1978-10-25NOctober 18, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting)
October 2~.1978 (Ni ht~ourned from October 18.,~ 1978)
:019
members of this society. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dorrier,
to issue this lottery permit based on the Board's adopted rules for issuance of same. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Messrs~ Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Not Docketed: Mr. Roudabush said that on'October 4th he had brought uD~a question about
a radio tower which has been applied for in the city. He now has a copy of~§ite plan. The
tower will be located 180 feet from the City/County boundary which is also the property line
of the sewage treatment plant and adjacent properties. 130 persons in the area have signed
a petition in opposition to erection of this tower. The City Code has a regulation under
Yard Regulations-General, which says that radio, telephone, television or electric trans-
mission towers shall have a yard on all sides equal to the height of the tower installed,
except that it does not apply to amateur radio operations. A request for a variance is
before the City Board of Zoning Appeals because yard regulations cannot be met on the side
adjacent to the County property line. Mr. Roudabush said that in the CoUnty a special permit
is required for erection of any tower, however if the City will not enforce their ordinance
in this case, the people in this area of the County have no protection. He felt it would be
appropriate to adopt a resolution to becpresented to the Board of Zoning Appeals at a hearing
tomorrow and then offered motion to adopt the following:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
does believe there is a potential danger to County residents from waiver of
yard requirements with respect to the Charlottesville City Board of Zoning
Appeals Case No. 793, Charlottesville Broadcasting System;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESODVED that this Board is in opposition to the granti-ng
of any variance for the erection of a radio tower adjacent to County bound-
aries which would not meet the setback requirements of City ordinances in
situations where the County does not have the authority to review a site
plan under special permit procedures and impose special conditions.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Agnor said while the Airport is closed for repaving of the runway, the parking lot
will be renovated. Provisions will be made so that in the future access will be available
to the public to the terminal building without having to pay. This will be at no cost to
the Airport Board or the locality.
Mr. Lindstrom noted letter from Jim Skove resigning as a member of the Rural Transporta-
tion Advisory Group.
Agenda Item No. 13. Executive Session Personnel.
that this matter be deferred until another meeting.
It was the concensus of the Board
Agenda Item No. 14. At 11:10 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by M~.
Dorrier, to adjourn this meeting until October 25~h at 7:30 P.M. in,the Courthouse. Motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NA~S:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
October 25, 1978 (Night Adjourned from October 18, 1978)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on October 25, 1978, beginning at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from October 18, 1978.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman,
Mr. Fisher, with a moment of silence.
Agenda Item No. 2. Introduction: 4-H Agent. Ms. Elizabeth Payne from the County
Extension Office was present to introduce Mr. Jeffrey L. Kirwan as the new 4-H Agent for
Albemarle County. He graduated from Bridgewater College with a Bachelors degree in Biology
and holds a Masters degree in Forestry from the University of Minnesota. Mr. Kirwan was
selected by a committee of County persons for this position. He is to replace Mr. Daniel
October 25, 1978 (Night Adjourned from October 18, 1978)
Gaputo, beginning on November 1. Motion to appoint Mr. Kirwan as 4-H agent was offered by
Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote.
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 3. SP-78-64. Central Virginia Health Facility. (Deferred from
October 18, 1978.)
Fisher: Agenda Item No. 3 is a continuation of the discussion on special permit 78-64
for Central Virginia Health Facility which was deferred from last Wednesday night. I under-
stand there has been a considerable amount of research and study on the problem since that
time involving a number of people, and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and the
Albemarle County Service Authority, and I believe Mr. Agnor is going to try and summarize
the work with various public agencies involved.
Agnor: I will also summarize the report that is being made by the applicant. There
are four different staff engineers that have been working on this since last Wednesday night.
The Albemarle County Service Authority Engineer~Mr. Graham;and the Rivanna Service
Authority staff headed by Mr. Williams,has been working, and those two have been working
independently with each other; the applicant's engineer, Mr. Gloeckner; and the engineer
from the firm that was here last Wednesday night that manufactures the treatment plant known
as the Centrox C~pany or plant also did calculations on this question. As you recall, last
Wednesday the Board was asking whether or not the package plant's effluent would be an
improvement over the existing raw sewage discharge. The answer that was given initially on
that was, without calculations there was no question that it would be an improvement but
that answer was not thoroughly understanding the question because we were responding in
terms of conventional sewage treatment which is dealing with suspended solids and a biological
oxygen demand in terms of measuring the quality and the concentrations of the waste discharge
from a conventional treatment plant. The Board's question, however, was concerned with the
phosphate loadings to the stream which discharges ultimately as a part of the headwaters of
the reservoir and there was some doubt raised as to whether that ... plant could actually
reduce that loading. The Centrox Corporation,s calculations definitely prove that the
suspended solids, and what is known as the BOD question that we thought we were answering,
is a significant improvement. I will give you the end results of the calculations. The
~aw waste water currently has 28.8 pounds per day of those items and the discharge from the
Centrox unit when it is flowing as though it were flowing at its full capacity, or greater
capacity really than we are talking about of the combination of the existing discharge and
the health facility's discharge, the sewer plant would discharge an effluent of five and
one-half pounds of BOD and suspended solids. There is no question that our top of the head
answer was correct. However, the phosphorus loadings do show an increase when you combine
the existing discharge with the health facility's discharge and treat it through that plant,
it will not remove the phosphorus to a lesser quantity than the existing loading of that raw
discharge. ~These calculations have been made with a variety~orking independently of each
other, but their answers and their conclusions in the end result come to be the same The
variety they used, the Centrox people used an estimated flow for the exist~ing flow and
knowing what their plant capacity was they were dealing with a known total plant capacity.
The discharge from the 32 connections that exist there today is a known quantity so the
Albemarle Service Authority's engineer used that known quantity as did the applicant's
engineer Mr. Gloeckner. ~The Rivanna Authority used an estimated quantities based on
engineering averages that are normally used. The health facility's discharge in one instance
was used as an estimated calculation and in the other instance it was used from the current
records of the City of Charlottesville for the discharge of the Cedars Nursing Home with the
number of occupants of that facility being known and the quantity of usage of that facility
being known and that was t~ken as a facility of a similar nature in terms of calculating a
discharge for t~s health facility. Carbon filtration was considered which is an extra
facility and extra treatment process to remove this phosphorus. Another process known as
mineral addition was examined by one of the engineers. After doing their calculations, it
was finally suggested by one, and I am not certain which, that if the phosphates were not
put in there to begin with they wouldn't have to be removed in the conventional treatment
process. The proposal that is being made tonight is a condition to the special permit that
would ban~i~ the use of phosphate detergents in the health facility; in their laundry and their
kitchen facility. With that proposal, calculations have been made which indicate that the
treated discharge from the health facility and the raw sewage that we now have, the
phosphorus loadings w~ld be less than they exist today in the raw sewage discharge only.
To give you some figures, and I have copies of all the calculations if you are interested
in reviewing them, but to give you the bottomline figures from the calculations, the exist-
ing raw sewage discharge today, and it is carried to three decimal points because we are
dealing in less than whole numbers of the loadings for the stream, existing raw sewage dis-
charge is .~99 pounds per day, in round figures obviously that is half a pound. That's the
actual flow measured from those 32 connections.
Iachetta: Is that solids?
Agnor: No, that is pounds of phosphorus.
Fisher: OtherwiSe identified as total phosphorus in all states; phosphates in solution.
Agnor: Yes, that is taking the known flow and using Environmental Protection Agency
manmal calculations to calculate the phosphorus from domestic' waste. It calculates to that
figure. Ail of these figures are dealing with phosphorus. We have concluded the suspended
solids and the BOD, there is no question that there would be a significant improvement on it.
The health facility untreated, to compare apples to apples, would add .233 pounds per day of
phosphorus without a band. on detergents.
Iachetta: That's what they would add.
Agnor: Yes, the combination then of the two in a raw form would be .732 pounds per day
untreated and when run through the Centrox plant it would be reduced to .549 pounds per day
after treatment. That is a conventional plant that has the capability of removing 25% of
the phosphorus. Obviously the .549 pounds per day is five one-hundredths of a pound higher
October 25, 1978 (Night Adjourned from October 18, 1978)
'021
than the existing raw ~ewage discharge today, so the answer to your question would be, under
conventional treatment method the combin~ flow would be a greater phosphorus loading to the
watershed.
Fisher: Approximately about a 10% increase.
Agnor: Yes. If a ban,!i, on low phosPhate soaps and detergents were imposed, it is
recommended first that the monitoring of the effluent could be accomplished easily at the
discharge point of the health facility into the collection system where the manhole connection
is made and as the Rivanna Authority takes samples from the effluent pipe of the plant, they ~
could also take samples from the discharge pipe of the health facility to determine that the
low phosphate soaps were being complied with. If that were the procedure, the phosphorus
reduction would reduce the Phosphorus loading from the health facility in its untreated form
to .174 pounds per day. The treated discharge of the health facility without the phosphate
ban~i, was .549. By reducing the phosphate input into the waste, the .549 would be reduced to
· 375 pounds per day of phosphorus.
Fisher: Or approximate!y a 25% reduction on current phosphorus loadings?
Agnor: Yes. That is the treated phosphorus discharge from the existing 32 connections.
The health facility would add another .114 pounds of low phosphate soaps to it, so the
combination discharge with the band on soaps of the total plant after it was treated, would
be .489 which is 1/100 of a pound less than the current raw sewage discharge. A number of
people calculated these figures and did it from different procedures and all have concluded
that the combined plant discharge would be less by a very small margin, but it would be less
by a very small margin in pounds per day discharge to that stream than the current raw
discharge.
Fisher: That is only a 2% margin. I wonder if all of these assumptions are accurate
enough to assume that there is a net 2% reduction?
Agnor: Yes. In fact there is a considerable safety margin that is not even calculated,
and that is that the Centrox Plant which has been in operation by the Rivanna Authority at
the Meadow Creek Treatment plant for two years as a pilot project, in order for it to be
accepted by the State Water Control Board, continually exceeds its design standards by a
margin of close to 40%.
Fisher: For phosphorus removal?
Agnor: No, for the plant efficiency of the removal of suspended solids. The phosphorus
removal in a conditional plant is only accomplished by the removal of suspended solids, it
doesn't have a phosphorus removal capability such as the carbon filter system or the mineral
addition system I am speaking of. It is a conventional treatment plant which removes it by
the suspended solids methods and that is where the phosphorus is attached to those suspended
solids. That plant has proven for two years in this community ~that its efficiency is greater
than is shown in these calculations. The concentration of the discharge from that plant is
much better than these figures would indicate.
Lindstrom: How did you ~ay the .233 pounds per day that was estimated for the facility
was calculated, is surprising to me that it is less than half the 36 homes which, if you
figure an average of 3.3 persons per home, you have about the same number of people in the
houses that you have in the facility and yet there is half of the phosphates.
Henley: If you were married and had a few kids you would understand why.
lot more soap to clean up kids than it does grown people.
It takes a
Agnor: In the first place, the existing connections are not all homes~ '_There are some
retail stores. We took an actual flow from those connections. On the health facility we
took an average per day per occupant based on the record of the Cedars Nursing Home to get
the total flow per day.
Iachetta: Is that total flow based on ultimate occupancy?
Agnor: Yes, for 97 beds.
Fisher: The bottom line of what you are saying is, if the health facility is banned
from using phosphates and that ban.~i is enforced, that the best we can come up with is a
possible 2% net reduction except that you hope the plant will be better than the design
standards claimed.
Agnor: That's correct.
Lindstrom: I think somebody asked at the last meeting if the cost of, is it correct to
say the tertiary treatment, the chemical removal of the phosphate, activated carbon, someone
figured what the cost of adding that capacity to the Centrox Plant would be. I am just
curious as to what that would be.
Agnor: The cost of the filters themselves was calculated to be $4,000. The cost of the
operations we were unable to determine in terms of the additional costs of the operations
over and above the cost of operations of a conventional plant. The cost of operations would
essentially be some pumping costs and some costs to back wash the filter. The carbon itself
was calculated to have a life of 20 years, so we felt there would not be any ~eplacement of
that. Just the electrical cost of the pumping or the cost of the back wash of the operations,
we couldn't tell.
Lindstrom: Wo~ld it be a substantial cost or would it be in terms of $10,000 -
$20,000 or ~re we talking about something less than that?
Agnor: The operating costs?
Lindstrom: ~i~The cost in a~dition to the $4,000.
- 022
October 25, 1978 (Night Adjourned from October 18, 1978)
Agnor: The ~tal cost of the plant? I don't know that. I think someone from Mr.
Gloeckner's firm can tell you what the estimated cost of the plant is.
Tom Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, the estimated cost is around $32,000 just for the package ...
without installation costs, ~hat is for the Centrox plant.
Lincoln: It runs around, the F.O.B. price on the ... a carbon filter filtration system
is about $4,000, plus maintenance.
Roudabush: It doesn't require around-the-clock operation or is it something that
requires a periodic operation?
Agnor: No, it would not require an around-the-clock attend~.nt, you mean?
Iachetta: Is it automated?
Agnor: Yes.
Lindstrom: Does anyone know to what extent that would reduce this .489 pounds we're
talking about?
Agnor: I don't believe so. I think the engineer shied away from it for this reason.
We have no history locally of the track record of that carbon filter system. We do have
a local history of the Centrox Plant. We have confidence in what it can do. When the
suggestion was made that the best solution is not to put it in there to begin with, and
therefore you don't have to depend then on an unknown quantity of the capability of a filter
to do a job, it was the assumption, I believe by the people that are working on this, that
this was the best answer to your questions.
Lindstrom: Actually what is going through my mind is, if these figures are correct
and everything you have said seems to indicate it would be, then I think that putting a
ban~ on phosphate detergents in the health facility and combining it with this plant, would
certainly be beneficial to at least go ahead at least in terms of the.pollution concern,
but it seems to me we have a good opportunity to help solve the rest of this problem. I
am not speaking about doing it at the applicant's expense, but since this is an existing,
as far as I am concerned, County responsibility, that if the cost is such that it makes
sense in terms of what we are going to be doing in the way of improving, this might be
something that we should look into, trying to join ~hawith the applicant if this is approved,
to put capacity on the Centrox Plant to hopefully further reduce the phosphates that are
going into our sewers.
Fisher: That is certainly something that we could consider. I would like to ask all
of the staff people who are present, has there been any communication with either the State
Water Control Board or the State Health Department since our last meeting? Have you had
any reading as to what the timetable is now for the sewer interceptor line for funding?
Thompson: I am sorry I didn't mention that in my memo to Bob because you specifically
asked that question, but I checked and the scheduling is still the same.
Fisher: When is that?
Thompson: '83 for funding.
Fisher: For design funding ar for construction funding?
George Williams: That is for construction funding. Design fund~ are in hand.
Fisher: Ail right then the first construction plans that We are looking at are on the
order of five years away, now.
Williams: Correct.
Fisher: So the timetable continues to expand. When we first started the job, it was
going to be a three year job in 1973. Did you get any sort of feeling as to whether or not
this particular installation would affect that schedule?
Thompson: I talked with Brad Chewning. This was prior to the meeting we had last
week. The concern I had at the time was also his same concern and that is the reason that
in the staff memo that was presented to you all last week, it specifically indicated that
it was a temporary measure and the ultimate solution would be solved by the installation
of the interceptor. The feeling that I got was that they would not let this be a deterrent
if they had anyway to control it.
Fisher: Mr. Williams, what is the ~stimated construction period for the interceptor?
Williams: I would say that it would take a minimum of one year and a half.
Fisher: So we are looking at 1985 for actual operation of the interceptor at the
earliest? We are looking now at seven years minimum I would guess with whatever situation
is installed. Is that correct? Ail right, Mr. Lindstrom, I am back to you. Seven years
sounds like a long enough period of time that we ought to consider whether there is going
to be some public involvement in making some improvements here.
Lindstrom: If things look the way they seem~ to look about the cost of adding this,
we don't know how much good it is going to do, but presumably it is going to do some good.
I think we need to know. these facts. Ali the ordinances that we have passed and burdens
that we have placed on private people to preserve the quality of that reservoir, the least
we can do is take action to appropriate funds to go in on this project with Mr. Wilcox
and try and reduce that. Even if there is not going to be another delay we are still talking
about seven years. I just don't see how in good cons~e'n~ecan fail to look into that.
October 25, 1978 (Night Adjourned from OctOber 18, 1978)
Henley: I think if you are going to do it to that one, I think you ought to do it to
the one the ~chools are hooked Onto and the one the Meadows is hooking onto. Why do it to
one of them if you are not going to do it to all of them?
Dorrier: I .would like to find out.how this figure .489 compares with the amounts of
phosphorus coming from other outfits up in the Crozet area such as Mortons. Actually, what
I am akking is just how much phosphorus is coming in from that area as a whole.
Agnor: This is infinitesimally small. I'm sorry I don't remember, The total phosphorus
loadings into the reservoir is in the thousands of pounds per year. This loading would be
le~s than one per cent of the total pFoblem of the phosphorus coming into the reservoir
currently. I understand, Mr. Dorrier, that it is not really a matter of quantity here, but
it is a matter of the principles that are involved in the protection.
'Dorrier:
· 489 was.
I just wanted to get in my own mind the figures straight as for as how much
Lindstrom: If you round .489 off to .5, you come up with the annual contribution of
about 182 1/2 pounds and if you are talking seven years, about 1270 pounds. Although,
compared to Mortons it's not much, I think that every bit that we can do, and perhaps Mr.
Henley is right, we should look at some of these other situations too. It concerns me that
the County has an epportunity here to act to improve even: a small degree the situation,
but it is a situation over which we have control. I think we have an obligation to do it.
Fisher: I think that probably what you are suggesting is something that as Mr. Henley
said, we ought to look at the other point source discharges too, and find out what the
contributions are from the point sources that are in the watershed that are going to be now,
not a?~1980 solution but a 1985 solution, and see just a listing of what those are and what
the loadings are and then to see if you want to proceed with some cost analysis on what it
will take to start making some improvements there. I think he is right. Doing it on one is
not necessarily the whale answer.
Henley: I think since we have an improvement over what we already have and it is a
temporary measure anyway, I wouldn't vote for putting that in unless you are going to make
the Meadows pay for whatever go~s into the other one.
Fisher: Mr. Wilcox is shaking his head rather violently about that.
Henley: I.think the schools ought to pay for their share if Mr. Wilcox has got to put
in this, I think the schools should put carbon filters in their system.
Lindstrom: Well the way I understand it, and maybe my understanding of the law is
wrong, if it is a private source that is a point source that is in existence now, it is my
understanding that the State Water Control has essentially preempted the control of that
source. Is that correct Mr. St. John? In terms of abating that source, does the County
have the authority to go in and direct that a new plant be put in if it is a private source
that presently exists?
St. John: Direct that a new plant be put in?
Lindstrom: Direct that the pSllution be terminated.
St. John: No.
Lindstrom: I don't think that we could go to the presently existing private sources.
I certainly think that we have an obligation to show some leadership to go to those sources
that we control. I think what you said is very right. I think it is only fair that we look
at all of the sources that the Count~ is contributing, or that the County has control over,
and determine how much contribution is being made and how much it is going to cost to fix
it up, because we are imposing these sort of requirements on property owners. I think the
shoe ought to fit on the other foot.
Fisher: That is a question that we can take up as a future item on our agendas and we
can decide how we want to deal with that separately from this question unless we think there
needs to be some access to this plant for public improvements at a later time if that seems
to be necessary. The landowner may be concerned about that so we should get some input
from him.
Thompson: I can do that. Once the plant is dedicated to the Service Authority to be
operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewage Authority, if it is determined at a later date
that this carbo~ filtration is to be added, it could be added to the property. I don't
think it is of a size that it would require additional land in order to put it in. I think
it could be easily handled in the same land, if I understand exactly what this filter system
Lindstrom: Do you know enough about this type of plant to know if there is a cost
advantage in putting the whole thing in with the filters for the phosphorus treatment at the
same time as we put the initial installation in?
Thompson: I see no advantage to it. I don't think there is any significant cost
advantage. It is an entirely separate unit that just seats itself on the discharge line as
I understand it. It just handles the discharge from the plant itself. It is an add onto
the plant itself. I am sure it would be advantageous to put it in at the time the plant
is put in, than at a later date.
Henley: I think if we keep picking at this thing you are going to have more phosphorus
in there by the time he gets through with it, ... go ahead and build the plant and put it in.
Lindstrom: I don't want to hold him up at all. I think we ought to go ahead and act
on this application tonight and when we are through with that we ought to~do whatever is
necessary to get the wheels in motion to begin accessing and analysing what sources we control
and how much they are putting in and how much it is going to cost to fix them up so we can
act on this as quickly as possible.
October 25, 1978 (Night Adjourned from October 18, 1978)
Fisher: Mr. Agnor, in this proposal that has come from the staffs of various agencies
and the County, in there specific language which would prohibit the use of phosphorus
materials? Is that suggested to us?
t.o
Agnor: No. It was not prepared. Let me see if Mr. Wilcox's engineers letter/Mr.
Thompson describes it?
Fisher: Could you read the sentence in which the recommendation is included so we can
get some language?
Agnor: The simpiiest and cheapest solution for the County is to requ~vlow phosphate
soaps and detergents for the home for the aged. Then it reads further, YouZ~ant to put a
clause in here about monitoring, this can be simply monitored and if the requirement is not
met, a carbon filter could be added to the package plant.
Fisher: Will be required at the health facility or the applicant may place such other
treatment facilities as are vequired to reduce the total phosphorus loading. Is that what
that suggests?
Agnor: Yes. That is my understanding of it.
Thompson: There is also one further recommendation that I made, if you care to use it,
in the last paragraph of my letter, second sentence.
Agnor: Mr. Thompson recommended that the cost of this monitoring be borne by the
convalescent center; the monitoring of the low phosphate soap requirement, There would be
some laboratory testing involved by the Rivanna Authority which could be ~illed back to the
consumer through th~-~ Albemarle Service Authority.
Fisher: What is being suggested here is to leave the applicant with some latitu~de. He
either complies by reducing the use of phosphates within the health facility or it is going
to be his responsibility to further treat what comes out in order that there is a reduction
below the existing point five pounds per day of phosphorus loading and that is going to be
the standard that we will use. Is that right?
Wilcox: This might control at the convalescent center, but not the whole town.
Fisher: I think this language is fairly important. I think it needs to be written
carefully to incorporate the choices that the applicant has and how it is to be enforced.
But, this seems like the proper way to go. Who wants to take on the duty of doing some
drafting at this point?
Iachetta: Before you draft another condition, it seems to me that there are a coDple
of points that have been raised which have been skirting the issue. This proposition
supposes the lowest cost alternative to the County. I submit there is no cost to the County
involved in the operation of this plant because we don't operate the plants. The Albemarle
County Service Authority operates plants. Rivanna operates plants that,this plant will be
built by others so there is no cost to us involved as a County to operate the plant, with
or without the filters. The comment was made earlier that this was a lower cost alternative
for us. It is a lower cost alternative for the guy that is going to build it and that is
not Albemarle County. That is item number one. Number two, I think you are begging the
issue. You have the ~ppo~tunity ~'~ here by two conditions, low phosphate detergents and
the filters, of not only accomplishing the end of not increasing the phosphorus but in fact
decreasing it by some unknown but significant amount. We have spent a lot of time in the
last two and one-half years, ~d money as well, of the users, primarily, of water in this
communit~ plus tax money,to engage necessary legal talent to do the legal work associated
with trying to find a solution to the phosphorus problem in the reservoir. I think we
would be remiss if we did not take an opportunity to reduce whatever effluent can be reduced
· now as opposed to the different kinds of conditions that will go alo~!g with the idea of no
phosphates and if we don't like that result we will add the filtration capability. I think
we ought to do both. It is Eoing to be a new plant.
Fisher: At who's expense?
Iachetta: At the owners expense. You are going to turn it over to the Service Authorit~
to'operate. Operational cost will be on the user.
Roudabush: The applicant is voluntarily taking on the treatment of the 32 existing
connections that he has no responsibility for legally. I think it would be a real burden
to ask him to take on additional responsibility for treatment of something that he has no
responsibility for creating. I think it is just an opportunity that we have to have those
connections tied into what he wants to do.
Lindstrom: I agree with what you are saying that we Should act to reduce through this
opportunity as much as possible the present phosphate contribution, but my problem is, if
the applicant reduces it below what i~iU is'presently going in which has none of his effluent
in it, then to reduce it further, it is only fair that the County pay that share of the cost.
iachetta: I guess what I am doing is that I am applying the very simpl~ principle of
we shall employ the best available technology. What i have heard said here tonight is the
best available technology is a combination of don't put as much phosphorus in to start with
and put a second clean-up facility on the back-end to clean-up what you did put in. Itz~would
be different here if we were talking about technology which it is questionable that it
didn't exist. I think it is a. mistake in any pollution problem not to apply-.at the time we
buil~ the facility, the best technology. If you are serious about combatting air or water
or land poll~tion problems, that is the only approach you can take that is consistent with
what you claim you are goin~ to do. ~
Henley: I den't think it is right to make him do this. It is just as right for the
school and the Meadows to clean-up that,their phosphate,as it is for him to clean it up in
his health facility.
October 25~ 1978 (Night Adjourned from October 18, 1978)
025
Iachetta: I would agree with that 100%.
/
Henley: I don't think we should put that problem on this thing right now, but I think
~ if you want to look at it later and see if we solve it, I am~certainly willing.
Lindstrom: I think where you get your protection is if the condition is ~ritten so
that it requires that there be no increase, and as we have got the figures, .489, there
will be a minute decrease, a~nd if we key the approval to that figure, and if this plant
does not do that, not talking about any other source increasing it, but if the plant does
not do it, then I think the applicant has the burden to see that the phosphate is kept to
that level and if that means a different kind of plant then that is what it means. I think
that your safety is in the language. I don't think there is any guarantee that any kind
of plant you get in there is really going to do the job and if you say we put in a X, Y, or
Z machine and the machine doesn't do the job, then the applicant has met the condition. I
think the safety is including the specific amount of phosphate loading that you are going
to accept.
Fisher: Gentlemen, where do you want to go? I was going to suggest a brief recess
for some drafting. I don't believe anyone said phosphate free. I believe they said low
phosphate and I don't know how that is defined either, that is a difficult question.
Lindstrom: Mr. G!oeckner said low phosphate and Mr. Thompson said non-phosphate.
~ Agnor: I think they are com~r~ercially called low phosphate or phosphate-free.
are such soaps available.
There
Fisher: (At 8:20 P.M.) We are going to take a three minute recess now.
Fisher: (At 8:40 P~M.) I will call this meeting back to order. We have, with the
help of the technical people and the help of the best legal minds at this table, have, pu~
together a package which says basically, and I am going to explain what we are trying to do,
and then read it for the purpose of the record; that the raw phosphate discharge from the
convalescent center will be monitored; that its contribution according to the calculations,
with standard detergents and soaps, would be .233 pounds per day; that by using low
phosphate soaps and detergents this will be reduced to a factor of 65.7% and will have a net
loading of .153 pounds per day; that is the product of those two numbers. If the raw
phQsphorus output contribUted by the convalescent center exceeds that level for three tests
over a 30-day period, the applicant will be required to install additional treatment
facilities at his expense to achieve a level less than, or equal to, .153 pounds per day.
This is using all the figures from the applicant's engineer, as well as those reviewed by
the two authority's staffs. Compliance by the applicant shall be accomplished within 180
days after a written order to that ~ffect by the zoning administrator. What we see happening
here i~ if tests are made that indicate that the contribution is greater than it should be,
that the applicant would have the opportunity to quickly change his operating procedures to
reduce them and successive unscheduledtests would come along and determine whether or not
that is being carried out. If not, then he would have 180 days to comply with a new treat-
ment facility. I think this puts the burden for the operation on the applicant. That is
what I think he is taking on by making the recommendation to us of using the low phosphate
detergents~ Is the Board ready to act?
Roudabush: I move approval of Special Permit 78-64 with the first ~six cm~ditions as
recommended.by the Planning Commission; condition number seven to read as follows:
Connections to the package plant shall be limited to the proposed convalescent home, existing
connections to the Crozet Sewer Company, and three on-site connections to the existing
tri-plex dwelling; condition number 8, as recommended by the Planning Commission; condition
number nine as recommended by the Planning Conm~ission; condition number 10 to read: The
package plant shall be removed within six months of the time when the Crozet interceptor
becomes operational; 8ondition number il to read: Only low phosphate soaps and detergents
shall be used by the convalescent center; unscheduled monitoring of the raw phosphates
discharge from the convalescent center shall be conducted by the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority and the cost of this monitoring shall be borne by the convalescent center. In the
event that total raw phosphorus output contributed by the convalescent center exceeds .153
pounds per day for three tests over a thirty-day period, the applicant will be required
to install additional treatment facilities at h~s expense to achieve a level less than or
equal to .153 pounds per day. Compliance by the applicant shall be accomplished within 180
days after a written order to that effect by the zoning administrator.
Lindstrom: Second.
Fisher: Motion has been made and seconded for approval with those amendments.
there further discussion?
Is
Agnor: I didn't understand exactly all Mr. Rouda~hsh is speaking of in terms of
connections to the plant. My recollection of last week's meeting was, we spoke that if
there was an existing pollution problem which could be resolved in anyway by having it
connected to that plant other than these 32 connections that we would be allowed provided
the plant could handle that discharge to get that pollution problem taken out of the
community and put into that plant. It wasn't expanding use.
Fisher: Or it would be on order of the Health Department to abate an existing pollution
problem, is that correct?
Agnor: Or of the Water Control Board.
believe that was in your information.
One of the two regulatory agencies.
I didn't
Roudabush: That~was not part of it.
Agnor: ~ It was in condition number seven. It would not expand the plant.
simply use any capacity that was available to cure a pollution problem.
It would
Roudabush: I would like to amend my motion with respect to condition number seven so
that condition would read: Connections to the oacka~e olant shall be limited to the orooo~e~
October 25, 1978 (Night Adjourned from October 18, 1978)
convalescent home, existing connections to the Crozet Sewer Company, three on-site
connections to the e~isting tri-plex d~®llings and no further connections shall be allowed
unless so ordered by the Health Department or the State Water Control Board to abate health
hazards°
Iachetta:
Roudabush:
Lindstrom:
Existing.
Existing health hazards.
Do you need to say, provided that such addition shall not require the
expansion of the plant?
Fisher: They are not going to order it unless the capacity is there, or they will
have to pay for it, I presume. Call the roll.
Mr. Dorrier: Aye.
Mr. Fisher: Aye.
Mr. Henley: Aye.
Dr. Iachetta: No.
Mr. Lindstrom: Aye.
Mr. Roudabush: Aye.
Linds~rom: I don't know if we need to proceed by a motion or not, but if so I will
make one to direct the appropriate members of the staff to make a study of all point
sources of phosphate loading or suspended solids that are presently being contributed to the
reservoir, over which the County has authority. I am specifically thinking of the items
mentioned by Mr. Henley and any other sources that we might not be aware of, and determine
wh~t contribution is originating there and proposing some means of abating those contribution:
Fisher: Most of the information, I presume, is in the Betz Report or other reports
that the Rivanna Authority has received; contribution of the various treatment plants in
the watershed. Is that correct?
Agnor: If it is not, we can determine that. That is what you are speaking of when you
say "under the control of the County", a plant that we are operating ....
Lindstrom: I assume it is all going through some sort of plant. If you find something
that is not, don't limit yourself to the plant, reporting back to this Board as soon as
possible. How much time do YOu think it will take?
Fisher: He is not sure that he knows what you are asking for.
Agnor: If you are asking for point sources in the watershed, that would take a stream
by stream, house by house survey over which we have no control, tf you are talking about
point sources of public facilities such as the schools and treatments plants and things of
that nature ...
Lindstrom: Public facilities within the watershed.
Fisher: You not only want to identify them and the ~mh~lb~6~!t0aSh~!phllut~on
p~b~em~?Dut also to suggest a methods of abatement and cost? That could be a significant
task, Mr. Agnor, do you want to speak to the motion?
Agnor:
driving at.
I am sorry to be so vague, Mr. Lindstrom, but I'm still not sure what you are
Lindstrom: The first thing we discovered was that by modifying the plant we just
approved, we could take care of 32 houses and other sources in the Lickinghole Creek area.
Obviously, those are not public facilities, but they are in a sense a public responsibility.
The first concern I have is that we immediately address those particular problems and
see how much it will cost to put the filters that we have discussed tonight on this Centrox
plant, and with the installation of those filters what benefits in terms of reduced
phosphate loading we would realize, so the two things are the cost of improving the
proposed Centrox plant and the benefits that will be derived in terms of reduction of
phosphate loading. Apparently there are other sources from public facilities within the
watershed which are presently contributing phosphates which might be susceptible to
phosphate treatment.
Agnor: Which w~wld be the Brownsville plant, and you want the same treatment of that
in terms of what/~U~ded on to ... phosphorus loadings. Ail right, I understand.
Fisher: Is there a second to the motion?
Lindstrom: I so move.
Dorrier: Second.
Fisher: Discussion? There may be different co~ts for different benefits too. I am
sure that anyone getting into this is going to have a lot more questions ~nd might want to
come back to the Board for clarification as to whether you are interested in spending a
million dollars for these two facilities.
Lindstrom: I was not authorizing anything, but just want to find out what the story is.
Roudabush: Is it possible for the staff to accumulate this information without outside
assistance, Mr. Agnor?
October 25, 1978 (Night Adjourned from October 18, 1978)
027
Agnor: Yes, I believe so. As an example, this carbon filter treatment addition, as
Mr. Toms said, is an add on facility. We can get information on it from~people who
manufacture it as to what it will do and relate that then to the total flow from the plant
that is coming in.
Lindstrom: I think that we shouldn't be limited. I know this is what Dr. Iachetta
is thinking. We shouldn't be limited to looking simply to the carbon filtration system.
Iachetta: I am afraid that I find your approach inconsistent. We have just passed a
package plant in which you put an "iffy" condition in. If he can't meet it, he has to
hang this other contraption on the back in at his expense. Now you are proposing that we
look at the same plant and look at what it would cost to do the same job at public expense.
I voted against what you just did for that very reason. I think it is inconsistent.
Lindstrom: I think to do the same job in terms of reducing the contribution made by
public sources is the only allocation of public money we are talking about. I don't think
it is fair ~o make a private individual to pay to clean-up a public problem that he has
not contributed to. That is what the language is for, but be that as it may, that is a
different question.
Henley: He is cleaning up the big problem.
Fisher: A motion has been made and seconded. Is there further discussion? Call the
roll.
Mr. Dorrier: Aye.
Mr. Fisher: Aye.
Mr. Henley: Aye.
Dr. Iachetta: Aye.
Mr. Lindstrom: Aye.
Mr. Roudabush: Aye.
Fisher: Special permit 78-64 is approved. The conditions attached are known and
original copies will be available in a day or so for the applicant so he can.make his plans.
We have asked the staff to see .~bout '~mpr~e~_~t~s..f~r ~h.e' ~r~a~m~._~a~f~'~u'an~t...~t~tt~e ,1.~..
two plants that will be publicly operated in the watershed. (At 8:55 P.M., the Board
recessed and reconvened at 9:00 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. Ba.
tower.
Charlottesville Broadcasting Company:
Discussion of proposed
Mr. Fisher said this item was added to the agenda at the request of owners of Radio
Station WINA because of action taken at last week's meeting requesting the City Board of
Zoning Appegls not to take action granting a waiver of sideyard setbacks under the City's
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Collin Rosse said the tower is for WQMC and not WINA. He drew the Board's attention
to a certification from his engineer, Mr. Vlissides, which stated that the proposed tower
of 440 feet, in the unlikely event it should collapse, would do so in a radius of 154 feet.
Mr. Rosse said he had received a special permit from the Board to erect this tower on Fmur
Seaso~West property about three years ago, but had difficulty with the Federal Aviation
Commission because it was in the glide path of the Airport. Mr. Rosse then outlined for
the Board the numsrous locations which had been checked and found unsuitable for this tower.
He said that mainly citizens of the County would benefit from the location of this tower
since there are many parts of the County which cannot receive FM signals; in fact, there
are some that do not receive AM signals between sunset and sunrise. He said his station
had made a commitment to community service and would not erect a tower which they felt would
jeopardize the citizens of the County or the City.
Mr. Fisher said the statement furnished by Mr. Rosse's engineering consultant which
states that no tower will fall more than .35 times it height away from the base sounds like
a statistic from a textbook. He asked if anyone can guarantee this. Dr. Iachetta felt
this would depend on the structural design. Mr. Fisher then called on the public for
comments. Mr. Donald Kaiser said he teaches research methods of statistics at the University
and he asked if the engineer is qualified as a statistican. Mr. Kaiser said generally such
statistics come from simulations and it is highly unusual for a simulation to be more than
95% accurate. He asked the Board to consider this in their deliberations.
Mr. Tom F0rloines said he is the developer of Rio Heights which is just on the
County/City boundary. In the City are homes on Locust Avenue and Holmes Avenue, so this
tower is being erected in a horseshoe of homes. He did not feel the tower should be placed
in a heavy residential section. If a plane should hit the ~uywire, it could cause heavy
property damage.
Ms. Barbara Nunnally, an adjacent property owner, said she is concerned about the
location of the tower because of the present environment in the neighborhood. She felt this
was a poor location for the tower.
Mr. Rosse said there are some 7000 radio stations in this coufltry and about 50% of them
have towers in poyulated areas. The history of radio towers speaks for itself. In answer
to Mr. Kaiser's question, Mr. Vlissides did test models of this tower and has stated that
if the tower does collapse, it would do so like an accordian. Mr. Vlissides has testified
as an expert witness in the Washington, D.C. area and has offered to do so in this case.
Mr. Fisher said he found himself in a dilermma because both sides claim to be right.
The statement made by the engineer is his best opinion. He asked the proposed setback
October 25, 1978 (Night Adjourned from October 18, 1978)
from the County boundary. Mr. Rosse said it is 186 feet.
Mr. Ro. udabush said he brought this matter to the Board at the request of some of the
citizens who live in the area. He said it is his feeling that the City's regulations were
designed for a purpose. They evidently saw a need to regulate directional towers for the
health, safety and welfare of the people living in the City. The County also has regulations,
but the County's are different in that the Co.unty requires a special use permit so that
specific conditions regulating such use can be imposed. In this case, the County cannot
enforce its Zoning Ordinance provisions for the protection of County residents and a variance
has been applied for in the City which leaves the County residents in~.'Tno-man's" land. Mr. ~'
Roudabush said a simple solution to this problem wmuld be for the City to amend their zoning
ordinance with respect to setback regulations for towers. If it is felt that when these
towers collapse they present no danger, then the City Should recognize this fact and amend
their ordinance. If this were done, Mr. Roudabush said he would have no objection since
~he City's ordinance would then be enforced.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board continues its opPositiOn and the City grants a waiver,
if the County would have standing to appeal that decision. Mr. St. Jo~n said the County
would-not, but the individual citizens could under nuisance procedures.
Mr. Lindstrom said he could see no reason to go along with something that is not
provided for in the County's ordinance and therefore saw no reason for the Board to change
its position. Mr. Dorrier said he is concerned about the safety aspects, but, i~ is
speculation as to whether or not airplanes could hit the tower. He asked if the tower is
in the flight path of planes using the airport. Mr. Rosse said any tower must be approved
by FAA. Mr~ Dorrier said if that is so, he thought the Board should not continue their
objection unless they have more facts on which to base same.
Mr. Fisher again expressed concern about the safety aspects of the tower. ~Dr. Iachetta
disagreed. He said it would be different if there had ~een no radio towers built before,
but he presumed that the state of the art in building radio towers is highly developed at
this time. Mr. Vlissides credentials show that he is registered in a number of states.
Such registration is a means whereby the state guarantees protection of the public. Dr.
Iachetta said he could not see that a radio tower 180+ feet from the boundary line is
anymore dangerous than the 250,000 volt feeder line t.hat is in back of his own house.
Mr. Dorrier said until he is shown that the radio tower is more of a safety hazard, he
would move that the Board withdraw its objection to the waiver request before the City
Board of Zoning Appeals. Dr. Iachetta gave secmnd to the motion, but same failed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Iachetta.
Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 4. Approval of Minutes: May 10, 1978. Mr. Lindstrom reported that
he had not read these minutes.
Agenda Item No. 4aJ
Approve agre~ement with Dr. Thompson for ESmont Health Facility.
Mr. Agnor noted that Dr. Ronald Thompson owns property in the Esmont Community designat'
ed as Tax Parcel 79A. The property is of interest to the County and the Regional Health
Department for the health facility that has been planned for that area for some time. The
property is on the market for sale. Mr. Agnor said he had requested Dr. Thompson to hold
these premises off the market for a period not to exceed four months, at a rate of $255.00
per month, to give the County time to appraise the property~ At such time as the property
has been appraised, examined for feasibility, and the zoning considerations studied, the
County would elect whether to make a purchase offer. He said this agreement does not bind
Dr. Thompson to sell the property or the County to purchase same. He requested authority
to sign the agreement on behalf of the County. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, secmnded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, lachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4b. Approve bids for County 0ffioe Building (Lan~ roof. Mr. Agnor
saidbids were taken On repairs to the roof of the Lane Building. Two bids were received,
with R. E. Lee & Son, Inc. being the low bidder with g price of $317,502.00. The low bid
is within 2% of the engineer's estimate and also within the estimate in the feasibility
study made in 1977. There have been some changes in the approach to this project by
increasing the amount of insulation and changing the type of roofing material. He asked
for authority to execute the contract with R. E. Lee & Sons for these repairs. Motion to
this effect was offered by Dr. Iachett~ seconded by Mr. Roudabush, anR carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and'Roudabush.
None.
Not Docketed: Mr. Lindstrom said a m~mber of the School Board has asked about having
a meeting concerning the 1979-80 budget in the near future. After a short discussion, it
was agreed that a dinner meeting would be held on November 8th at 5:30 P.M.
Mr. Fisher said he had been trying to finalize plans for the next five months during
which the Board will be working on the proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and the
budget. He'said work on the Zoning Ordinance must be finished during January before budget
work sessions begin~on February 15th. He hopes the Board can finish their work sessions on
the budget by March 15th. As soon as dates are finalized, he will furnish.a listing of
same to Board members.
OZ9
October 25, 1978 (Night Adjourned from October 18, 1978)
November 1, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 5. At 10:10 P.M., at the request of the Chairman, motion was offered
by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn into executive session to discuss
personnel matters. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 11:00 P.M.
Claims against the County for the month of October, 1978 which hag been examined,
allowed and certified by the Director of Finance for payment and charged against the
following funds were presented as information:
Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Operating Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
General Operating Capital Outlay Fund
Mental Health Fund
Crozet Elderly Housing Escrow Fund
Debt Service Fund
$ 666.86
491,492.33
1,292,997.16
80,658.95
30,027.67
65,229.03
209.10
21,539.52
107,010.00
125,996.69
20,326.40
67,185.00
$2,303,338.71
Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned.
~Airman
November 1, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on November 1, 1978, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony Iaehetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M., by
the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, with a moment of silence.
Agenda Item No. 2. Kenneth Pleasants: Request for Final Approval of Central Well.
Mr. Agnor said Mr. Pleasants applied for central well approval in September. The well will
serve three dwelling units in the Greenwood area. He noted that the well was tested by the
Engineering Department and found to produce 12 gallons per minute. Motion was offered by
Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve the well for use by three dwelling
units. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3. SP-78-59. Cecil S. McCumbee, III. To locate a mobile home on
6.794 acres zoned A-1. Property located on the southwest quadrant of intersection of
Routes 800 and 6 approximately 1/4 mile southeast of intersection of Routes 6 and 630.
County Tax Map 126, Parcel 32A. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 26, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker reported this request was withdrawn before the Planning Commission last
night without prejudice. No action was required by the Board of Supervisors.
Agenda Item No. 4. Amend Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance by the addition of
Sections l4-$ through 14-5-5 as they relate to conditional or "proffered" zoning. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on October 18 and October 25, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker reported this amendment has not been acted on by the Planning Commission, and
requested that the Board defer this until~ their meeting of December 6, 1978. Motion to that
effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dottier, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. An Ordinance to amend and re-enact Chapter 2, Article IX of the
Albemarle County code entitled "Industrial Development Authority" to include as one of those
items which may be considered for funding by the Albemarle County Industrial Development
Authority, medical facilities and facilities for the residence or care of the aged.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 18 and October 25, 1978.)
Mr. St. John presented the amendments as proposed. Mr. Donald Hold,en of fha T~e~