1980-09-03September 3, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on September 3, 1980, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy
Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Mr. James M. Bowling, IV, Deputy County Attorney.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher, who requested a moment of silence.
Agenda Item No. 2. An Ordinance Concerning Radioactive Materials.
Daily Progress on August 20 and August 27, 1980.)
(Advertised in the
Mr. Fisher briefed the board and public on what has transpired to date on this matter
and noted the emergency ordinance adopted on July 16, 1980. (See meeting of July 16, 1980
in Minute Book 19.) Mr. Fisher said a number of points have been raised on both sides of
this issue. One, being the question of whether an ordinance adopted by a governing body
affects what happens on state agency property. Mr. Fisher said Section 15.1-510 in the Code
of Virginia gives counties the responsibility to promote and protect the health, safety and
general welfare of the inhabitants of the County and Section 15.1-510.4 relates to the
regulation of emission of smoke and construction, etc. Mr. Fisher said other sections of
the State Code state that state agencies have their own powers which are not to be given to
the local government. Mr. Fisher said the second major issue is the past history of the use
of the property for the vivarium and for the inc~i~$~ As he understands, both operations
have grown to be a nuisance to the neighbors an~~ to the uncertainty of incinerating
radioactive materials to existing problems which are perceived by some to be injurious. Mr.
Fisher said his third concern was the policy change on the part of the Federal Government.
He thought the policy of the federal government for disposal of radioactive wastes was to
isolate the wastes from the environment and contain same. Now there seems to be at least
for the low level radioactive wastes, a sudden change off the policy of dilute and disperse.
The materials are diluted with other air and put into the environment where presumably they
do not collect. The fourth issue is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission permit amendment
procedure on which there was not any public notice or hearing. The County has been informed
that the present permit issued to the University will protect the public and that no materials
will be brought in from other areas of the state for incineration or storage that would
create a regional or statewide disposal site. Since the amendment procedure for a permit is
so simple and easy and without any public notice, Mr. Fisher was unsure if the public could
place much reliance on the issuance of such a permit particularly if such was broadened to
include other type of wastes or to increase the permitted level of radioactive materials.
The fifth major issue is the need for medical research and diagnosis. This has not been an
issue for most people and not an issue for the Board but the.disposal into the air is a
concern. The sixth~ssue is what methods will be used to detect accidents caused by carelessn
or neglect b~:s~ researchers,~what sort.of monitoring will be performed, what schedule
will be used, and what records will be kept and who will be able to see them. The seventh
issue is more personal that a question of whether he and Dr. Iachetta, as employees of the
University of Virginia, have a material conflict of interest which would prevent them from
acting in the public's behalf on this matter. Dr. Iachetta is a former member of the faculty
in the Department of Nuclear Engineering at the University. Mr. Fisher is presently employed
in a research program which is funded by the Department of Energy and he has nothing to do
with the materials being discussed. Mr. Fisher said he had considered disqualifying himself
but he feels it is his responsiblity to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the
citizens of the County. Therefore, he has and will remain in the discussion.
Dr. Iachetta said he has atso struggled with his possible conflict of interest in this
matter and would like to add to the comment of Mr. Fisher that it does not matter whether
the County passes this ordinance or not because if the University decides not to obey the
ordinance th~ they do not have to. The ordinance is not aimed at the University alone but
also ~~ ~e possibility of someone one day desiring a private enterprise doing the same
type of thing that the University is doing.
Mr. Fisher then recognized Dr. Avery Catlin, Executive Vice President of the University
of Virginia, to present the University's proposal. Dr. Cat!in noted his delight to be
present this evening and introduced Dr. Ralph Allen, Chairman of the Radiation Safety Committe~
Dr. Ralph Allen thanked the Board for an opportunity to explain the University's
proposal. This is part of a nationwide problem and not only does it involve radioactive
materials but all by-product waste materials having a potential of being hazardous. The
program at the University has grown over the years in an attempt to handle all of the waste
materials that are generated and that which is potentially hazardous in a manner that will
be safe and ensure the public's safety. This has been the goal of the University.. One of
the by-products in the Radiation Safety Committee are small quanitities of radioactive
tracers which contaminate a variety of different kinds of material. The reason these tracers
are used is because they can be detected in such extremely small levels. The materials were
collected in one place and packaged for burial isolation in the ground to make sure they
would not be dispersed or eliminated improperly by some researcher. The solution was fine
except for the fact that the public was disturbed about the misunderstanding of radioactive
wastes. Dr. Allen said those involved as generators of radioactive waste of low level
materials are now in a situation where sites used in the past for disposal have. been banned
or that much of the material that can be disposed of will be banned. Therefore, the Universi
is in a position of having to look at what can be done with the material in the near future
and also to examine the real hazard of the radioactive materials. Dr. Allen said when the
~ ~/ ~ ' ' e n
,~o~o~a:n~i~ cocktails, whmch hav a important part in the biomedical research program at
the University were examined, the University was forced to recognize that the real problem
with the material was not its radioactivity but the fact of transporting the material around.
This was found to be creating a much greater hazard, particularly with animal carcasses,
than the actual hazard of radioactivity.
234
September 3, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
Dr. Allen said this matter was discussed with federal and state agencies for~their
recommendation. The University was urged by representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissi¢
the federal government and the state government to try and solve this problem by treating
the material locally. Therefore, the possibility of using the incinerator at the vivarium
was examined. Dr. Allen said eventually there will be regulations requiring all university
or medical facilities to have this same type of incinerator and the purpose of such is to
destroy all material generated by the hospital and medical school. This will be done in
order that all material can be packaged and incinerated at high temperatures in order that
the only results will be carbon dioxide and water.
Dr. Allen said the University then approached the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under
which the University has a license to use radioactive material. The purpose of the University
in amending their license was to enable the University to incinerate some of the radioactiYe
wastes. At the present time, the incinerators can only handle pathological wastes amd
are not designed to handle liquid and the problem is that of animal carcasses. Once the
University received notification that this would be allowed under the new amendment, Dr.
Allen relayed this to the Radiation Safety Committee and asked them for their recommendation
on how to proceed with this type of incineration program. Notification to the public and
to the local governments was then discussed and Mr. Fisher was contacted in regard to this
matter. The incineration Dro~m was delayed while awaiting this opportunity. The University
~+-~e--~e~s-~-P~~-~~ines to insure that the radiation from this incineration
program would have levels at the ones proposed to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission in order
that the license would not be violated. The license amendment from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission is based on an attempt to set minimum levels. The levels are based on what
actually causes any kind of long term hazard from the exposure of radioactivity and such is
the basis for establishin~ the guide2~ines for those working with radioactivity The Commission
i ' ~' ~ -~- ~ ~ '
took the f gures whlch~a~e~%~ s~ for occupational exposure and reduced them by a factor
of ten and said that they did not want the public exposed to anything greater than this and
that was the basis for ~which the license amendment was received. The amount of exposure
allowed at the exit of the vivarium is based upon the license amendment and such has an
exposure of five hundred millirems per year from any of the isotopes that might be incinerated
Dr. Allen said millirems are quite confusing because they are an attempt to measure the
biological effect of radiation on a human being. The amount of exposure a human receives
per year is one hundred and forty millirems. This amount is compared to the five hundred
millirems a person would receive if they stood at the smokestack of the incinerator and
breathed in the radiation coming from same. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is pushing
the concept of insuring that any person exposed to the incinerator would be limited to one
tenth of what is permissible by law and the University has agreed to limit the amount to
under fifty millirems. The Environmental Protection Agency has stated that the way material
from a smokestack hits the ground under normal wind conditions would be about ten to twenty
times the height of the smokestack and this smokestack is about eleven feet above the ground.
Dr. Allen then presented some technical information on the comparison of millirems from
other radiation that will be emitted from this incinerator. He then noted that questions
have arisen on whether some material could be accidentally incinerated by an individual
doing something incorrect. Dr. Allen said the amount of radioactive material at the University
is small by most standards and the amount any one person has in his possession is very low.
Another question that has arisen is what kind of material does the University intend to
incinerate. The initial plan is to incinerate material that is contaminated with low half-
life radioactive materials, particularly animal carcasses. Dr. Allen said the total animal
waste sent out every year by the University is about sixteen percent of the material that
the University has to ship out and of that amount fifty-four percent is organic liquid. Dr.
Allen said there is no way to solve t~at problem and was uncertain what could be done about
such. Carbon 14 and tritium are very important in research efforts at the University and
this type of waste has very low radiation and a very small danger in terms of health effects.
He also ~o~d ~hat there has been some movement on the part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissi~
to ~¥~Y~els for tritium from those currently listed under the 10CFR20 because the
Commission feels it is more dangerous than people have felt in the past and perhaps has a
factor of four or even five more. Dr. Allen said the University is in the process of developin
protocols which would insure that material would be checked by physicists at the University
before it was ever incinerated. He also noted that it is important for the University to
keep records of radioactive materials because the license requires such. This would allow
the University to see what happens and who misuses the material and would also provide
safeguards to the public.
Mr. Fisher asked.how the perimeter of the property would be monitored and how would
anyone know if there had been any release of radiation. Dr. Allen said there will be quarterly
environmental monitoring which means records will have to be kept for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to show what the levels have been. This will be done by taking samples from the
environment, plant material, soil and air samples.
Dr. Allen noted that Carbon 14 and Tritium are anticipated to be the only ones incinerated
and if they come out of the incinerator they will be in the form of carbon dioxide and
water. He also noted that the University does not intend to incinerate any other long half-
life materials. Dr. A1Zen said the half-life for tritium, which is the isotope that has the
t~rga~o~onaantration, is over twelve years and carbon 14 has a half-life of over seven
hundred years.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked which state agencies were involved in the application for the
license. Dr. Allen said he consulted with Mr. William Gilley, Director of the Bureau of
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, in Richmond. The Bureau is involved in trying to
determine what state should have a local disposal facility and to determine where and what
type of facility it should be. Mr. Gilley urged the University to pursue a program such as
this proposal which would ease the burden which is being faced by the entire Commonwealth.
Dr. Allen noted that the Federal Government operates a program of controlled nuclear material~
not the state. Another state agency.contacted was the Bureau of Radiological Health from
which the University ~has a separate'license. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the University had any
plans now or in the future to handle material from other laboratories not affiliated with
the University. Dr. Allen said the permit does not allow the University to accept material
from any other place.
September 3~ 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher noted his concern was that the amendment procedure could be changed for the
license and no one in the community would know anything about it. Dr. Allen said the levels
in the 10CFR20 which is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations cannot be changed
without going through the federal requirements and the public would be notified of such.
Speaking next was Mayor Frank Buck for the City of Charlottesville. He said the City
agrees with the County's feelings that this matter has a potential impact on. the health and
safety of the residents and that it is necessary for local governments to review the matter.
City Council, at its last meeting, felt that neither the staff nor the Council was competent
enough to review the technical information that has been presented by the University.
Therefore~ City Council requested the staff to find a consultant that could advise the
Council on this matter. Mayor Buck said the staff has located such an individual and City
Council now asks that the Board in its deliberations tonight consider joining with the City
to retain this consultant and defer any final action on this matter until the consultant has
made a report.
Mr. Fisher noted that taking no action this ~e~Dg would mean that the emergency
ordin~¢eZ~would expire. Therefore, ~H-~~f--~i~ction taken months from now might be
considered legal because such was begun before a. new ordinance was enacted. Mayor Buck felt
the Board should extend the emergency ordinance with whatever modifications necessary until
the consultant can respond. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much time was involved for enough
information to be returned by the consultant. Mayor Buck was unsure, but felt the response
would be fairly soon.
Mr. Raymond Minx, Regional Director for the State Air Pollution Control Board in
Fredericksburg, spoke next. He noted that his invitation to the meeting this evening was
more as an individual involved with radiation than as the Director of the Air Pollution
Control Board. He then reviewed his past experience as a radiation biologist. Mr. Minx
said the Board has a lot of dilemmas in its decision tonight. One is whether the Board has
the constitutional right to adopt such an ordinance. The second is the enforcement of the
ordinance which would be a very costly investment. The third dilemma is proving there has
been a violation of the ordinance. He felt the levels to be used are so low that such would
.be hard to detect. Lastly, Mr. Minx felt the need for the ordinance was in question. Mr.
Minx said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the best investigators he has ever met and
felt the Board could rely on them to impose regulations. The amount of taxpayers money
involved in enforcing this ordinance would be a waste. Even if the risks were high and the
cost of reducing such risks were moderate, the matter pertains to medical research and it is
unknown how many lives will be saved with such research or how many will be killed by such
but he felt the exposure to any radiation is insignificant since large quanitities of material
having ~'.~Lf~Flives greater than twelve years are not involved.
Mr. Fisher said he had communicated with Dr. Williamson at the University who has
indicated that the Emergency Ordinance aimed at the incinerator problems has inadvertently
impacted his operation in the nuclear reactor and other research programs at the University.
Dr. Williamson was present and said he had communicated with the County Attorney on this
matter and noted his concerns about some of the wording in the ordinance, particularly the
word "storage" and how such would impact several facilities at the University. He was also
concerned about the wording in the ordinance which could mean banning the incineration of
bodies, etc., or anything which has certain amounts of radioactivity in it. In conclusion,
Dr. Williamson felt there should be some changes in the wording of the ordinance to clear
this concern. Mr. Fisher said as a follo~ to Dr. William'son's concerns, a second ordinance
has been prepared by the County Attorney and will be discussed later in the meeting.
Speaking next was Mr. Charles Beegle who noted petition of opposition on file in the
Clerk's Office. Mr. Beegle said his property is close to the vivarium and the ~ivarium is a
nuisance to the community. Mr. Beegle stated his desire that the ordinance be adopted. He
said Mr. Minx had mentioned'the thoroughness of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and .he
questioned that. One particular question is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not
require the University to fulfill a lot of the regulations which are established in 10CFR20
and a lot of the sections of the application did not have information available. He noted
attorneys in Washington, D.C. have gone through the files and a lot of t~e sections were
questionable on the thoroughness of the Commission. Mr. Beegle also noted many of the
residents in the area are concerned about the safety of the radiation exposure and also
about the accidents which might occur in the area. He then presented a number of photographs
taken from Avon Street looking down on the vivarium and noted the manner in which smoke
collects in the area. Mr. Beegle then read the following letter received from Dr. Rosalie
Bertell for the Ministry of Concern for Public Health:
"August 29, 1980
Charles W. Beegle
Brookhill
R.R. 6, Box 312
Charlottesville, Va.
22901
Dear Professor Beegle,
In my opinion, the incineration of radioactive material within close proximity of a
populated area is especially unwise and reckless at this time. Scientists are only
beginning to recognize and document the adverse health effects from this specific
practice and from radioactive air pollution in general.
I have a paper out now for review which documents the effect of airborne radionuclides
on the survival of immature infants, i.e., those with birthweight under 2500 grams.
About 100 excess infant deaths appear to be traceable to this cause in a seven-year
period in Wisconsin. Until the pathological studies confirming or explaining the
epidemiological finding are completed, it would be rash to proliferate sources of
further pollution.
235
September 3, 1980 (Regular Night MeetliHg)
On the economic side, the University of Virginia also risks a federal prohibition of
incineration after having constructed an expensive facility.
I would suggest that the University request testimony from:
Dr. Karl Z. Morgan
School of Nuclear Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332
(404) 894-3720
He has been advising the University of Georgia at Athens on the same issue."
Mr. Donal< Day, research associate and experimental nuclear physicist at the University,
spoke next. He felt the questions the Board should address this evening are complex ones.
The complexity arises from the compleX of natural and man-made radiation with biological
tissue and this product is generally known as beer. Mr. Day said the meaning of all this
complexity has only the background in place and the reason for the partial picture is
because data is slow in being accumulated. He noted that radiation effects are often delayed
for twenty years. Mr. Day then went into the historial trend of the matter. He felt it was
beyond the scope of the Board to draw conclusions about what is the safe and acceptable
level of radiation and he did not feel the University has made an attempt to do this. Mr.
Day felt there had been some confusion about the published levels of radiation generated by
the incinerator and he was able to reproduce some calculations once the assumption was
known. One assumption was that the incineration and release would take place over a ten-
hour period and he criticized that assumption. He did not feel that a dog or a rabbit being
ninety-five percent water would evaporate slowly over ten hours. The period of time would
be one hour or less at the temperatures generated by the incinerator which are in excess of
1600 degrees. He also felt that the radiation would be uniformly spread over the entire
body and not just in the lungs. In conclusion, Mr. Day felt the following questions should
be foremost in the minds of the Board this evening. One is the total amount of radioactive
materials that may be burned on the site. The second question is if the Board fails to
regulate in some way the storage and dispersal of radioactive material this could open the
area to a possible location for a state low level radioactive dump site. The third concern
is that the potential for accidents is unlimited. The fourth and final one is, why has the
University, while realizing that the problems are serious ones, chosen the less expensive
method of disposal.
Mr. Paul Radford, medical school student, spoke next. He felt that even though the
University is conscientious and will do all in its power to insure that no excess radioactivity
will be released into the environment, there are some other issues that must be considered.
First, in discussing the accumulation of radionuclides, Dr. Allen was correct in his statement
about carbon 14 not being one of the well known accumulators in biological tissue but the
question about the plant life in the food chain around the vivarium over a period of time
remains. This is something that would accumulate in the plants and there has been a study
done to demonstrate that there is a multiplier effect here. He then explained the process
of such. The second issue is keeping the amount of radiation emitted into the environment
as low as possible and he felt such is violated completely here. Mr. Radford did not see
any benefit ratio from this scientific research. This is redundant for the University to
take this on since the state has made its intent clear to establish a state low level radioacti
waste dump that would take care of all the materials that the University is producing as
part of its scientific research program. He noted that the intent of the General Assembly
was to find such a site and perhaps a site could be chosen by 1982. Therefore, Mr. Radford
did not see any reason for the vivarium to be used. He £elt these materials could be taken
care of by complete isolation and burial as is the intent of the low level waste dump currently
being studied by state agencies. Mr. Radford did not feel there was any Certainty about how
much radiation will be released, the effect on the citizens and how much radiation will
build over the period of half-lives of the isotopes. Mr. Radford felt keeping the isotopes
completely isolated was the best method and the low level dump would do this, but the incinerat
would do the opposite. In conclusion, Mr. Radford stated that he did not feel the University
needed to release the material since the effects of the isotopes are still uncertain and a
matter of debate and the precedent of allowing these isotopes to be released not only locally
but nationally, increases the burden on the environment. He then urged the Board to adopt
the ordinance to ban any long-life radioisotopes from emission into the environment because
he did not feel the University needed this and even though the University could save a few
thousand dollars every year such is not worth the price the public may have to pay in the
long run.
A gentleman owning property a'bout two hundred and fifty feet away from the incinerator
spoke next. He has a large herd of cattle which graze around the incinerator. He felt the
limits which have been set for the radioisotopes are too low. He then noted that cows which
are pregnant and grazing are eating the materials. This material does not bother the cows
but will bother the embryo. He expressed his desire that a solution for this problem could
be in another area than this one where population has shown anxiety over the situation. He
felt the University should examine the possiblity of burying the material some place.
Mr. James Ford, resident of Belmont, spoke next. He noted concerns over the effects of
radioactive wastes for the last few years and said he has read extensive reports on investigati
about radioactive effects. Mr. Ford noted that one health physicist beleves that the federal
government standards have seriously underrated the health hazard of tritium. The belief of
the physicist is that although there is reputation based on its low ionizing energy of its
radiation, there is still the possibility of being taken up by human organisms and during
the time that it is in the body giving a dose to the cells that could cause cancer years
from now. In conclusion, Mr. Ford felt the ordinance should be enacted and longer half
lives, especially tritium and carbon 14 which can be taken into living organisms and possibly
cause cancer, should be limited.
With no one else present to speak for or against the ordinance, the public hearing was
closed at 9:32 P.M.
The Board recessed at 9:33 P.M. and reconvened at 9:42 P.M.
'e
)r
September~ular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr James Bowling, IV, Deputy County Attorney, to present to the
Board and public the draft of the modified ordinance.
Mr. Bowling reviewed the ordinance and noted that the words "to be licensed by the
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission" is repeated throughout the ordinance in hopes
that the language will eliminate the ordinance covering some one burning wood or having in
his possession a digital watch or whatever. The ordinance is only designed to cover those
people who are required by the NRC to have a license to use, store or destroy radioactive
material. Mr. Fisher questioned the blank in Part A of Section 204 of the ordinance. Mr.
Bowling said the Board has a choice to either set some half-life limit or restrict what the
University proposes to burn. Mr. Lindstrom noted Section 20-4(b) pertaining to records
being forwarded monthly to the county fire official and asked if this was more stringent
than the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. Mr. Bowling said yes. Monitoring of
the ordinance is to be done monthly and the ~records would cover what is burned and the
amount of radioactive material in the item that was burned. Mr. Lindstrom said he was
concerned about the statement~of Dr. Allen earlier that the monitoring of the emission would
be quarterly and he did not feel that was frequent enough. Mr. Bowling said this particular
section is not a monitoring section but rather for recordkeeping. In other words, the Board
will see a monthly report on what has been incinerated and if the limit is established for
half-lives of twelve years and if such is exceeded or decreased then the University would be
in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Fisher asked if the intent of the ordinance is to
prohibit someone from operating a temporary or pe~rmanent storage of materials used somewhere
else. Mr. Bowling said yes. He said the University is responsible and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission enforces such by identifying each type of radioactive material which the University
incinerates and the strength of that material.
Mr. Fisher then asked how often the University has to report to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Dr. Allen said records have to be kept on everything; what is disposed of, the
time, and every time something is shipped out for burial or sent to the incinerator. There
is no established period for reporting to the Commission but the records have to be on hand
whenever the Commission comes to the University to check same.
Mr. Fisher's understanding was that the University does not intend to burn any materials
with half-lives greater than twelve years within the next few months. Dr. Allen said that
was correct. Mr. Fisher then noted the request from the City for a consultant to advise the
City and County on this matter. He welcomed the opportunity for such. Mr. Henley did not
support hiring a consultant because he felt it was ridiculous to hire a consultant to tell
the Board something, when the Board could go out and get anyone they wanted to tell them
what they want to hear. In conclusion, he felt a consultant would be a waste of money.
Dr. Iachetta said the question of Mr. Minx about Whether the County has the legal basis
for this ordinance concerned him before spending any money on this item. Mr. St. John said
as discussed, in the past, the County does not have the power to regulate the activit±es of
the University of Virginia. It is also very doubtful that the County has any power to enact
an effective ordinance on the subject even to govern private activities. However, there is
no case yet that states that the County does not have that power and he did not feel the
Board had anything to loose by enacting this ordinance. Mr. St. John questioned the wisdom
of spending a substantial amount of money to develop an ordinance upon the advice of a
consultant when the ordinance will only be advisory.
Mr. Henley supported most of the ordinance but felt someone should work with the Universi
on the hours in which the incinerator can be used and maybe have some conditi°hS imposed.
He also suggested changing the words "fire marshal" in Section 20-4(b) to "fire official'!
Miss Nash then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance without regard to the
request for a consultant with said ordinance to be temporary. Mr. Lindstrom said although
he was sympathetic to Mr. Henley's feelings about the consultant, he did not feel any of the
Board members had the expertise necessary to make a decision on this matter and was open to
hear from a consultant. He then seconded the motion with the ordinance to be effective for
five months. Mr. St. John said five months is not an emergency ordinance and noted that
sixty days is the deadline for an emergency ordinance. Miss Nash then suggested six months.
Dr. Iachetta asked the purpose of limiting the life of the ordinance. Miss Nash said if
the consultant is hired then it may be found that the ordinance is inadequate. Dr. Iachetta
felt setting-six months would mean nine to twelve months and said less time should be pursued
in order to resolve the questions involved. Therefore, he felt ninety days was sufficient
time. Dr. Iachetta was not convinced that spending more money was going to tell the Board
any more than it presently knows. He then elaborated on the photographs presented by Dr.
Beegle and noted that seeing smoke from something does not mean that it is dangerous. Mr.
Lindstrom said as long as there is a limited duration the time period could be taken out.
Mr. Henley felt using the incinerator during the~ day would be best. Miss Nash then amended
her motion to delete Section E~(b) and amend words in Section2~0~(c) frOm marshal to official
and to add Section 2~7that the ordinance shall continue in force for a period of six months
from the date of adoption. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Dr. Iachetta felt six months
was entirely too long. Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Dr. Iachetta.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, BY
ADDING A NEW CHAPTER CONCERNING THE
DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
that the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended by adding a
Chapter 20 concerning the disposal of radioactive material, as follows:
September 5, 1980 (Regular hLl~t Meetin~_~)
CHAPTER 20
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
Article 1. In General.
Section 20-1. Purpose of chapter.
The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health', safety and welfare of
the people of the County of Albemarle and to conserve the land, water, air and other natur
and historical resources of the County of Albemarle. This chapter is directed at the
disposal of radioactive materials and in particular the disposal of biologically-active
radioactive materials. It establishes certain standards for protection against radiation
hazards to ensure that every reasonable effort is made to maintain radiation exposures
and release of radioactive material into the environment as low as is reasonable achievab!
The term "as low as is reasonably achievable" means as low as is reasonably achievable
taking into account the state of technology and knowledge of the long-term effects of
radioactive substances, and the economics of improvements in relation to the benefits to
the public health, safety and welfare, the human error factor, and other societal and soci
economic considerations, and in relation to the utilization of ionizing radiation in the
public interest.
Section 20-2. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter:
20-2(1) "By-product material" means any radioactive material (except special
nuclear material) yielded in or made' radioactive by exposure to the radiation incident
to the process of producing or utilizing special nuclear material.
20-2(2) "Curie" means a unit of measurement of radioactivity. One Curie is the
quantity of radioactive material which decays such that 37 billion atoms disintegrate per
second.
20-2(3) "Radioactive material" means any material that emits ionizing radiation
spontaneously.
20-2(4) "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, or association,
or ~other legal entity, as well as an institution, agency, or political subdivision of this
Commonwealth or any other state, required to obtain a license from the United States Nucle.
Regulatory Commission to receive, possess, use, transfer, and dispose of radioactive
material. However, it does not include the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
or any successor thereto or any federal government agency licensed by the United States
Nuclear Regulatory Commission or any successor thereto.
20-2(5) "Special nuclear material" means (i) plutonium, uranium 233, uranium enriche
in the isotope 233 or in the isotope 235, and any other material which the United States
Nuclear RegulatorY Commission or any successor thereto has determined to be such but does
not include source material; or (ii) any material artificially enriched by any of the
foregoing but not including source material.
20-2(6) "Source material" means (i) uranium or thorium, or any combination thereof,
in any physical or chemical form, or (ii) ores which contain by weight one-twentieth of
one percent (0.05%) or more of (a) uranium, (b) thorium, or (c) any combination thereof.
Source material does not include special nuclear material.
Article 2. Disposal of Radioactive Material by Incineration.
Section 20-3. Disposal forbidden.
No person shall use any lot, parcel, or tract of land lying within the boundaries
of the County of Albemarle for the disposal by incineration of By-product material
required to be licensed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and having
a half life greater than 12.0 years with atomic numbers between 3 and 84, inclusive.
Such By-p~dU~t'~ma~&l~having a half life greater than 12.0 years with atomic numbers
between 3 and 84, inclusive, includes: Carbon-14, Cesium-135, Cesium-137, Chlorine-36,
Europium-!52, Holmium-166, Hydrogen-3, Iodine-129, Nickel-59, Nickel-63, Niobium-93m,
Platinum~193, Samarium-151, Strontium-90, Technetium-97, Technetium-99, and Zirconium-93,
as listed in Appendix C to 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 20.
Section 20-4. Disposal allowed, manner of disposal.
(a) No person shall use any lot, parcel, or tract of land lying within the boundarie
of the County of Albemarle for disposal by incineration of By-product material required to
be licensed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and having a half life less
than 12.0 years in such a manner that the gaseous effluent from incineration exceeds the
most restrictive value (soluble or insoluble) of the limits specified for air in Appendix
B, Table II, 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 20. Further, the maximum activity level
for the following single rad±onuclides to be burned per day shall not exceed:
Radionuclide
Maximum Activity to be Incinerated Per Day
(Microcuris)
Phosphorus-32
Sulfur-35
Calcium-45
Iodine-125
Iodine-131
Thallium-201
Any By-product Material listed
in 10 C.F.R. 20, Appendix B, having
a half-life less than 12.0 years
35
150
15
1
1
5OO
MPCa* X 1010ml
(Most restrictive of soluble or insoluble)*
September 3, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
If more than one radionuclide is in a single burn, the maximum activity of each
radionuclide to be burned shall be calculated by the "sum of the ratios" method described
in "Note to Appendix B" of 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 20.
(b) Any person authorized by this article to dispose of By-product material by
incineration shall keep a running record of all materials incinerated. The records will
include (a) radionuclide(s) present, (b) total activity of each radionuclide, (c) result
of use of "sum of ratio" method described in "Note to Appendix ~" of 10 Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 20. Such records shall be forwarded monthly to the Albemarle County
Fire Official.
(c) Any person authorized by this article to dispose of By-product material
by incineration shall treat the ash from the burn of one or more radionuclide as if it
contained all of the radioactive material initially present and shall dispose of such ash
outside the boundaries of the County of Albemarle.
Article 3. Radioactive Waste Disposal - Temporary or Permanent Storage.
Section 20-5. Storage forbidden.
No person shall use any lot, parcel, or tract of land'lying within the boundaries
of the County of Albemarle as a temporary or permanent disposal site for the storage,
by burial or otherwise,~of By-product material or special nuclear material required to
be licensed bY the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Provided, however, that
any person having used such radioactive material within the boundaries of the County of
Albemarle or the City of Charlottesville for medical, educational, or research purposes
and having a license from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission to receive,
possess, use, or transfer such materials temporarily may store such radioactive material~
within the boundaries of the County of Albemarle.
Section 20-6. Medical diagnosis and therapy.
Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted as limiting the intentional exposure
of patients to radioactive material for the purpose of medical diagnosis or medical thera~
Section 20-7. This ordinance shall continue in force for a period of six months from date
of adoption.
Mr. Fisher then asked the status of the emergency ordinance. Mr. St. John said the
intent of this ordinance tonight is to repeal the emergency ordinance. Mr. Fisher then
placed into the record the pictures and petitions and asked that the University cooperate
with the County in providing information on the burning procedures, materials that are
permitted to be burned and to cooperate with the consultant if such is sought;
Mr. St. John then reviewed the reason this ordinance was originally prepared. He
concluded by stating that regardless of whether this ordinance can be enforced against the
University or not, the Coun~!~-~equest to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was returned
stating that they would not open the public hearing process on the license since the County
did not have any type of ordinance on the matter.
At 10:20 P.M~ the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:24 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 3.
11, 1980)
Appeal:
Monticello Wesleyan Church Site Plan.
(Deferred from~June
The Board at its meeting on June 11, 1980 discussed the Monticello Wesleyan Church Site
Plan Appeal and requested deferral in order that certain information could be submitted.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, then reviewed the following information
that was requested and the resolution of such: 1) The Highway Department to submit i
information on alternatives to the entrance which will minimize damage to the existing
vegetation. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, is present and will
make that report. 2) The Health Department to submit a more detailed analysis~or some
analysis of the soils, slopes and storm implications from locating the drainfield at the
site proposed. Mr. Tucker said no further information has been received but the Department
indicated previously that the-area for the drainfield was adequate and that was all that was
necessary until a septic permit was issued. 3) The applicant was to proceed with a design
plan under the Runoff Control Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said such is complete and Mr. J. Harvey
Bailey, County Engineer, will report on that.
Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt was present and stated that after June 11, this property was
examined for the possible entrance locations along the front of the property. A number of
locations were examined and some require considerable fill~on the ~property and would not be
feasible as far as construction costs are concerned. The entrance at the existing and
proposed locations require cutting of the trees to the northwest in order to get adequate
sight distance, which is 550 feet. The sight distance back to the reservoir is adequate and
h did not feel the entrance should be any closer to the reservoir than it is now because it
would make the right turn lane too short for adequate right turns. In examining the second
location which is close to the property line, -sight distance could be obtained to the
northwest by trimming some branches off the trees and there would be a sight distance of 500
feet. However, coming back toward the reservoir, only four hundred feet could be obtained
by trimming. In order to obtain the 550 feet of sight distance, grading back into the bank
would be required, and some of the grading would be on property not owned by the church. At
a third location, which is approximately half way between the above two, trimming would be
required to obtain the 450 feet but in order to obtain 550 feet of sight distance cutting
would be required and from that location looking toward the reservoir, sight distance is a
problem without some grading. In conclusion, Mr. Roosevelt said any entrance for this site
would require some grading or cutting or both.
September ~ lg80 (Regular Night Meeting)
Dr. Iachetta said he met with Mr. Roosevelt on the site about the sight distance problem
and any of the entrances would require substantial cutting of trees or grading the bank down
at the reservoir severely which would encroach on the bank behind the right-of-way which the
State owns.
Speaking next was Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, who presented the following
memo in response to the third item of deferral which pertained to the Runoff Control Ordinance
"~applic~ation for a runoff control permit for the Monticello Wesleyan G~r~ property
w~s submitted to the Runoff Control Official by Gloeckner & Lincoln, Inc., on August 27,
1980. The application has been reviewed by this office and is ready for submission to th(
Runoff Control Review Board prior to setting a bond for the work and the issuing of a
permit.
The analysis by Gloeckner & Lincoln compares reasonably well with the overall preliminary
analysis done by this office in June, 1980. Their conclusion is that the reduction
of the calculated phosphorus loading which is required after development can be
accomplished by a 23% reduction of the settleable solids loading. This will be done thro~
improving the cover of a portion of the land by forestation and by use of a grass swale."
Mr. Fisher asked where the swale is on the site plan. Mr. Bailey said the swale is one
hundred feet in length and at the bottom of the parking area immediately adjacent to a
roadway.
Mr. Morris Foster, land surveyor and planner for the Monticello Wesleyan Church, was
present. He said the trimming and grading was know about beforehand because the existing
entrance is a problem. H~.also noted that everything possible has been done to minimize the
grading on the site and noted that the building will be on the grade and there will be some
excavation needed.
Mrs. Virginia Hansen, representing Mr. and Mrs. Burton Armstrong, adjacent property
owners, spoke next. She noted that the Armstrong's do not object to the church as neighbors
but rather that this property is not suitable for a church and will disturb the enjoyment of
their property due to the to the cutting of trees and will be a threat to the reservoir.
Ms. Elly Bishop, adjacent property owner, spoke next and restated her objections as
presented at the June 11, 1980 meeting.~ She asked how the Board can consider ~lienating the
neighbors for a church which will affect the environment of the adjacent properties and felt
that for the price of three acres at the reservoir, the church could be located else where
on six acres.
Mrs. Babs Huckle, Vice-President of the League of Women Voters, then presented the
following memorandum:
"As stated when the Monticello Wesleyan Church's proposal was considered last June,
the League of Women Voters is concerned that intensive development near the
reservoir endangers our water supply. The proposed development is on the main
body of the Rivanna Reservoir, not very far from the intake, so that any pollutants
entering the water would have little time to filter out naturally. In this regard
our concern is three-fold:
(1) Development increases both stormwater velocity and siltation. A new island
has already been created in the middle of the lake opposite this site by an
accumulation of sediment produced by previous development in the area. Last
summer this island was not visible, but now it has grass growing on it. Creation
of such an island makes obvious how much reservoir capacity is lost as a result
of siltation. The proposed development is likely to contribute to this problem.
(2) Runoff into the reservoir from the parking lot can contribute chemical
pollutants, such as lead, mercury, and asbestos, from parishioners' cars.
(3) Since the septic drainfield proposed for the church appears to be only
about 20 feet from the flood plain, and since coliform organisms have been shown
to move 164 feet through soil in only 37 days, pathogenic organisms could enter
the reservoir.
The League also has several questions related to the proposed development:
The report by the engineer/surveyor submitted with the application for a
runoff control permit is based on a church building of 5700 sq. ft., but there
appears to be a variation from one plan or report to another in the number of
square feet cited. Is development to take place in two phases? If so, does the
5700 sq. ft. represent construction in both phases?
The size of the septic drainfield appears to be about 4,000 sq. ft., approximately
what is required for a drainfield and alternate for a 3-bedroom house. Is this
adequate for a facility designed to be used by 300 people, a facility where meals
will probably be cooked and served and dishes washed? Although the church is
apparently only to be used on certain days, its usage on those days is intended to
be heavy. Locating a septic drainfield at a distance of what appears to be
only 20 feet from the 10-year floodline would in itself seem to be undesirable,
but siting a small drainfield for a facility serving a large number of people so
close to the flood plain would seem to be partiaularly shortsighted.
The engineer's calculations for lowering the amount of runoff cite coverage of
the total acreage of the site by the church build±rig (1.3 acres), the parking
lot (.7 acre), trees (old, 1.64 acres; new, .52 acre), and brush (2.9 acres).
Under which of these categories does the location of the septic drainfield fall?
Roots from heavy vegetative cover, even from brush, can interfere with proper
functioning of the drainfield, thus endangering its adequacy and, eventually,
contributing to pollution of the reservoir. Further, is the land to be used for
the driveway included in the allocation to the parking lot?
h
September 3, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
The League's basic concern about this project remains the protection of the drinking
water supply for a large number of County residents, ~usinesses, and industries
and for every person resident or working in the City of Charlottesville. It is
our understanding, and, we think, that of the general public, that you, as members
of the Board of Supervisors, are responsible for protecting our drinking water
sUHp!y. As we understand it, only local governments have this responsibility.
As long as you have a legitimate public purpose, we believe it is proper for
you to deny an application, even if it satisfies criteria specified in an ordinance.
Protection of our health and safety is a primary instance of a legitimate public
purpose. Protection of our health and safety requires protection of our
drinking water supply.
We therefore ask that you deny this application."
Speaking next was Mrs. Virginia Tegtmeyer, property owner across the road from the
proposed site. She reiterated her concerns expressed at the June 11, 1980 meeting and
questioned the runoff control report particularly where the septic drainfield would be
located. She felt that the Virginia State Health Department has indicated that parking and
paving are not to be located over a septic system and trees and shrubs are not to be located
near the drainfietds. She felt that the Health Department standards are either being compromis
or the runoff standards are invalid. Mrs. Tegtmeyer also noted that nothing has been shown
to satisfy compliance with the soil erosion ordinance. In conclusion, Mrs. Tegtmeyer felt
the structure and disturbance to this area was a disregard to both man and nature. Although
she was sensitive to the Reverend and his needs, she felt there was a purpose in denying the
site plan.
Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle, spoke next and repeated his
statements from the June llth meeting which basically was to deny the site plan since it
would be damaging to the reservoir.
Mr. Ron Higgins, employee of the City Planning Department said he had been requested by
Mayor Buck to represent the City and encourage the Board in its efforts to protect the
area's largest water supply. The City also feels that it is important to discourage and
hopefully deny such uses that are more intense than the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning
allow around the watershed.
Mr. Ed Bain, representing Mrs. Tegtmeyer, spoke next. He felt speakers tonight have
clearly given a basis for denial of this site plan as it relates to public health, safety
and welfare. He then noted Sec~on 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia which states that the
Planning Commission shall consider any public area or public building whether privately or
publicly owned in making a determination once the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted. He
did not feel the Planning Commission had done such in this particular instance. Mr. Bain
then referred to Sections 15.1-456(a), 15.1-456(d) and 15.1-456(h) of the State Code which
relate to site plan development and which he did not feel the Planning Commission had complied
with. Mr. Bain then discussed the road problems in the area and the necessary cutting of
trees for the proper sight distance. He felt the speed limit could be reduced from 55 miles
per hour'to 40 miles per hour which would reduce the sight distance required from 550 feet
to 400 feet and there would not be any need then for the trees to be cut. Although, he
understood that the Board could not demand that t~e Highway D.epartment reduce the speed
limit, such should be explored.
Reverend Charles S. King spoke next. He noted understanding of the objectives being
expressed. However, the congregation is small and has searched for a place to build a
church. Reverend King said if this site pla~_ is denied, he did not know where the congregatio~
could go nor what he could tell his people '~=~?~o~ to get their investment back. He then
requested favorable consideration by the Board and to remember that the Church is going to
the subject property not to be a liability to the community but rather as an asset to the
community in serving God.
Mr. David Sauceman, Wesleyan Youth President, spoke next and expressed his concern that
the present church is small and does not have ample room for youth groups and other church
gatherings.
With no one else present to speak for or against the site plan, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Fisher expressed his concern about what appears to be an overuse of this small
parcel of land which is in the flood plain and the entrance is marginal. He then asked the
size of the proposed building. Mr. Foster said it will be a one story building with a
basement. The proposal is to build the basement area first with a temporary roof and then
later a main sanctuary on the second floor.
Mr. Fisher asked if the thirty-five parking spaces met the requirements of the ordinance.
Mr. Tucker said yes and the parking regulations are based on square footage and the seating
capacity of the church for the first phase which is one space for each four fixed seats.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked if construction of the facility within the flood plain was
permissible in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said the flood plain ordinance has one
provision which is broad and such deals with navigational and drainage aids that are permitted
within the flood plain. However, the zoning administrator has the final determination on
such constr~ction.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County Engineer recalled having ever approved any similar
devices within the flood plain. Mr. Bailey said the Runoff Control Ordinance allows for
construction for whatever is necessary and the nature of the flooding for the area. He felt
flooding in this area would require a storm of a magnitude way beyond what it is designed
for. The calculations are based on a ten year flood. However, Mr. Bailey did not recall
having ever approved any devices in the flood plain.
· I@og~d Suso~p~ @q~ uo psaanooo ~u@mdoIsAsp j$ psAogdmy
sq o$ sA~q plnoa p~oH uopuo~ pu~-$usmssg~ sou~u@%u!~m I~!~Iu! sq$ u! pspnlouI
sq PInOqs ISog~d s!q~ Cp@gynb@g s! ss@oo~ sq~ JI '~uo!~g@pssuoo aoj
s~uoyssymmoo sq$ o$ siMS s~uygq JJW~S '~s~d @q% u! KoyIOd s~uosssYmmo0 @MS o$ @np
I~AOgdd~ jo uoI~Ipuoo ~ s~ sIq~ pusum~oosg ~ou PIP jj~s ~ssy~g@dogd ~uso~p~ osuI
ss@oo~ ~uypyAogd go$ $~olI~ sou~uyPg0 uoys!AIpqns sq~ q~noq~IV -~sdogd
o~ uoysyAypqns pssodogd sq~ jo ZE ~oq q~no~q% pspyAogd sq sssoo~
uoysyAypqn~ posodogd sq~ o~ uoy~y~oddo jo sg@%~@I o~ psAyoo@g s~q
Za~u~m~I~ ~q~ ~ psaInb~a ~q Z~m sa~qo~ I~UOI~!PPV 'I@A@I Za~puoo@s pu~ @IPPIm
@q$ ~ ~o~dmy ~q~YIS ~ q~y~ s~uepn~s 6E jo ~UamTIOgUS pa~oa?o~d I~O~ :$o~dmI TOOqOS
· ssgo~ 8AIj gsd %Iun @no jo
XSysuep pepue~ooeg ~ qSy~ uo!~Ag@suo0/I~gn$Inoy~V :uoy~puemmooeH u~I~
~uu~AyH ~gog M~now :%uempunodmi
· (%uyod ~gq aq~
000~) ~sIq~asIO~UOU @moosq o$ uoI$oss siMS ssn~o ~ou PlnO~ qosq~ sd!as
T~UOT%TPP~ eq~ 'elq~eIO% s~ ps%sit KT%Ueggno sT pu~ K~p ged
ssIgg~o (P~OE M%g~D) I09 s%noH jo uoI~oss sIqL :I~sodoa~ ~uymgsS sp~oH jo uo!$Ipuoo
· @npyseg sego~ 9g'IEE ~uyA~@I
I-V :~uyuoz
sq~ uo p@~ooI ~oyg$syG g@IIYN I~nu~es ¢09 d~N x~ uo I ISOg~g jo Sg~ :uoy~ooq.
:$godag jj~s ~uy~oITOJ aM% pssuassgd ueq~ ga~onz
'P~oIPU~I sim sy 'u~Id e~!s s!q~ uy p@ATOAUy
('096I ¢OU ~ P@$~G 'uo2~uymg~ o$ Sueo~¢p~ ps$~ooq
¢09 d~N x~ cT ISOg~ Jo uoI$god ~ jo uoI~IA!p ~ ¢0~ q~nogq$ I s%o% ~uImoMs ¢'ouI 'qsnq~pnoH
· W 'M Xq p~g~dsgd $~Ig uoysIAypqns) 'I~sddv $~Ig I~uy~ ssuof ~$g~ '~ 'oN ms~I ~pus~v
· saeu~o X~asdoad guso~¢p~
o~ gI~J XlUO s~ qons %TSJ sM ~nq msTqogd ~ sq PInO~ syq% @~eM~ seo~yd jo ~OT ~ s~e~ s~sq~
~uIq~ ~ou PIP SH '~$mgsd @sn I~!o@ds Xq ~Iuo ps%%Im~sd sq PInOMs ssMo~nMo ~qg slssJ sM
s~u~qo o~ ~us~u! jo uoy~nIossg ~ %$mqns o~ su~Id eq ~u!~eem pg~o~ %x@m s~$ %~ pyas mo~spu!q
eM esn~oeq ~Xu~ u~Id e~ts syq~ jo I~!uep %goddns o~ ~uyo2 ~ou s~ eM pyas ~@IUeH '~M
· I~Aogddw uy~2qo o2 suop sq u~o ~q~ ~u!~!a~ u! Ega~o ~snm I~yusp 'epoo s%~%W eM% ~spun
g~q~smeg ~sn~ pg~o~ eq~ ~nq I~!uep goj spunog~ @q PlnO~ ~q~ Cp@~ooI eq ~ou u~o
~A~q pTno~ XeM~ pajysy~s aq pInoo @ou~uyp~0 IOg~UO0 jjounH eq~ jy ~q~ ~uYIaaJ ~uy~@em
0~2 ~JeI ~u~oYIdd~ @q~ ~uI~e@~ @unf e~ ~ pyas u~ofl '~S 'gN 'puoo@s syq ~p~$y~ pu~
X@ugo~$v ~unoo eMS jo soyAp~ @MS ~OlIOJ plno~ sM CpsAo~dd~ sq plnoMs qognqo sq$ IS@J ~ou pyp
@q q~noq~ U~AS pyas ~og~spuyq 'g~ 'uo$~n~ys s!q~ ny @ng~ s~ qons T@@J ~ou PTP eH "eJYl
0% gs~u~p e~ypemmI eq o~ e~eq~ ~oj @q pIno~ uoy~oes ~q~ jo ~uyu~em eq~ 'eqou~Iq
~ s~ qons esn plnoo pg~o~ 8M$ Ieej ~ou pyp uqof '$W 'gM '8g~glS~ go ~ej~s cq$I~eq oyIqnd
uem@gynbeg l~OyUqoe% IT~ qoyq~ ny oou~uyPg0 uoIsyAypqns eq~ ny snoysyAo~d @q% %noq~ pe~s~ ueq%
mog~spuyq 'g~ '~I sM~ M~y~ ssYIdmoo u~Id s~ys sq~ psis uqof '~W '~ CuossnIouoo uI
~ @g~ seqo~nMo cqognMo ~ ~oj @o~Id eq~ eq ~ou X~m syM~ q~noq~I~ pI~s uqof '~S '~M 'u~I~
@AI~Usqogdmoo sq% u! X~unoo eq~ uI pe%uIoduyd ~ou eg~ s@qognqo ~q~ p@~ou OST~ eH '~yIyO~j
oIIqnd ~ s~ qo~nqo @q~ ~uIq2 $ou pyp sM ssn~o~q 9~-I'~I uoy~o~S jo uoI2~$sada@$uy
uo uy~ 'g~ q~I~ ps@g~syp osI~ @H '2o~ y~ygs~syuymp~ u~ sy pu~ Kao$~pu~m s! u~Id s~!s ~ jo
I~Aogdd~ eq$ ~sIxs s~o~j p@~s u~q~ $~q~ suoys~ooo o~ uo per. Ss s~q ~gnoo @megdns @q~
po~ou u@M$ eH 'uy~ '~N jo s~ueme~s eq~ q~y~ oeg~ ~ou PIP sM pu~ seou~uyp~o s:X~unoO
@q~ jo s~u@~egynb@g ~q$ jo II~ q~!~ smgosuoo u~Td e~ys @q~ XTI~I pyas uqof 'SE
pe~s~ pu~ uo!~om @q~ pepuooes mog~spuyq 'a~ 'gyOAgeSeg eq~ uo ~oTeq s~eg~ ge$~a eq~ sosn
X$ysuep ~oI u! °Ages~ad o$ s$gojj@ 8q9 pu~ ~K~j~s oyjj~ jo spunog~ 8q$ uo u~Id e$ts eq$
Xusp og uoy~om psgsjjo u@q$ @H '@a@q$ ~Iynq eq o~ qognqo sq~ aoj sm@Iqogd Xu~m oo$ p~q pu~
· uy~Id pooIJ eq% uy %nd eq o% s~q @OyAep ~ s%uomogsnbeg eq$ eAOyqO~ o% aepao u!
%~q% s~a mIq psqgn%sIp qoIq~ me%I suo eM% ¢%em sq u~o sou~uypao IOg%Uoo jjouna eq% q~noq%IV
· u~Id s%ys aq% %goddns o% p~uIIouI %ou s~ @q pu~ %som @q% ~ 2! uo ssnoq ~ ~A~q plnoqs
s%ys sIq~ %ICJ mog%spu77 'gM Cuoi%~gepIsuoo jo %osds~ XgSAS mOgg 'uy~Id poolJ ~
~%IIIO~J JO puI~ s$q% Joj %usp@osgd ~ UsIIq~%se pInoqs ~%uno0 sq% Ie@J %ou PIP pu~ usss aSA@
s~q oq u~ld e%ys ~ uo uoy%sonb pesolo I~OIUqO@% ~som oq% s~ s!q% %I@J ~og$spuI% '~
· X~gsdogd oq% o%uI ~uyugn~ ssoqg goj pu~ IIYq sq$ u~op ~uymoo goj ~g~sssosu s! sou~syp
%ooj 0~ sq~ ~tsJ sq pu~ @ou~$syp ~q~ys psa!nbsg jo ~unom~ @q$ @onpsa pIno~ %!mit pssds
@q~ ~uIonpsg py~s ~ieAeSOO~ 'g~ '~@d~ pu~ eU~T uoy~goIooop Ceou~syp ~q~Is eq~ ~noq~
ps~olIOJ usq$ uoyssnosIp jsIgq V 'gnoq gsd s~IIm g§ ~ ~u!Aom oIJJ~g$ sq~ jo %~8
qons pu~ Xpnqs ~ uo p@s~q sy qY~YI peeds oqq pyas %I@ASSOO~ 'g~ 'uy~ 'gM gq pe~se~ns
s~ peods eq~ ~uyonpsg jo X%yIIqtssod eq% ~noq~ ~I@AeSOOH 'gM pe~s~ ueq% mo~spuI~
(~u!$eeX %q~YN a~In~eE) 096I '~ geq~esdes
September 3, 1980 (Regular N~ht Meeting)
The plat will meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and staff recommends
approval with the following conditions and required waiver:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrance,
including left turn lane for the commercial entrance;
Note: 'No buildings to be located on slopes greater than 25%, subject
to County Engineer review of building sites prior to the issuance of a
building permit;'
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans;
Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
Written Health Department approval;
Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1. County Engineer approval of the road plans (approval shall include
the provision of street signs);
2. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreements;
Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow of 750 gpm;
Note dedication for a 50 foot right of way along the residue;
Note total acreage.
Waiver of double frontage required for Lots 2 and 39 through 42."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission deferred action on this plat from June 17, 1980
to July 22, 1980, for the following reasons:
1) Health Depa~m~ approval of the soil scientist's report. Mr. Tucker said the
initial submittal of the plat had 50 lots and the soil scientist report indicated that
several of the lots were not feasible for adequate drainfields and therefore seven
lots were lost and now the plan is for 43.
2) That the applicant consider serving all lots on interior roads with a maximum
of two entrances. This item has been accomplished because basically lot 1 will have
a private entrance and the others will be on interior streets. He noted that Mr.
Roosevelt will elaborate on this later.
3) Information be provided from the Highway Department on what improvements will
be required for the approval of the entrances. Mr. Tucker said turn lanes were recommende
by the Highway Department and Mr. Roosevelt will speak on this later.
4) That the County Engineer determine the technical feasibility of the interior roads
given the lot layout and the topography. Mr. Tucker said Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County
Engineer has reviewed the site and basically felt that the profiles of these streets are
within the Geometric Design Guide Criteria and are practical to build and would not
present any unusual problems.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on July 22, 1980 gave conditional approval to
the final plat with the following conditions:
The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrances,
including left turn lane for the commercial entrance;
b. Note: 'No buildings to be located on slopes greater than 25%, subject
to County Engineer review of bu~ding sites prior to the issuance of a building
permit.'
c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
e. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1. County Engineer approval of the road plans (approval shall include the
provision of street signs);
2. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreements;
f. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
g. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow of 750 gpm;
2. Waiver of double frontage granted for Lots 2, 36 and 39 through 42."
Mr. Tucker noted that public water is required on the site and this property is outside
of the jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Mr. Fisher said some of the correspondence he has received has noted that some of the
adjacent properties are presently under some form of approval from the County for development.
Mr. Tucker said between this property and Farmington is a request for a rezoning to RPN with
a gross density of five or six acres and the concern noted in the letters is about a road
through Farmington West called London Road which could be extended through the two properties.
Mr. Watterson, an adjacent property owner, has requested a connection be made from London
Road to this property. However, the Planning Comission did not approve that connection and
at the present time there is no connection from the property to any of the other properties.
Mr. Fisher then noted letter of appeal dated July 28, 1980 from Mr. Franklin W. Peters,
Attorney for Mrs. R. Warner Wood and Admiral Wi~iam C. Mott, adjoining property owners,
which stated the following concerns:
1)
Exception is taken to the Commission's approval of increased highway traffic as
being within "tolerable levels" and approval was on the basis of the ¥irginia De~
of Highways ruling as to entrances and estimates of increased traffic but no
evaluation was made of the following:
safety
impact of the Farmington - Flordon traffic
consistency with a Northwest Greenbelt Sanctuary of the Comprehensive Plan;
effect on farming and contiguous agricultural enterprises;
and the significant "piece-mealing" of the decision in which the Virginia
Department of Highways is dependent on local authority to prevent an unplanned
road demand.
Exception is taken to the refusal to insist on a complete investigation of the
TOTAL impact on the Rivanna Reservoir.
3)
Sewage seepage has not been adequately evaluated.
The Comprehensive Plan was not made a part of the decision-making process.
Mr. Franklin W. Peters was present and noted the submission of a brief in conjunction
with his appeal of this matter which basically contained the procedural and certain substantive
issues of this request. (Copy of this brief is on file in the Clerk's Office.) He felt the
Board has powers over and beyond what has been said previously tonight. Mr. Peters said the
United States Constitution, Code of Virginia Supplement and the Comprehensive Plan all have
something in common in which they are supreme for the ruling of the land. He then reviewed
certain parts of each of the above three. Mr. Peters felt the Comprehensive Plan is the
isue tonight and in order to implement the plan there are four things to abide by: 1) Official
map; 2) Capital Improvements Program; 3) Subdivision Ordinance; and 4) Zoning Ordinance
and Zoning Map. Mr. Peters felt the site plan violates certain items in the Comprehensive
Plan and also that the Planning Commission in its deliberations had ignored the Plan, particuls
the section on conservation as spelled out in the Comprehensive Plan. He noted again that
the Comprehensive Plan is supposed to control development of property. He also noted exceptio~
to the statement of Mr. St. John that if all ordinances have been met on a site plan, then
the plan must be approved. He felt that zoning controls the developer but not the Board.
Mr. Peters said the Comprehensive Plan states that it is vital to preserve agricultural
lands and this area is certainly good agricultural land. He also felt this proposed deveIopme~
threatens the Rivanna Reservoir and the County has spent a great deal of money studying the-
eutrophication of the reservoir and the effect of sedimentation on. same. Mr. Peters felt
the venture being proposed is a capital investment and the Board should look closely at the
Comprehensive Plan regarding this item. Mr. Peters then discussed the possible developments
in the surrounding area and felt it was false for the Board to ignore what is going to
happen. He was very disturbed about the reports from the Health Department and Highway
Department regarding this matter. Mr. Peters noted conversations with State Highway Department
officials in Richmond and being informed that they have no right to tell the Board what to
do and that disturbed him. In conclusion, Mr. Peters felt it was very important that the
Board give careful consideration to the ordinances of the County and the Comprehensive Plan.
He was very upset to see destruction of something called for in the Comprehensive Plan on
the basis that the Board is bound by the Zoning Ordinance because he did not feel that was a
fact nor a right.
Speaking next was Admiral William C. Mott, adjoining property owner. He reviewed some
Supreme Court cases concerning development of land and noted that the Supreme Court states
that the ordinance substantially advances the legitimate governmental goal of discouraging
premature and unnecessary conversion of open space land to urban uses, etc. He felt it was
in the public's interest to protect their water supply. Admiral Mott did not feel this
property could be considered in isolation when other properties are in the process of being
developed. He noted a letter from John S. Watterson, III, dated June 6, 1980 regarding this
site plan. (Copy on file in the Clerk's Office.) The request in the letter is for access
to be provided through Lot 27 of the Berta Jones property to the Watterson property at Ivy
Creek. Admiral Mott felt the Board had to protect the water supply of the County, protect
overloading of the road system and consider incompatible land uses. Admiral Mott then
discussed his disappointment about the procedure of the Planning Commission and felt there
was little planning done by the Commission. He thought this plat was to be preliminary
first and then final, but as it turned out, it was all final. Admiral Mott then requested
that the plat be returned to the Planning Commission until certain conditions and proceedings
~eve been met.
Next to speak was Mr. David Wood, attorney representing the Berta Jones estate. He
n~oted Mrs. Jones was an outstanding person in the County and died heavily in debt. The
purpose of the application is an effort to preserve the value of her land and to pay outstandim
debts. He also felt the brief circulated by Mr. Peters was improperly before the Board
since he had not seen same before this hearing. Mr. Wood said he would limit his remarks to
the three points addressed in the brief as follows. One is the reference of the Comprehensive
Plan. He felt the Code is very specific in stating that the Comprehensive Plan is a general
guideline. He also noted that the requirements of the existing Zoning Ordinance are for two
acres per unit for this parcel and the smallest lot on this plan is 4.1 acres per lot. He
also noted that the largest lots are those along the watershed. Therefore., he felt the plat
does comply with the general guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan and more than doubles the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wood noted that a requirement of the Planning
Commission was for public water. However, public water is not available to this area~because
it is not within the jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service Authority. The
plan was originally submitted for wells but he was perfectly willing to do either. However,
if the plan is approved subject to public water, the Board must consider extending the
jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Wood said this area was
surveyed by Gooch and Company for septic systems having two systems on each lot. The soil
is also more than adequate to cover the necessary septic requirements to avoid any damage to
the reservoir. As for the point raised in the Watterson letter concerning a road through
this property, there is no road that reaches the boundary of the Watterson property. For
that reason, Mr. Wood said a road serving the adjacent areas is not before the Board and
could never be in existence without authority from the Board. In conclusion, Mr. Wood said
the applicant is totally prepared to meet the conditions of the Planning Commission and he
felt all the requirements of the County's ordinances have been complied with and urged
approval of the plat.
With no one else to speak for or against the plat, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher then asked the legal opinion of the County Attorney. Mr. St. John ~said
although the argument made by Mr. Peters about the status of the Comprehensive Plan was
forceful, it is not the law. The Zoning Ordinance creates rights and when an application is
!filed, there is no vested right in the existing zoning without doing something pursuant to
the zoning with the filing of the subdiviSion plat. The Board has the right to approve a
!plat .if such complies with the Zoning Ordinance according to the '~e~isting Virginia Code.
Mr. St. John said the State Code states that the Comprehensive Plan may be implemented once
the zoning ordinance agrees with the Comprehensive Plan. Again, Mr. St. gohn felt this plat
was entitled to approval not only from this Board but administerial as well. As for the
~ituation with the water, he felt the Board should either amend the conditions of the plat
to remove that requirement or recognize that the condition is a committment to extend the
~ urisdictional area.
September 3_~1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
Discussion then followed on the roads serving this area. Mr. Fisher was very concerned
and frustrated that the entire area was not being examined for a street to connect to any
property. Mr. St. John said by not having designed in the Comprehensive Plan a linkage
road, then each of the subdivisions as they come in for approval will have to provide their
own road to an existing public road. Mr. Fisher's basic concern was that if a rezoning
comes in on a piece of property in the back of this property, there will not be any access
other than private roads. Mr. St. John said there is no way that adjoining landowners can
demand and force the owner of the Berta Jones tract to give access out through their property
and no way that the two could do such later without approval by the Board. Mr. St. John
said if this plat is approved, then there is the assurance there will be no through roads
until someone applies for an amendment of this plan to the Board or one owner gives another
owner an easement. The Board cannot force one owner to give another an easement. Dr.
Iachetta asked if all the roads would be private Mr. St. John said yes. Dr. Iachetta felt
this type of development should have public roads. Dr. Iachetta then asked if the regulations
for private roads for lots beyond thirty-five are the same as those required for public
roads. Mr. Tucker said the only thing similar is the strength of the roads and pavement
width. Dr. Iachetta said that means there could be a set of roads incorrect in terms of
alignment and not acceptable into the state system.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Roosevelt for his comments about the entrance onto Garth
Road. Mr. Roosevelt said the entrance is supposed to serve forty-two lots and the only way
it can serve more is if the Board allows someone to subdivide one of the lots to bring in
access across it. Mr. Roosevelt said based on the plan which shows one major entrance and
one private entrance for Lot 1 onto Route 601, the plat is acceptable. In examining the
sight distance for the main entrance onto Route 601 the location should be shifted approximate
seventy feet east to obtain better sight distance and the concept shown in the plan for the
left turn lane is adequate. The widths and lengths can be worked out further when a permit
is requested. Mr. Fisher asked if Route 601 is a tolerable road. Mr. Roosevelt said if the
left turn lane improvements are made as required by the Planning Commission then the road
would be tolerable to the entrance of the subdivision. The feeling of the Highway Department
is that the majority of traffic will be making turns from the subdivision and coming into
Charlottesville, therefore a right turn lane is not required.
Mr. Fisher then asked how much construction would be required on the road. Mr. John
Greene from W. S. Roudabush, Incorporated, the surveyors for this plat, was present and said
very minimimal cutting would be required. He also noted that the road alignment has been
changed since the plat was presented to the Planning Commission to provide a single entrance
rather than two entrances previously proposed. Mr. Fisher asked if any streams were to be
crossed. Mr. Greene said no.
Mr. Fisher said his understanding was that some of the property owners feel they have
access through the private roads of Farmington and perhaps since the creek divides this
property such will not be a problem. In order to extend the road, the subdivision plat will
have to be changed and he felt there will be some problems in trying to get a bridge across
the creek. He felt some problems have been pointed out particularly with procedural matters
and the entire problem seems to be the Zoning Ordinance. The County Attorney has stated
that the Planning Commission reviewed the roads in order to minimize the entrance problems.
In conclusion, Mr. Fisher said, based on the information presented this evening, he would
not urge the Board to deny the subdivision. Dr. Iachetta said the question still remains
about the jurisdictional areas and due to the lateness of the hour, he offered motion to
defer action on the Berta Jones Final Plat Appeal to September 10 in order to discuss the
jurisdictiona~i areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Miss Nash seconded the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. There were none presented.
Agenda Item No. 6. At 1:21 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss
Nash, to adjourn to September 8, 1980 at 7:30 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference
Room. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Miss N~sh.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
~ - CHAIR~