said that completed the formal presentation of Unogen. However, if this
company were requested to post a bond, every gasoline service station, every bulk plant,
every contractor's yard with underground tanks, might be of more danger to the public than
anything that Unogen is going to do. Mr. Fisher said someone has deemed it is worthwhile to
put down wells and take samples. His only question is what will the County do about it if
something is found to be wrong. Dr. Woodward said when they started looking for property,
they needed to know that the water was there, so they volunteered to do the testing. Because
of the number of households that might use Lysol and the people who change their car radia-
tors and dump ethyleneglycol, it behooves him to monitor the well water. Mr. Fisher said it
sounds like a good idea, but he does not know what will be done if there is a problem. Dr.
Woodward said when you talk about ten grams of Phenol people get upset, but who is worried
about the gas stations on Route 250 West. That is a far bigger problem. There is a matter
of scale involved here.
Mrs. Cooke said she has no idea about the technical aspects of this petition and is
intrigued about the bottle of Clorox and the bottle of Lysol. Dr. Woodward said there are
ten grams of Phenol in a bottle of Lysol. They use Phenol to extract the DNA from bacteria.
This is not done near sinks and drains, and is not something they would be doing every day.
The reason Clorox is a hazard is that it kills the bacteria in the septic system and that
prevents the sewage from being treated. Another thing used in households is Chlordane to
kill termites, and that is a million times more toxic.
Next to speak was Daniel Mandell, Conservation Chairman, Piedmont Group of The Sierra
Club. He read the following into the records:
//
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)-
445
We first would like to thank the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
for giving full and serious consideration to this siting issue. We also
appreciate the willingness of Unogen to answer the concerns of Ivy's
citizens. Before a special use permit is granted, however, certain
conditions must be added on to the permit to provide a firm foundation
for the future.
Only human waste and wash water normally handled by septic
tank technology can be discharged by Unogen into their
septic facilities. All processed materials, clean-up water,
acids (even when neutralized), alcohols, and other wastes
must be trucked away from the site.
Specific limitations on the size and particularly the gener-
ating capacity of the Unogen plant must be set. It is impor-
tant that county authorities be thus able to monitor the
volume of waste generated by Unogen.
There must be a specific list of materials to be tested for in
the test wells. Standard safe drinking water rules are not
sufficient. A list of precisely which hazardous materials will
be brought onto the Unogen site has been (or will be) filed by
Unogen with the Virginia Department of Health. Under the Toxic
Substances Information Act, county officials are entitled to
find out (in executive session) what those substances are.
For the first five years, testing must be conducted monthly
instead of quarterly.
Unogen must notify both the fire department and the elementary
school should there be the threat of release of material from the
plant. The county should, with school authorities, develop an
emergency evacuation plan.
5. No incineration will be allowed on site.
There should be weekly inspections of the facility by county
health officers for the first three years, thereafter once
each month. Findings are to be made public.
It is important that the proper precedent be made for this new technology;
these standards would help. Thank you for your consideration and
attention.
Next to speak was Ms. Beth Seltzer. She handed to the Board petitions signed by approx-
imately 182 persons, which reads: "We the undersigned oppose the granting of a special use
permit to Unogen, Inc. The proposed site is located next to an elementary school. Unogen
will be using hazardous materials which require off-site disposal~. The company contracted to
pick up this waste will be carrying hazardous material of unknown type and quantity. The
risk is unacceptable, especially since there are almost no economic benefits for the County."
She then read a prepared statement, which is on file, concerning hazardous wastes, and
referred also to many sections of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan in relation to
the use of this site for this facility.
Mr. George Bailey, said he is a lifelong resident of the Ivy (Jack Jouett Magisterial)
District. At a meeting at Murray School about two weeks ago, the owner stated that he would
immediately double the size of the septic system to handle the wastes. This small company
has a well on its property and will be pumping large amounts of water. The Murray School
well is only about 300 feet away, and is only about 210 feet deep. They are probably both
pumping water from the same ground level. One of the owners said a hauling company would
transport all of the dangerous waste materials used in the laboratory over the highways to be
disposed of in some other area. It is a fact that accidents happen at this type of industry,
in many cases they are quite serious. The building this company wishes to use is about 60
feet by 55 feet, of cinderblock construction and has a concrete floor. He heard a company
representative say all of the employees would be white-collar workers, and he did not hear
him say they would employ any local people. A company representative said he would run a
water test on a regular basis to see if the underground water had become contaminated. In
the Greenwood area about ten years ago there was a spill which killed many cattle downstream,
and fish and birds. A scientist was serioUsly injured at the Greenwood chemical plant about
five years ago. People with whom he has talked have expressed concern about the large amount
of water that will be pumped from the ground and go back into a septic system. They are
concerned about who would run the public water supply to Murray School if the groundwater
should become polluted. Although he feels the people living in this area would like to see
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
this small company in the county, he thinks they would prefer that it be located where there
is public water and sewer. He urged the Board to turn down this request.
Next to speak was Mr. Tim McLaughlin, a resident of Ivy. In reading the current zoning
ordinance, he has found that Unogen is seriously deficient in at least two of the three
characteristics required for a company to locate in LI. The Watershed Management Official
has stated that "this type of planned use does not appear to be compatible with providing
protection for the area's watersupply impoundment." The proposed site is 475 feet from a
public elementary school, and is in the midst of a residential area. The intended use has
been labeled as a "HIGH HAZARD OCCUPANCY" by the Fire Marshal. Approval of this petition
would place increased regulatory burden upon the county. He feels this burden is unaccept-
able for the sake of one private, profit-making firm. Finally, there are no guidelines in
county ordinances to prevent Unogen from expanding into other hazardous areas of research and
production. An industry like this must stay on the edge of their technological possibility
frontier or they fall out of the competition.
Mr. Zachary Taylor said he lives on Route 738. He has lived there a number of years and
has accidentally had two houses burn. There is no fire department. No one has been able to
figure out a cure for the isotopes that are being handled in this country today. The fact
that they would come into the Ivy area, and have to be taken out, whether in a pack of six
milligrams, or 80 milligrams, there is no mention of the amount of contamination that might
occur through a plan of this sort. There is nothing that can be done to prevent their use,
and they are not wanted there. Mr. Taylor said that he has spoken to a great number of
people in Ivy who feel the same way.
Mr. Henry Taylor, Skyline Crest, said of concern is the particular use and what happens
if there is an accident. The property is already zoned, and there will be some business
located there in accordance with that zoning. If one of the haulers had an accident, there
would be radioactive and hazardous wastes deposited on the roads. If there were a fire or a
serious accident at the Unogen plant, that would be serious. Radioactive isotopes are one of
the things that sort of dissipate after a year. One of the representatives of the company
talked about how communities actively seek them out, but there are also a growing number of
communities that are becoming ghost towns because of water contamination. Mr. Taylor said he
is absolutely against approval of this request. If they are coming into the county, let them
locate on a waterline, and where there is sewage disposal, so they can be controlled and
monitored.
Mrs. Glenda Pack said she lives in the Ivy area and has a child at the Murray School.
She is strongly opposed to Unogen being given an opportunity to locate in the Ivy Industrial
Park. She feels that children are the most valuable resource that we have, and if there is
any chance of danger, why subject our children to it? Dr. Woodward said the radioactive
isotopes would be strictly monitored by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and would
pose minimal risk. Mrs. Pack said she checked with the NRC and Unogen has not applied for
its license at this point. Local officials are not sure what can be pumped into the company's
septic system. If local officials are not sure, how can County residents feel safe and
secure that this operation will not contaminant the water supply. Mrs. Pack said she had to
obtain a special permit at one time, and it took seven months to get through the process.
Unogen's request has taken only a little over six weeks, so it seems that they are moving
through the process rather~rapidly.
Mrs. Billy June Dutram said she and her family live on Route 738 in Ivy only three doors
from the property where Unogen wants to locate. They have lived here for eight years. She
has lived in Albemarle County all her life, in fa~t her family has lived in Albemarle since
three days before there was dirt. She has never been in the habit of doing things, condoning
things or companies that pose a risk to human life. She is present tonight to ask the Board
to reject this special permit request for Unogen. There is no need for this particular
business in Ivy, and the residents don't want it.
Mrs. Tara McLaughlin spoke next, and presented a statement which is on file. She noted
that the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan are incompatible with this type of business.
Her first concern is water. Although Dr. Woodward has assured that there is no risk of
groundwater contamination, why monitor the water is there is no risk? Monitoring is diffi-
cult and will not always reveal contaminants. Using the septic system for anything other
than normal human sewage from the toilet is dangerous and irresponsible. Unogen has dis-
cussed disposing of various chemicals and bacteria through the septic system. Because this
is a new field of research, they cannot give any firm assurances of the safety of these
wastes. Another concern is the storage and pickup of hazardous waste. In the event of an
explosion or fire, would there be poisonous gases released from chemical combustion? Would
there be radioactive spills from their stored waste? Can the experts assure us that there
will be no such accidents? Mrs. McLaughlin closed by stressing the fact that Unogen not only
places a tremendous burden on the county, but also threatens the well-being of the community.
She asked that the Board reject this proposal.
Mrs. McLaughlin then read into the record the following letter from Dr. Martin Albert:
October 3, 1984
Albemarle County Planning COmmission
County Office Bldg.
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Planning Commission Members:
I am writing to you in regard to the plans of Unogen, Inc. to locate in
the Ivy Industrial Park.
To start with, locating an industrial park close to a school in an area
where people depend on well water where there is no public sewer system does
not sound like excellent planning, and in itself opens the door to many
problems.
October~3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
4-4 7
While the plans outlined by Unogen, Inc. indicate concern for proper
handling of radioactive chemicals and biological wastes, I have serious
reservations about the location of this industry in Ivy.
Unogen, Inc.'s plans are now under close scrutiny by the public and the
Planning Commission and their precautions are very carefully outlined. I
wonder, in five or ten years time, how carefully their waste disposal plans
will be and who will be monitoring them.
Will the managers of Unogen, Inc. and the staff feel an obligation to
carefully monitor their waste if economic times are hard, corners must be
cut to maintain profits, and there is no outside supervision? If the
autoclave breaks or is needed in production of media at a busy time, will
there not be a temptation to dispose of biological wastes in the septic
system without sterilization?
Might there not be some temptation to dispose of chemical waste down the
toilet, rather than bothering with the expensive chemical hauler.
What products will Unogen, Inc. be producing in ten years times? Is
there any guarantee that they will not be quietly producing biological
products involving rabies virus or cholera bacilli?
Who will monitor this company? How often will they inspect the site?
How often will the septic tank be monitored?
If damage occurs to the well water, an irreplacable resource, who will
pick up the tab to supply alternate water? Who will provide insurance
against the cost of environmental degradation or health problems?
How much liability insurance does Unogen, Inc. carry for such an event?
How old a company is Unogen, and what security is there that they will meet
their responsibilities for any health or environmental problems? What
assurance is there that Unogen will be a viable company in ten years?
In summary, I think that allowing Unogen, Inc. to develop a laboratory
in this area not only raises a large number of unanswered questions, but also
sets the stage for a large number of potential future problems and risks.
I suggest that you reconsider the desirability of an industrial park in
this area to begin with and look much more closely at the advisability of
a biotechnical firm to locate here.
Ms. Melissa Beck, a county resident, said current events have indicated to her that
businesses of this nature generally are more concerned about profits than the waste that they
produce. There is no guarantee as to the kind of work they will do in the future. Currently
the fire and water authorities have expressed grave concerns over this petition. She just
wants to add her voice to those in opposition.
Mr. Bill Murray who lives adjacent to the Ivy Industrial Park on Route 738, spoke next.
He expressed his concern over this special use permit request, and urged the Board to reject
the application. He feels this is an inappropriate location, and there is no economic
benefit to himself or anyone else in this area of the county.
Mr. Dave Pack said he is a property owner in the Ivy area. The central issue on which
the Board should focus is the risk. If there is a risk involved with Unogen, is there any
reason to jeopardize the health and safety of the children. He opposes this request from
Unogen.
Mr. William Sutherland said he lives in Earlysville, although he used to live in Ivy.
He has a number of close friends in the Ivy area, all of whom have children. He came tonight
in response to an ad that was in last night's paper. He has followed these proceedings
through the press, but this is his first public meeting. He is actually a competitor to
Unogen. He runs a facility at the University of Virginia that does this type of research.
For ten years, this type of technology has been available to researchers in the University.
He has been involved full-time for seven years in this research. He supports Unogen in its
efforts to locate in the Ivy area, and he sees no danger from this technology. The things
that are used in this technology are mostly common household items, just in a different form.
The cells that are used will not be disposed of down the drain unless they are killed. The
NIH has no reports of any instance of these cells being infectious to the researchers that
use them. He thinks the dangers are more perceived than real. One thing that has not been
addressed tonight is the benefit this company poses for the community, .the research environ-
ment, and medical practice. It is hard to describe this work for someone who is not trained
in either the medical profession, or biological sciences. The agents used pose no danger to
the human body, but they can be used as sensitive diagnostic tools and potentially for
treatment in cases of human diseases, as well as diseases with animals involved in
agriculture.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Sutherland where he does this type of work. Mr. Sutherland said he
is located in the University of Virginia Medical Center complex. His facility was set up to
primarily serve the Medical Center and University because it is highly complex and expensive
448
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
technology and not every laboratory can afford the money for the operation, or the kind of
personnel needed to perform this technology. Mrs. Cooke said Mr. Sutherland's facility would
then be using public water and sewage disposal. Mr. Sutherland said that is correct.
Mr. Richard Lakes said he is the parent of a child at Murray School. He shares many of
the concerns that his friends and neighbors have expressed tonight. Mr. Lakes said he has no
economic interest in Unogen and would not receive any economic benefit from their location in
Albemarle County. When he heard about the special permit request, he visited Unogen and
delved into the type and volume of chemicals they have on site. Once that determination was
made, he sought the advise of the fire official, regulatory officials, nuclear regulatory
officials, and state officials to further educate himself on the hazard factor of the chemi-
cals. He spoke to two fire officials and both agreed that if all of the chemicals that might
burn were put into one pile and lit, it is unlikely that the fire would singe the roof of the
room. Unogen is using extremely small volumes of flammable fluids. In terms of disposal and
transportation in and out of the narrow road, at full production, Unogen would be disposing
of one, fifty-five gallon barrel of chemicals every six months. Mr. Lakes said he spoke with
Dr. Woodward about what radioactive isotopes might be used, and found that the amount he
would be using would pose relatively little hazard to people from an environmental
standpoint. Mr. Lakes said he supports the Unogen request and thinks it will bring in some
economic benefit. Unogen is not a chemical company. It was mentioned earlier that Greenwood
Chemical was manufacturing pharmaceuticals, but they were not, but were producing chemicals.
The most toxic substance Dr. Woodward would be using is Phenol. Most toxic substances would
be used once or maybe twice in their research, but not used routinely in their full-scale
production. It is a matter of perspective. Mr. Lakes said he looked at their quality
control, and he feels comfortable living next door, and he feels comfortable having his
six-year old in school nearby. He supports the Unogen application.
Mr. Jack Taggart said he is building a home near where this facility would be located.
He missed most of the meetings that were held to help educate the public, and came tonight to
see if there is anything about which he should be concerned. He has been surprised by what
appears to be a really well-organized, well-orchestrated, almost flippant presentation to
this Board about the chemicals which will be used, their quantity, and how they can so safely
be taken care of. Mr. Taggart said he has children, and he does not want them going to
school next door to any facility where there is even one, fifty-five gallon barrel of hazard-
ous waste. He feels these gentlemen are sincere and will put in good safeguards, but can't
conceive as to why they would talk about putting that kind of business next to a school.
There are industrial parks in the County. It is just because there is a useable building on
this site which provides them with an economic benefit that this petition has been requested.
He thinks this Board should encourage these people to come to Albemarle County, and then work
with them to find a good place to locate. He compliments Unogen on the good work they are
doing, but knows that if there is only one accident, all the safeguards in the world are not
worth anything.
Next to speak was Dr. Tom Howard, a pediatrician with pediatric hemotology working with
blood diseases and cancer in children, and he is also a researcher. He knows the people
involved with the Unogen petition, and has a few fears about the radioactivity involved, but
would support the people involved if that were the only problem to be faced. He is not sure
about the toxic waste, and would encourage Unogen to seek a better location that has better
disposal, and where some of the questions raised tonight might be answered.
Next to speak was Mr. Russell Seltzer who said he has lived in the Ivy area for three
years. There is more than one issue involved. There are the risks that have been talked
about in great detail. There is the County's plan for development, and the two things are
not compatible. This is a residential community, so he does not like the idea of industrial
traffic, much less the waste disposal. He thinks that Unogen is apparently heavily funded by
some adventure capitalist. That is apparent by their willingness to install fire prevention
equipment on the property. These capitalist make their money by selling the business after
it becomes profitable. How does the Board know who might buy the property. The industrial
park itself is out of place in the County. He thinks there are more questions about this
petition than can will be answered in his lifetime.
Mr. Bill Espinosa said he is new to the Ivy community. He was disturbed by the alcohol
and clorox show that was put on. He urged the Board to look at the engineer's report. He
has heard the debate about how risky this operation might be, and the other side is saying
the risks are not that great. He has heard no one say that this community would benefit
economically. The question is whether this is .the place to have something like this operate.
Mr. Landess said he is confused about the economic issue. On one hand it is being said
that Unogen is a company trying to make a profit so they are bad and not to be trusted. On
the other hand, it is being said that this company has no economic benefit to this county.
It can't be both ways. He would like to point out that every employee of Unogen is a resi-
dent of Albemarle County. In listening to the presentation tonight, and working with the
scientific people, it is his impression that all of the people who are knowledgeable in this
area have come to the conclusion that Unogen is not a threat to this community. Someone
raised a question about an industrial road. Currently there are more than fifty tractor
trailers per week going in to Dettor, Edwards & Morris. Unogen would expect to have two UPS
trucks per week coming to this facility. Mr. Bailey expressed a concern about pollution from
Morton Frozen Foods. The current industrial zoning on this property would allow Morton, by
right, to use this property.
Mr. Tim McLaughlin said Mr. Landess seems to be bringing up the lesser of two evils
argument, and he doesn't see why the citizens have to accept any evil out there at all.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was cloased at 10:12 p.m.
Board immediately recessed and then reconvened at 10:25 p.m.
The
Mr. Fisher said the site proposed by Unogen for use under this application is zoned LI.
At the time that zoning took place, there was an application pending for an LI operation with
seven employees using drafting pens, and making a few machines a year with light tools. That
October~3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
seemed a reasonable thing to allow. The only way this operation could have taken place under
the zoning ordinance was through making this a manufacturing site. That company seemed so
viable, and had so much promise, but it is gone and the zoning is on the land, and that has
encouraged an innocent third party to apply for this petition. This was a marginal property
for the earlier use, and without public utilities it seems impossible for this use. The
experts have said tonight that there is no danger with the plans for the proposed operation,
but, nobody can say what the market will encourage a company to do in the next five or ten
years. Technology changes. Present intentions do not always last forever. Mr. Fisher said
there have been times when he had to took at people who have been emotionally concerned with
the possible location of something near them that they feared. Many people were furious when
the Board approved the elderly housing project in Crozet, and yet he felt that it was not an
objectionable use, and that the Board could stand the political heat. In this case with all
the new technology, he as a scientist, has no way of knowing what the risks really are. Mr.
Fisher said he does not believe he is wise enough to say there are no risks, will be no
risks, and he does not believe this use should ever happen without public water and sewer,
and on a site where the facility cannot grow. Mr. Fisher said he can't support this
application.
Mr. Lindstrom said he attended the meeting at Murray School and his concern was
addressed by one of the speakers tonight. Do we have to choose any evil at all? This is a
fairly minimal use of this land, but only in the context of what could be put on the property
without the Board's approval. In that context, he would have to support the special permit
because a portion of that land would be absorbed in a relatively innocuous use, but he is not
ready to accept that yet. The history of the zoning on this property goes back more than ten
years. There are other properties in the County which are zoned for various uses related to
their history, either for LI or HI, which do not have at the present time, but may in the
near future, have public sewer and water. Any of those acres so zoned could confront the
Board again. Except for the by-right zoning that exists, he could not support this special
use permit in this location. He does not think it is the kind of use that should be located
in a residential or educational area. For that reason, he would suggest that this
application be denied. However, that is an empty denial if the Board does not attempt to
remedy the broader problem, not only with this property, but with other properties similarily
situated where there is industrial zoning, but where there is no public water and sewer. Mr.
Lindstrom suggested that the Board deny this permit request, and then request the staff to
draft an amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance relative to industrial lands, to
restrict parcels that do not have public water and sewer available.
Mrs. Cooke said she had listened with great interest to the comments of the applicant as
well as to those of the persons speaking in opposition. The question she had about how this
land became industrial has been answered. The applicants have clarified that as a project,
an industry, a company, they are realiable and mean what they say. By the same token, there
is no public water and no public sewage disposal, and this is the thing that presents the
problem. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks a company of this sort is desirable for Albemarle
County. Whatever the outcome of this request, she hopes that Unogen finds a suitable
location in this area. She would like to be able to support this request at this site, but
given the facts about how the zoning came about years ago (there was no thought, and no
planning put into it), she will not support this project for this area.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to know the feeling of the other Board members about
amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance, as he suggested. Mrs. Cooke said she can support
the concept. Mr. Henley said he would hate to have to deal with that question tonight. Mr.
Lindstrom said he only meant to direct the staff to prepare a resolution of intent for
discussion later. Mr. Bowie said he had no objection to discussing a draft of something.
Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board members are clearly not interested in addressing the issue,
he would feel differently about the special use permit.
Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with looking at a change, although he finds some of the
County's restrictions fairly restrictive now. If they are more restrictive, he thinks that
will only raise more exceptions and more requests. Mr. Bowie said he has complied quite a
few notes, and finds that this property has been reviewed 14 times over the past ten years,
and he assumes they have all been for LI uses. He wonders if in fact the school is dumping
more chemicals from cleaning Unogen will dump. At the meeting held at the School a few
nights ago there were at least ten people present who supported the application, and the
Board has received letters to that effect, however, these people are not present tonight.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to support the request. He would like to know the extent of the
chemicals that are being put into the septic field from the School. It seems that Unogen has
said it will do whatever is needed to safeguard the community, and he does not know what more
the Board can ask of Unogen.
Mr. Fisher said the new Zoning Ordinance clearly implies that there be public water and
sewage disposal available for any industrial site. The land is there, and is zoned, and is
just waiting for someone to pay to extend water and sewage disposal to this area. It does
raise a serious question which the Board must address. Mr. Bowie said that having LI zoning
scattered around the County where no one can use it kind of defeats the purpose of the
zoning. Mr~ Fisher said the Board's other option is to do away with the zoning.
Mr. Henley said he does not think that all LI uses need public water and sewer. He
would like to hear from the State Water Control Board or somebody. He does not think that a
lot of the concerns expressed by some of the parents for their children are as hazardous as
they think or the University would not have the same thing right in the middle of the City of
Charlottesville. There may be a need to have water and sewer for this company, but he would
like to wait and hear from the State Water Control Board. He personally feels that they may
need the public utilities. Mr. Bowie said he though Mr. Norris' memo of October 1, 1984,
indicated that answer. Mr. Fisher said he did not interpret the memo that way. He thought
the State Water Control Board was not going to provide any answer. If this request is
deferred, it says the Board is willing to do it if the answer is positive, and even if the
SWCB said they can put in what they propose, he does not see any effective mechanism for
monitoring this facility. Mr. Henley said somebody will have to convince him.
450
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom said that in view of that, he would offer motion to deny SP-84-57. The
motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
Mr. Bowie and Mr. Way.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to request staff to prepare a resolution of intent
to amend the text of the LI (Light Industrial) and HI (Heavy Industrial) zones in the Zoning
Ordinance to define and restrict those uses which presently exist by right and which would
cause problems in terms of groundwater supply, and which really demand public sewer and
water, and that this draft resolution be brought back to the Board as soon as possible. The
motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-84-19. HEC, Inc. Request to rezone 58.91 acres from R-1 to R-4
with a proffer to limit density to three dwellings per acre among other things. Located on
south side of Rt. 654 west and adjacent to Canterbury Hills Subdivision. County Tax Map 60,
Parcel 24 (part). Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 18
and September 25, 1984.)
Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report:
ZMA-84-19 HEC, Inc.
Requested Zoning: R-4 with proffer
Existing Zoning: R-1
Acreage: 58.91
Location: South side of Route 654 (Barracks Road) just west
of Route 656 (Georgetown Road).
Applicant's
Proffer:
1. The maximum overall density of the 58.91
acre tract will not exceed three dwelling units
per acre or a total of 176 dwelling units.
2. Only single family detached dwellings will
be located within 200 feet of the boundary
of other parcels not owned or optioned
by HEC, Inc.
Character and Existing Zoning of the Area: Subject property is
wooded and vacant. Most of the adjacent property
is zoned R-1. To the east is a residence on
10 acres zoned R-1. Canterbury Hills to the
east is zoned R-2. To the south is the undeveloped
Hunter Village zoned PRD (R-l), and St. Anne's
Belfield Lower School zoned R-1. Adjacent to
the west is a residence on 32 acres zoned R-1.
Farther to the west is additional Faulconer
Estate acreage zoned RA, Colthurst Farm zoned
RA, and the Twin Group PRD (R-l). To the north
across Barracks Road are Old Salem Apartments
and Huntwood townhouses zoned R-15, and Montvue
subdivision zoned RA. Nearby Hessian Hills is
zoned R-4. Hessian Hills Apartments are R-15.
Despite the mixture of densities, the area retains
a quiet residential character which is unified
by landscaped and wooded areas. This is a
transition area which becomes rural in character
just west of this site.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Urban Area, Neighborhood Seven.
Proposed for low density residential (1-4 dwelling
units per acre). The boundary between Neighborhood
Seven and the Rural Area defines the South
Rivanna watershed: south on Georgetown Road,
west on Barracks Road, and south along Stillhouse
Mountain just west of the subject property.
Zoning History:
There have been several rezoning applications
on other parts of the Faulconer property, of
which this 58.91 acres is a part. The only
previous application which is related to
this one ZMA-80-24, Hunter Village PRD on
41.2 adjacent acres. The Board of Supervisors
approved RPN/R-1 zoning from R-1 zoning on
January 21, 1981, with a maximum gross density
of 1.17 dwelling unit/acre or 26 single family
detached units and 22 single family attached
units. The Hunter Village PRD and the subject
property, if developed, will share a stormwater
detention basin. The Twin Group PRD on property
to the west was approved with a density of 0.62
dwelling unit/acre on October 17, 1979.
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
451
Watershed Impoundment: Outside of water supply watershed area.
Note: A small portion of the property on the
north and northeast side drains toward Route 654
and into the South Fork Rivanna watershed area.
If possible, drainage plans should be developed
that keep this drainage on the Meadow Creek
Basin area. This drainage could be diverted
into the drainage ditch along Route 654 and
back into the storm sewer system, thereby pre-
venting potential degradation of the area's w~ter
supply.
Condition of Roads:
Route 654 (Barracks Road) between Route 656
(Georgetown Road) and Route 1001 (Colthurst Circle)
carries 4,569 vehicle trips per day.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: Previous comments
still apply. Turn lanes will be required. Sight
distance appears adequate.
Service Authority:
Water service looks excellent. The Service Authority
is presently studying the sewer situation. The
Canterbury sewer pumping station is at capacity.
The Service Authority would prefer to work with
the developer to upgrade the existing pumping
station. The alternative is for the developer
to build his own pumping station.
Staff Comment:
The applicant's proposal for three dwelling units
per acre falls within the recommended density of
1-4 dwelling units per acre shown in the Comprehensive
Plan. The Plan recommends public roads for greater
than 20 lots. It recommends a planned approach
for minimum 75-100 units.
The intent of the R-4 residential district in the
Zoning Ordinance is to provide for compact medium
density, single family development in locations
where public facilities and water and sewer utilities
are available. This zone also permits duplexes,
triplexes, quadraplexes, townhouses, atrium and
patio houses.
The applicant is proposing single family homes
within 200' of the boundary of the properties to
the east, west and south, other than parcels
owned or optioned by HEC, Inc. The remaining
un:Lts could be any of the dwelling types permitted
in the R-4 zone.
There is no minimum lot size in the R-4 zone, only
a density requirement. The proposed minimum lot
size in the single family buffer areas should be
addressed, possibly equal to the average lot size
in Canterbury Hills (1/3 - 1/2 acre).
One entrance is planned on Barracks Road. No
connections are proposed either to Canterbury Hills
or other adjacent properties. While through roads
have some advantages from a planning viewpoint, there
has historically been strong opposition to the
extension of existing cul-de-sacs in established
neighborhoods. The adjacent Hunter Village will
have access from Faulconer Drive to the south.
Staff concerns with the applicant's proposal center
on limiting access to one entrance on Barracks Road.
Staff recommends public roads to serve this
development.
Staff
Recommendations:
Staff finds this rezoning to be in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan and with the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance. Because a planned development
approach would be preferable for this size of develop-
ment, staff questions whether the two proffers are
adequate to address concerns.
If a planned development were being proposed, staff
would be able to request some assurances regarding
the following remaining concerns:
a. Minimum lot size within the single family buffer
areas;
The preservation of a wooded buffer along
Route 654 in order to protect the existing
character of the area;
452
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Ce
A single access to serve the property;
The upgrading of the Canterbury Hills
pumping station;
Confirmation that all drainage will be
directed into the Meadow Creek Basin;
Provision of public roads within the
development.
Mr. Donnelly noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 11, 1984
recommended approval of ZMA-84-19 with the proffers that follow:
The maximum overall density of the 58.91 acre tract will not
exceed three dwelling units per acre or a total of 176 dwelling
units.
Only single family detached dwellings will be located within 200
feet of the boundary of other parcels not owned or optioned by
HEC, Incorporated, as shown on the (attached) drawing.
®
Smithfield Road will not be extended or used as a connector road
in any way.
The minimum lot size for single family detached dwellings to be
located within the 200 foot strip adjacent to other ownership will
be one-third of an acre (0.33 acre) based on gross areas.
A wooded buffer area 30 feet in width will be preserved along the
margin of Route 654. An additional 30 feet setback will be
observed for the location of structures along this highway. (This
was clarified to mean a total of a 60 foot setback measured from
the Route 654 right-of-way line).
We propose to serve this development with a single access from
Route 654.
Storm sewer system will be designed to intercept drainage and
direct it into Meadow Creek basin.
8. Ail roads within this development will be public roads.
Present to speak for the applicants was Mr. Bill Roudabush. Also present were Mr. John
Fishback from the bank, and Mr. Tim Michel from HEC which is composed of the beneficaries to
the Faulconer Estate which has owned large acreages in this area since the 1920's. This is
part of Madison Park which was platted and recorded in the 1920's. His firm was engaged to
prepare the documents needed for a rezoning, but not a site plan. The actual development of
the property will be done by HEC. The property is located in Neighborhood $7, an urban area
which is designed for growth. This property is just on the western fringe of that growth
area. Public utilities are adjacent to the tract immediately across the road. Represen-
tatives of the owners met and consulted with adjacent property owners (primarily in
Canterbury Hills Subdivision), and as a result six additional proffers were added to the
original two. It would be uneconomical for the owners to develop the property at a density
of less than what is requested in this application. The reason for the original Proffer is
that there is no R-3 zoning category in the ordinance. The applicants requested R-i, but
proffered to limit that zoning to three dwelling units per acre. This property is not
located in the South Fork Rivanna watershed. There is a sewer line located in Barracks Road
which could accommodate this property.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about a buffer shown on a plan Mr. Roudabush had presented to the
Board. Mr. Roudabush said there is adjacent land also owned by the Faulconer Estate and the
proffer was written so that the buffer zone will be adjacent to any property not owned by the
Faulconer Estate or HEC, Inc. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there will eventually be a connector
road through this property to the other properties. Mr. Roudabush said the proffer indicates
that there will be no connection to the other properties. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much of
the property is in 25 percent slopes. Mr. Roudabush said about two acres.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at this time.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan relative to density are
consistent with what has been proposed. Mr. Donnelly said the Plan shows a range of
densities from one to four dwellings per acre for this area.
Mr. Fisher said one thing that concerns him with this petition is who will take care of
the dams for the lakes. If this request is approved, he thinks this should be a part of the
homeowners agreements. Mr. Roudabush said this project will probably be tied in with the
neighboring Hunters Village, and there will probably be some type of joint homeowners
agreement for the lake and other things.
Mr. Lindstrom said he noticed that of the buffers shown in the drawing, the only wooded
buffers are along Barracks Road. Mr. Roudabush said there was concern expressed that the
development should not be oriented toward Barracks Road, and that seemed to be the best way
to eliminate that. Green areas around the lake, and between the single-family units will be
incorporated into a plan when a plan has been defined. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at
11:24 p.m.)
/?
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
453
Mr. Lindstrtom said this property lies in his district, and the plan is within the
density range shown in the Comprehensive Plan. With the proffers offered, he thinks the
concerns of the existing neighbors have been addressed. He does have some concerns about
quadraplexes in that area. He asked the net density of the development when the buffer areas
are deleted. Mr. Roudabush said he had not attempted to come up with any such figures.
There are 17.4 acres in the buffer area, and 41.9 acres ouside of the buffer. (Mr. St. John
returned at 11:26 p.m.) Mr. Lindstrom said that puts 151 dwelling units in the remaining
area, and he has some reservations about that density in that spot. It works out to about
four or five dwellings an acre.
At this time, Mr. Henley offered motion to approve ZMA-84-19 as recommended by the
Planning Commission and with the eight proffers offered. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion, but
suggested that 96 be changed (so as to be consistent in style of writing) so this development
will be served with a single access. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant objected to this
suggestion. As written, ~6 says "We Dropose to serve this development with a single access
from Route 654", but that is not very binding. This would be changed to read: "This
development will be served with a single access from Route 654." Mr. Roudabush said the
applicants accept that change.
Mr. Lindstrom said while he appreciates the direction the application has taken, he
can't get over what appears to amount to five'dwelling units per acre in the middle of the
development, which is perplexing. He thinks this is pushing it a little. He is also
concerned about how this pond is going to work.
Mrs. Cooke said her only question was about the pond. If the dam should break, what
kind of mechanism is there to assure that the dam would be put back into use.
Mr. Roudabush said the problems referred to are examples of dams created before the
advent of homeowners associations and binding maintenance agreements. One reason the lake is
shown on this plan is that it was shown on the Hunters Village plan which has already been
approved. It is binding on the adjacent property to build the lake, and that has been
carried over to this property. He does not see any real problem with the lake. The county
is requiring more and more detention basins, and although this won't be a detention basin, it
will function as one. It will be an aesthetic feature as well. There can be a binding
agreement on the owners to maintain the lake and dam, and although the plan shown tonight is
not a site plan, when one is presented the documentation and homeowners agreements can be
drawn and approved by the County at that time.
At this time, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: Amend the project areas map of the Albemarle County
Service Authority to include lots 2, 3 and 4 in Terrell Subdivision located off of Georgetown
Road in the Service Authority sewer utility system. (Advertised in the Daily Progess on
September 18 and September 25, 1984.)
Mr. Donnelly noted that the staff report on this request was given at the July day
meeting.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Bob Brugh was present in support of the request. He
said he had nothing to add other than they had just hit rock in the building of their
dwelling. With no one else present to speak for or against this request, the public hearing
was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr.Bowie, to approved an amendment to
the project areas map of the Albemarle County Service to include Lots 2, 3 and 4 in Terrell
Subdivision in the Service Authority sewer utility system; same located off of Georgetown
Road. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
(Mr. Henley left the meeting at 11:37 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-84-37. Warren E. Andrews. Request to construct, in conjunction
with development of a private golf course, a water pump house and footbridge in the
floodplain of Ivy Creek on property zoned RA, Rural Areas, and consisting of 200.645 acres.
Located on Routes 677 and 637, 0.5 mile southeast of Ivy. County Tax Map 58, Parcel 100.
Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 18 and September 25,
1984.)
Mr. Donnelly gave the staff's report as follows:
Staff Report:
SP-84-37 Warren E. Andrews, SLDC Architects
(Joseph E. Seagrams and Sons, Inc.)
Request:
Water pumping station and two bridges in floodplain
(30.3.5.2.1)
Acreage:
200.645 acres
Zoning: RA Rural Areas/FH Flood Hazard
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Location:
Property, described as Tax Map 48, parcel 100, is on Rts. 637
and 677 about 0.5 mile southeast of Ivy, and is known as
Ivy Creek Farm.
Applicant's
Proposal:
The applicant proposes to construct a nine-hole private
golf course on both sides of Ivy Creek. The two bridges are
proposed to provide convenient access. The water pumping
station would be employed to maintain the golf course and
vineyards. The initial grading plan submitted called for
removal of trees adjacent to the stream and in other locations
removal of a hedgerow, natural drainage swales to be
"graded smooth as determined by architect," and grading in
the floodplain for golf cart paths as well as tees and
greens.
Establishment of the golf course has been viewed as a use
by right, subordinate to private usage of the property.
Section 10.2.2.4 provides for "swim, golf, tennis and
similar recreational facilities" as uses by special use
permit. This provision has been interpreted as applicable
to commercial and club type activities as opposed to private
uses (i.e. - swimming pools and tennis courts have been
authorized as accessory to residential usage).
Staff
Comment:
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the location of
two bridges and a water pumping station in the floodplain
as opposed to a review of the golf course. However, the
bridges and water pumping station are proposed as a part of
and primarily to serve the golf course, therefore, staff
will take opportunity to express some concerns related to the
golf course:
1)
Once established, it may be difficult to disapprove
commercial/club usage of the golf course either by the
current or subsequent owner.
2)
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation has
stated that current accesses to the farm from both
Rts. 677 and 637 have inadequate sight distance for either
private or commercial entrance requirements. Whether for
private or public usage, staff would expect increased
traffic due to the golf course.
3)
This property is within the South Fork Rivanna River Res-
ervoir watershed. The Watershed Management Official has
stated that "details on the planned use of the pump house
and the ultimate water withdrawal rates projected would be
useful to a complete review of this project."
4)
The overall golf course plan calls for construction
measures which in staff opinion are contrary to the
Comprehensive Plan standards for water supply watersheds
and rivers and streams:
- removal of trees adjacent to Ivy Creek,
- regarding of natural drainage channels,
- grading in areas where slope approaches 20-25 percent,
- no apparent permanent measures to stabilize/control
stream bank erosion,
- no apparent measures to control fertilizer run-off
associated with golf course (i.e. the Comprehensive
Plan states that "as slope increases, the rate of
stormwater runoff increases. Applications of ferti-
lizers ... in areas of steep slope may be ineffective and
can increase probabilities of surface and groundwater
pollution.").
At this writing plans for the bridges and pump house have not been
submitted for review under the requirements of 30.3, Flood Hazard
Overlay District. Therefore, staff can make on comment as to the
appropriateness of the project to those regulations.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends deferral of this petition until the following issues
have been addressed:
1)
In the past staff has been conservative in review of projects
encroaching into the floodplain, particularly in reservoir
watersheds. In staff opinion, one clear-span bridge would provide
adequate access across Ivy Creek. Unless some public benefit can
be demonstrated for multiple stream crossings, staff will not
recommend favorably on such request.
2)
In developing plans for review under 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay
District, the applicant should be particularly mindful of the
County's water supply protection efforts. Such plans should reflect
Chapter 10 Comprehensive Plan Standards for Water Supply Watersheds
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
455
3)
and Rivers and Streams. Alternative proposals should be developed
and analyzed (i.e. - the dam of an in-stream impoundment could
serve as the stream crossing while the impoundment could aid in
pollutant reduction from the golf course).
Information should be supplied to the Watershed Management Official
in terms of water withdrawal rates.
4)
Since access is currently inadequate, Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation should be consulted regarding improving safety at
Rts. 677 and 637.
5)
Any proposed stream crossing should be designed to accommodate farm
and other large vehicles and not limited in design to golf carts.
Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this
request for a pump house and stream crossing and footbridge across
Ivy Creek, then staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
The six conditions outlined by William Norris, Watershed Official, in his
memo dated July 24, 1984, plus the following:
County Engineer approval of two permanent bridges, one of which can
accommodate farm equipment to alleviate the need to use the bridge on
Rt. 637. (In accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay
District of Zoning Ordinance).
County Engineer and Watershed Official approval of pumping system
including the specific location and size of pump in Ivy Creek, and
the use of a pond as an intermediate step in the pumping system.
9. Approval of appropriate local, state and federal agencies.
Mr. Donnelly noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting on July 24, 1984
recommended that SP-84-37 be approved with the following conditions:
1. Both temporary and permanent erosion control and runoff control measures
shall be in place prior to additional earth-disturbing activities in the
site;
2. Temporary erosion and runoff control measures shall be maintained until
it is determined by field inspection that the disturbed areas are stabilized
and the golf course is established;
3. Only a low volume pump be allowed for use in Ivy Creek to withdraw water
from the stream to the holding pond. The lines shall be properly placed and
screened to minimize disturbance to the stream and to aquatic life;
4. State Water Control Board Regulation Number 11 requiring the reporting
of water withdrawal rates shall be adhered to. (The accuracy of the meter-
ing system should be verified on a regular basis);
5. A report of monthly water withdrawals shall be supplied to the county
for computation and confirmation of accurate usage figures for this type of
use;
6. The present and future owners and/or operators of the site shall comply
with the Water Shortage Contingency Plan for the City of Charlottesville and
the County of Albemarle as indicated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority;
Under Plan A - Voluntary Conservation which goes into effect when the total
raw water storage figures drops to 70% of the maximum usable raw water
storage capacity that the present and future owners and/or operators of the
site would be requested to voluntarily minimize their water use from Ivy
Creek.
Under Plan B - Mandatory Conservation (raw water storage drops to 60%) the
present and future owners._and/or operators of the site would agree to stop
withdrawal of water from Ivy Creek.
(The one exception to this regulation could be that if the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir were still full and overflowing that restrictions under
Plan B would not apply). Normal water usage could resume upon the can-
cellation of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. (This would occur when
raw water storage levels returned to 80% of the maximum storage).
7. County Engineer approval of two permanent bridges, one of which can
accommodate farm equipment to alleviate the need to use the bridge on Route
637. (In accordance with Section 30.3, Flood Hazard Overlay District of
Zoning Ordinance).
8. County Engineer and Watershed Official approval of pumping system
including the specific location and size of pump in Ivy Creek, and the use
of a pond as an intermediate step in the pumping system.
9. Approval of appropriate local, state and federal agencies.
456
October 3, 1984 (Regular - Night Meeting)
10. No more than 10% of stream flow or 90,000 gallons, whichever is less,
to be pumped from the stream during any 24 hour period.
11. No tree removal along Ivy Creek.
12. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
entrance(s) to golf course.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that Conditions 911 and #12 were not shown in the paperwork he
received for this meeting. He asked if they were approved by the Planning Commission.
Donnelly said they were added later.
Mr.
Mr. Fisher said this matter was requested to be heard by the applicant's attorney
tonight, and so he had agreed. The Board had appealed the decision of the Board of Zoning
Appeals on this item, and he asked if that appeal is still alive, or had it been withdrawn.
Mr. Lindstrom asked for an executive session to discuss legal matters pertaining to the
recent appeal of the decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals. He offered such motion at
11:44 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
The Board reconvened into open session at 12:02 a.m.
Mr. Lindstrom immediately offered motion to drop the appeal of the Board of Zoning
Appeals decision regarding the interpretation of Mr. Tompkins concerning an accessory use.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to request the staff to consider an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance with respect to accessory use and special use permit provisions regarding
private golf courses. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to defer action on SP-84-37 for one week so it may be
considered under the terms of the existing ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Fisher said the Board intends to take up this petition on its own merits on October 10,
1984. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval-of Minutes: April 11 and May 9, 1984.
Mr. Way had read the minutes of May 9, and had found no errors.
Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of April 11 and found no errors.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the minutes of
April 11 and May 9, 1984. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
Mr. Fisher asked that Item No. 4.6 on the consent agenda "Scope of Study for City/County
Athletic Needs -- Memorandum dated September 14, 1984" be included on the October 10 agenda
for discussion.
Agenda Item No. 13.
At 12:06 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.