Loading...
1975-08-06N8-6-75 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 6, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia; this meeting being adjourned from July 23, 1975. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwite, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent' None. Officers present: County Executive, T. M. Batchelor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. Sit. John; Deputy County Attorneys, Frederick Payne and James Bowling; and Assistant Codnty Planner, Robert Tucker. Wheeler: The meeting tonight has been called to discuss the Rivanna Reservoir, the watershed that serves that reservoir, and the possibility of placing a building moratorium, or some type of moratorium, either on the reservoir or on the entire watershed. We will hear first from our Planning Staff, Plannin~ Commission members, the Riv~nna Water and Sewer Authority, and then from other agencies. Before we start, I believe Mr. Carwile has some remarks to make. Carwile: I would like to advise the Board and the public that on July 23 I contacted the Common- wealth Attorney's Office vo obtain an advisory opinion as to whether or not I have a conflict of interest on this matter. I had no response from that office until I again ~oh~actedl!~,~,however, I was successful in having a conference with representatives of that office on Monday. After that conference, I was advised that the Commonwealth's Attorney has a conflict as to advising me if I have a conflict. I have given the matter a great deal of consideration and I have concluded ~hat since 90 to 95 percent of my district is included within the watershed of the Rivanna Reservoir, that people in my district are envitled and should be represented. I think I know their views. I may not agree with all of them, but ! intend to represent them here tonight and will do so. Wheeler: Does anyone else have any comments before we start? Mr. Fisher? Fisher: There is some confusion about the proposal that ~as been made. I would like to state that the letter sent out to the vafrious agencies requesting their attendance tonight, which bore my name, contained the wrong proposal. The proposal that I made to the Board, and moved to adopt, was the one which addressed only the small portion of land, zoned R-2, which is adjacent to the reservoir. A proposal "B" was drafted at the suggestion of another Board member and was the one sent out. It is nov my proposal. I think it would cause some confusion if that were not cleared up at this point~. There are two proposals before the Board tonight. The one that I proposed was for a very small area zoned R-2. The other one was for the entire drainage basin, and that is not my proposal. Wheeler: I asked that information be obtained about the reservoir and the watershed. I am sure that those here to speak can either speak to the reservoir or to the entire watershed. As £ar as resolutions or prgPos~a~ this Board will consider all resolutions or proposals tonight. We will not be listening to t~ tw0-jus~ment,ioned. (Clerk's Note: Mr. Fisher's original motion to adopt a resolution as set-~Out~ i~inu~s~ the meeting of July 17, 1975, was still on the floor at the beginning of this discussion.~)~M.r~ucker, will you outline' for the Board, and for the citizens here, the reservoir and the wa~e~sh~d~hat~sarves t~s reservoir. Tucker: On the maps l~ca~t.~i~.~, and outlined in red, is the South Rivanna River watershed. The reservoir is located in this ar~a. ~The'~a.~,erShed encompasses approximately 270 square miles or 177,000 acres. It encompasses approximateZy~one~t~ird of the County and is located in the west and northwest portion of the County. The P.!anning-S~ff prepared a statement which has been submitted to the Board. If you like, I will read that into th~ record. Wheeler: I would like for you to do that. Tucker: This is a memo to the Board of Supervisors from John L. Humphrey, Director of Planning, dated August 6, 1975, and it states: "Any moratorium precluding development of. any kind should be uniform i~ it's application. With specific attention to the South Fork of the Rivanna R~ver watershed, it is my opinion that any moratorium placed on development should include the su~bdivision of land, special permits, grading permits, rezonings, site plan submittals, and building permits. In'adA dition, it is my opinion that full attention should be given to the utility companies utiliz±ng herbicides to defoliate transmission power lines and rights of way; consideration should be given to highway construction and de-icing salt for roads during the winter; and the Farm Bureau, Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, and t~e County Extension Agent should be asked to assist in policing the agricultural aspects within the drainage shed relative to reducing the amount of pesticides, herb'±Cides, and fertilizers used, or to control runoff from agricultural activity. As of this date, and since 19~8, we have been informed of the poor conditions of the Rivanna Reservoir with only piecemeal information indicating what causes the deterioration. We are aware, however, that in other areas such as Fairfax County,-u~banization has contributed to the contamination of water supplies. In addition, we are aware, based upon reports by the ~Federal Government and the State Water Control Board, that agricultural endeavor is the major source of sedimentation. We are also aware that the 'atmoSphere and precipitation through the ~ .~ water cycle C~ntaminates~water~supp!y. ~e are'~'re ~hat c~rtain soils react to water and other soil ~yp~s~produeing. contami~nat~0n element.s~..but~ we died not know specifics of our problem here in this d?ainage bas,in with ~th~ except.i~n~'~f, some "point sources." What contamin- ation that ~a's taken PlaC~in thi's, watershed has been goi~g On without the benefit of urban development per se,-at l~ast"ii'wi~th~n this watershed. However, knowing that intensive urban development does contribute gr~eat!y, it'w~ould b'e~wise to evaluate this water supp!~y in the state it is now in, wi.thout furtherLintrusioa b~ pollutants of any kind. The Planning Department a~vises y~.u that any moratorium established be unifor.m in application~" Tucker: Two pages were attache~"~ t~s memo. Z' will be happy to go over these if you wish Wheeler: It might be wise if you. go.o~th~ sub,divisions that are included so-everyone is aware of what you are talking about in'the wate~'shed~. Tucker: "This watershed encompasses a drainage area of 258.5 square miles. Within this drainage area, all the White Hall Magisterial Distri~ct ~s located, all the Jack Jouett District, 80% of the Samuel Miller District, one-third of the Charlottesville District, and a very small part of the Rivanna Magisterial District. The areas of most.activity, relative to development, are the "The major subdivisions located within this drainage basin are listed below: Bedford Hills Richfield Clover Hill Little Clover Hill Ardwood Arbor Park Clearview Clearview Knolls Fairgrove Clearview Meadows Hickory Ridge Farm Buck Mountain Mechum Banks West Leigh ?lordon Farmington Colthurst Hessian Hills Montvue Meriwether Hills Glenaire Whispering Pines Ivy Woods Peacock Hill Clover Farms Mountainview Skyline Crest Westover Hills Laurel Hills Park View Brookwood Corville Farms Blue Ridge Acres The following is a list of urban developments in the watershed: Old Salem Apartments Hessian Hills Apartments (Part) Georg.etown Square The Woods - duplexes The following is a list of developments for which building permits have been issued for apartment and townhouse type density, but for which construction has not started: Four Seasons West (Georgetown Woods) 120 units - townhouses and apartments (Permits issued for 12) The following represents development which is now pending before the County for approvals for apartments-tmwnhouse type density: Panorama, 154 units - townhouses The following is a list of existing industrial activities within the watershed: Teledyne Morton Frozen Foods Murray Manufacturing Acme Visible Records, Inc. Greenwood Chemical Company Within this drainage area, there are a total of three sources of water supply. Outside the immediate Urban area containing this drainage basin, there has been a sizable amount of two-plus acre type development. Within the urban area of this drainage basin the following projects have developed over the last ten years: Georgetown Square The Woods Old Salem Apartments Georgetown Green Natural. siltation has been taking place since the construction of the Rivanna ('Reservoir) to the tune of displacing 19.6 million gallons annually (as recorded by Pulglaza and Basenberg, Engineers for the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir). The major portion of the South Fork watershed is on the Piedmont Plateau. Approximately 61.2% of the land is in forest or woodland, and 3.0% is in subdivisions and urban development. The balance~:sbeing used for pasture, orchard and cultivation in field crops. Approximately 35.5% of the land has a slope steeper tha~ 15% and approximately 11% has a slope of 7 to 15%. It has been estimated by the engineers charged with preparing the report and ... of construction of the impoundment on the South Fork,that the rate of siltation,based on the slope and the land used at that time,in the drainage area, would result in the silting in of the reservoir on the South Fork to the tune of 7.5 million gallons per 100 square miles per year, or the loss of capacity due to silting action ~could be approximately 19.6 million gallons per year. The storage capacity of the South Fork Reservoir is approximately 1,760,000 gallons; additional capacity is available with flash gates." Fisher: Is not that last figure supposed to be one billion, seven hundred, sixty million? (1,760,000,000)? Tucker: Yes, I think that is the record. Wheeler: Mr. Carr. I might ask if you have comments to make and then if you would recognize members of the Planning Commission. Carr: I do not have any prepared comments for the Commission. The Commission met, at your request, several nights ago to discuss the issue before you tonight. There was no concensus. There was no vote taken by the Commission. The individual comments of the Commission were requested to be put before you. I believe that they have been. There are certain members of the Commission present that might speak for themselves. I do not speak for them. As Chairman of the Commission there are those on the Commission who. feel definitely that a curtailment of activity, as far as development and~maybe other activities are concerned, must be made until this Study is complete. There are other members of the Commission that have serious reservations about a moratorium, how it might be applied, whether it can be applied equitably, whether or not it is a solution, even on a temporary basis, to our problem. There_~is no question that the Commission, over a period of two years, has been dedicated to the prese~tion of this water supply. We recognize this must be done. There are several points which I would like to make which may be part of this discussion. I believe the Commission, and I, sincerely feel that at some point in time, the City and the County need to acquire appropriate lands in the immediate vicinity of the impOundment. The Commission further feels, and I wholeheartedly agree, that the various ordinances now on the books of Albemarle County need to be carefully, thoroughly, and rigidly enforced. I believe that the Soil Erosion Ordinance, which this Board of Supervisors approved effective August 1, is a good ordinance. I believe that properly ad~in~s, tered, and followed through, that it can provide many safeguards for this reservoir. Now as an individual citizen, from a business judgment standpoint, if we are to have this survey of this water impountment, and we should have that, I think we ~eed to curtail the ~.~tivity there, until we get the benefits of this survey. I think that makes good business sense and after all this is the business we~are in and that water is business. As a citizen again, not speaking for the Commission, I think all that is required at this time is to curtail high density development in the immediate area of this body of water. I do not believe the ~ County wants to attempt to enforce all the activity that may be generating impurities into that water, such as spraying orchards, farming, etc. If we are to curtail some activities such as farming, orchards, and other act~±t~es too numerous to'mention, they will be put out of business. This moratorium, in my personal judgment, has to be one that only speaks to the immediate reservoir. I believe that is all that is necessary at ~this point in time. After we have the study, we may ~earn that more stringent conditions need to be~ placed on all activities in this watershed. Mr. Easter ~ e~ ~ ~~ ~^~ w~ l~ab~e to attend. 8-6-?5 2i'E Peter Easter: I am going to speak as an individual on the Planning Commission. There is one thing that the Commission is solely in agreement on. That is their concern for the preservation of this water supply. It is a dollars and cents situation for this county. It has a lot of other ramif±cations as well. This watershed needs protection. It is the only reservoir I have ever seen in the country, in a suburban or urban area, that does not have protection. I think a ten-foot border around this impoundment is absurb. I am concerned about the cost of this study. Our taxes in this County have increased tremendously, and I think they are getting to be a substantial burden on every citizen. We cannot afford to be spending $145,000 for this study and do something that will detract from the results of the study; something that we cannot reverse if the study suggests that something needs to be reversed. One of the members of the Planning Commission, last evening, suggested that these consultants be invited to this moratorium ~£~mssion to see if their experience would give the Planning Commission, and the Boarc any further insight as to the severity of this situation. I am also concerned about individual property rights. Without compensation, I cannot support any plan that is going to take something away from the individual that is rightfully his. I am further concerned about the construction economy, not only in our community, but the whole state. Any sort of moratorium that ~woutd take one-third of our county out of the realm of being able to use it, build on it, or make improvements, would be putting an important industry in our community in a serious situation. Another point that needs to be kept in mind is that the particular development that is in question, and brought this to a head, will put a small percentage of pollutants into the reservoir. It is a very small portion of ths watershed. I would like to re-enforce Mr. Carr's comments that enforcemenv of the new legislation will mean a great deal in helping this situation. I agree with him that the only practical way to limit development is in the immediate reservoir area and then only high density development. However, I"think the individuals involved deserve compensation. Jack Rinehart: A month ago, I would have welcomed the moratorium because there did not seem to be a more positive way. I think we are here tonight and ~hat we realize this is a critical issue. Now, I think we can look at it another way. The other night, while reviewing the Panorama project, a young engineer from Pitman Associates convinced me that it is possible to handle ~torm water runbff. After all our real probl~em at-the reservoir is storm water runoff. It is a matter of filtering it. I feel that the more positive approach to this problem, versus a moratorium- is to set design criteria, performance criteria that developers, or farmers, or anyone who takes the earth and changes its character - has to comply with. Each criteria would be very stringent at first. These criteria would protect the reservoir or anything that our consultants think could be causing the problem. Later, they could be eased and it may come back to just good soil erosion practices. I think it is well within engineering capabilities. I have heard a lot about this one project which flows directly into the watershed. Then I started thinking of projects back up stream that feed into it and compound the issue. I think it is possible, within a month, to set criteria farmers, with the help of Soil Conservation Service and other farm bureams, us for farming near the direct runoffs; how far back they can plow, what kind of soil erosion practices they execute at extreme watersheds. This would tell ~h~r~ a lot of top soil washes into the urban runoffs, where a developer is required to put a sediment tank, and the filtration systems necessary, and if not, post bonds and then have that runoff tested. I think an approach like this would have to come with assistance of engineers and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as to what water th'ey would accept into the reservoir. This is a positive approach. It may no~ be economical for a developer to build these things, bu~ it is his choice and if he has a valuable piece of ~and, he will. But this is a positive approach rather than a negative approach where you just stop everything. I think this deserves oareful inspection. Wheeler: Mr. Carr, I would like to ask a question. In the Comprehensive Plan, there are a number of potential sources of water listed throughout the County. Was considera'tion given to those areas in the Planning Commission's work on th~ new zoning ordinance and map which has just been presented to the Board of Supervisors? Carr: Yes, but I do not believe it is that positive. In the initial presentation, water impound- ments were a matter of concern. We moved to conservation and other zoning. ~ The?~i~a~na~Reserv~±r~was ~ama~or~.~co~cern as we~m~ved to down-zone property within that area to conservation. The Commission became aware that the public had serious reservations about some of the proposals, especially, ~down- zoning of property. The Commission, in its reevaluation, not at the pleasure of all members, moved from any down-zoning of land in the area of the Rivanna Reservoir toward a more effective site plan ordinance and soil erosion ordinance. In certain areas, which I cannot define for you here, where there are future water supplies, the Commission does propose conservation. I suggest that those water supplies are in good shape for the moment. The staff may be prepared to elaborate on that question. That is a sketchy history Of the Commission's evaluation of the problem. Joan Graves: I want you to know you have my full support if you impose a moratorium. The 2a,000 people in the City and the 8,000 people in the County who are captive mmers of the water supply need to be protected. Their rates need to be reasonable. I know that the cost of studies, the cost of controls~ and the cost of a new water supply will be reflected by those rates. I am concerned that they are kept reasonable and that this water supply be kept viable. George Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Author±t~: I will not go through the existing reports and review data that is available on the reservoir and the tributary area. I think you all have been kept abreast of that in the past. The Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority did, at their last meeting, pass a resolution which recommended that any development within the area proceed with extreme caution during the period between now and whsn the study which is under, way is successfully completed. As you know, the study was recently authorized. It will be a !4-month study and is presently proceeding. The firm of Betz Environmental Engineers, who was selected to do the study, is in town and three of the representatives are here tonight. We will let them speak to give you some idea of the objectives of the study, how they intend to go about it, and what some of their experiences have been in similar situations. Dr. Frank Brown is the project director ~the study. He is accompanied by Mr. John Groshen and Miss Ethel Hisle. This is the first trip that the firm has made to Charlott~sville~since selected. This is a mobilization trip. Do not expect them to have report results at this time. Wheeler: Several members of this Board and of City Council, at the time this study of the Reservoir and the watershed was proposed, assumed another study would be made to look into alternate sources of water for this area. W~at is happening at that stage? Williams: There is one specific area that several of the engineering reports have recommended be looked into as a supplemental source for the Charlottesville-Albemarle urban area. The study of that specific area, in the Buck Mountain area, will be a part of th~s study to determine its quality and quantity. Toward the end of the study, we intend to implement what is a more serious search, hopefully, for a supplemental source. Considerable efforv on the part of everyone concerned- the individual, the farmer, the developer, the builder, the industrial man-wil~ be needed before the eutrophic trend of this reservoir can be reversed so it can be preserved as a source of water for this community. I think it behooves all of us to strive in that direction for ecomonics if for no 8-6-75 Wheeler: I am leery of these studies. I read in the paper several days ago that one county had to borrow money to carry on the study. They got into one study, then two studies, three studies, four studies, and are going to have a fifth study. I want to know if this study just encompasses the area around the reservoir or if it covers the entire watershed. Williams: The study encompasses the South Rivanna Reservoir and its tributaries, which is the entire drainage area of the South Rivanna River. Wheeler: Fourteen or 151~months from now, are you going to be before the Board of Supervisors and City Council asking for another study? area. Williams: No. The study, as prepared by the ad-hoc Committee, is to cover the entire drainage There will be no reason ~o~do anything else. Henley: I would like to know where you were employed before you came here. Williams: I was previously employed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Henley: What type of work were you doing? Williams: Sanitary Engineer. Henley: In this type of job, did you see any indication that high density development was a big contributing factor to other reservoirs? Williams: It depends. It is a situation where it does not necessarily have to be, but it can be. If you have the necessary precautions and controls, you can have a compatible situation. It is not always the easi'est thing to do. But it can happen. It takes a cautious look at each and every one Of them. Thacker: You may wish to refer this question to the consultants. We have seen figures of 14 months for this study. Does this include the complete study as well as the report and recommendations on necessary corrective actions? Williams: I will refer that to Dr. Brown. Wood: I want to make surge that 14 months is adequate time to do the study and if a moratorium is imposed, is it possible that it could be done (the study) in less time? Williams: It would be better to have one of the consultants answer that question~ Dr. Frank Brown: Betz Environmental Engineers. I-wod~ld like to explain to you what the study is all about, the time frame, and what we expect to do. Firs~ we~wi~!~l evaluate the reservoir to find out the present ecological condit±ons; h-ow eutrophic it is. From looking at the eutrophy, we will know how much sedimentation has occurred over the last 10 years; how much (the reservoir) is filling up. By surveying the streams~leadingi~into and out of the reservoir, we will try to find the major sources of sediments and nutrients. Once this is done - based on existing conditions without any major changes from today - ~ we can reasonably predict the projected life of the reservoir. We will be able to predict, within~ reason, if the eutrophication will come to a steady stage, whether it will become worse, or if added copper sulfate or other things are needed for control. By look±ng at about 25 different stations ~11 ·~] through the watershed, we will be able to correlate,~w±th ~and~'use, where the major sources are coming from. Basically, this will be on a weekly sampling program. We will then have 52 pieces o~ dry, or wet, weather data. Every week-we will be taking samples in the streams. Also, we will · monitor the flow in streams so we can correlate the concentration and flow to get pounds per day ~ entering the reservoir (actual loadings). There will be five permanent gauging stations to measure the daily flow. We will also taking samples eight or 10 times during the year after rains. The~ streams the last few days have been very muddy. The 25 permanent stations will be expanded during rains in order to get small, temporary creeks which are not present during regular flows. Differen~ types of residential development will be tested, also agricultural uses and forest lands. Based on all of this data, we can look at existing land use conditions and make recomme~at~ons. We may recommend improved water treatment, expansion of treatment plants/°~etter management by use of chemicals. We may recommend that instead of treating the water in the reservoir, that the land be~ treated. We might also recommend changes in application of fertilizers or that the land be altered in the sense of crop rotation. We will try to find solutions that are acceptable~ clinically,~ economically, and to the public. We expect to explain to different civic groups what we are 'doi~g and explain the results. First we get the purely technical data, then try' for a viable solution for existing conditions. When we have finished, much of the data will be put into a computer. The computer will give a picture of the whole watershed. In the future, any development brought before the Planning Commission for approval can be run through the computer to calculate its impact on the reservoir. Any questions? Henley: I would like to know your experience in doing these studies with some examples of past studies. Brown: We recently completed one for the Environmental Protection Agency on~Lak~Eri~. We are doing "Pres Kyle" Bay looking at the actual organic materials cnming in'~from~industries and municipalities and nutrients. We are also looking at the chemistry and biology of the bay itself.. This is for the Federal Government and is a 12-month study. In the past, I have done two or three lakes in Florida. This was pretty much the same type study. Henley: Have you done it a water supply for a locality? Most of them were just for recreational purposes. One lake was probably used for water Brown: supply. Thacker: I would like an answer to my question concerning the time frame. Brown: We expect to do field sampling for twelve months staring in September. We will be setting up a mobile laboratory at the water treatment plant at the end of this month. As we proceed, we will be constantly analyzing data. We feel that in the first six to eight months we will see a trend and we will be able to start writing up what we. find in the sense of land use. At the end of the 12 months, we will have two months to do the computer correlations and computer programs and come up with some results. A lot of the computer data will be written during the first ten months and at that time, we will start working out some preliminaries. Wheeler: In the last seven or eight years;~ I~'~h/a~e iistened to a lot of experts in connection with this reservoir. I have heard about three particular troublespots; 1) high density around the reservoir 2) farming and activities related to farming in the watershed; and 3) the situation at Crozet where we do not have adequate sewage facilities and there are commercial plants. Experts have been &rguing back and forth for seven years on the Crozet area. I understand now that we are going back and do the very thing that we started to do seven years ago. I get leery of experts who argue back and forth, waste seven years of time, and cost this county, the citizens of this area, and citizens of the country, all kinds of money. Any number of people in this room, and sitting at this Board table have argued on both sides. Now we are talking about a moratorium for this area. Is it more important to have a moratorium on building around the reservoir, a moratorium on farming, or a moratorium in Crozet? Do I hear any comments on that? Browne: We cannot say what the real problem areas are at this time. Maybe twelve months from now, I can give you the answer to that question. We have .to do this Study. Wheeler: Evidently you have not heard the experts who state the reservoir is in terrible shape. Browne: I have heard them. If you go to a doctor and he says you are in terrible shape, you ask how terrible? How long do I have? Am I going to die today or in fifty years? It makes a difference. When you talk about eutrophication, it is like saying you are sick. Well, how sick are you? Henley: I think you gave a pretty good answer. Are you going to take into consideration that in the last half a dozen years, we have had two, two-hundred year floods? Do you take that into consideration as far as the sedimentation is concerned? Browne: We look into that. Henley: Maybe the problem is not going to be as bad for the next ten years as it has been for the last six because of the exeessive flooding. Browne: We would agree. Henley: Do you try to go back and get some records? Browne: Yes, we will. The first thing we will do is measure the bottom contour of the lake and compare that with the original designed con~our. We will come up with an annual average rate of sedimentation. Then, we will go back and see if there was any year that might have caused 30% of that average. The first thing we will do is complete the survey. Wheeler: I do not know tk I do not think you do either an Ronatd Conner, Regional D~ We have been to Albemarle Coun~ e answer to what should be done about this problem, if anything. d I think that is what you said. rector, Lexington Regional Office, State Health Department: y several times talking about the problems at the reservoir. We are concerned because it is a vital water supply to the City of Charlottesville, if the City is to continue to grow. We have expressed this concern many tises. There have been numerous problems with the water supply; taste.and odor, gas bubbles in the~reservo±r upstream, algae growth and everything else. This problem has occurred across the state in several locations where there is high density development and pollution sources upstream. ~In letters to you, we have indicated that the Environmental Prntection Agency is concerned about th~ status of the water supply and that there should be a study made t0 determine exactly the cond±tion of the reservoir. ~ Also, to determine the sources that are causing these problems. We recently wrote a letter to the Planning Commission for an application on the reservoir. We inspected this site. It is on a high bluff overlooking the reservoir. A development of that type creates problems b~cause the controls you (Albemarle County) have to p~t on such a development to prevent it from caus~ stringent. Since it is on a high bluff, any rainfall is The question is how you control this type of development; siltation is a real problem as far as we are concerned si of the reservoir. We are glad the Water and Sewer Author the reservoir to determine its (true) state. Until that proceed cautiously with any development on the reservo±r, at any location in the watershed. Wheeler: Do you think that adequate (safeguards) or Conner: Here again, as Dr. Browne has pointed out, type of density; the type of septic system or central sew. reservoir. As far as we are concerned, I t~hink you are t Wheeler: What if it is handled on an individual bas[ Conner: We are particularly concerned about any deve As you get further away, I think you may be able to work c ng problems in the reservoir, have to be ioing to get into the reservoir quickly. control the nutrients that run off. The .ce it takes away from the storage volume ty has commissioned a study to be made on .etarminati~n is made, I think we must also with any ~ype of proposed development Thacker: In the past we have received information im tributary to the reservoir, but lying toward the outer pe~ as many pollutants, or eutrophication, as a development located immediately adjacent. comment on that; whether or not this is correct? controls can be placed on development? t depends on the type of development; the ge system; and how close it is to the lking about an individual, case basis. s? lopment onthe reservoir~shore property. ut some measures which are satisfactory. dicating that development on a major imeter of the watershed, could contribute Could you Conner: If you are talking about a city the size of Charlottesville being located on one of those tributaries, you could have a problem. If you are talking about limiting the development there, you might not have as much of a problem. But, if ~ffluent gets into that reservoir from any septic system or sewer system, it could be just as bad a problem as if it were in the reservoir itself. Wheeler: You are well aware of the situation going on in Crozet? Conner: I am aware of that. We had hoped that the s been implemented by now. As you indicated, seven years is Henley: You say that development can occur if you ha and So forth. Do you know of any locality in the State, w whatever you need for development, have been used that we Conner: I wish ! could give you an answer to that. tudy previously prepared, would have a long time to put up with the same thing. ye the proper restrictions and controls here Self-controls or standards or ~ould use? know that we have a problem up in Fairfax Henl~: In other words we do not h~ve anything that we can apply to a certain development and be assured that it is going to take care of the problem. Conner: That is right. Fisher: We have a letter from the Department of Health, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, which says,'(excerpt from letter dated July 2~, 1975, signed by Steven M. Young, Assistant Regional Engineer, and addressed to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Assistant Director of Planning) "It is the desire of this Department to prohibit any new development along the South Rivanna Reservoir, at least until the results of the reservoir study have been finalized." Can you define the word "along"? Conner: As I have indicated before, along the reservoir's shore property. That is what we are referring to in that letter. We are not saying that you cannot allow some development in the watershed, but it would have to be carefully controlled. We are principally concerned the closer you get to that water supply intake. If anything happens, you people are going to be the ones drinking the water. We get plenty of compliants in our office about it; taste and odor. We have not had ~y for a while now, but when it happens, the people at Water Supply hear it and then we hear about it. Bradley Chewning, Director, Valley Regional Office, State Water Control Board: "We would first like to take the opportunity to commend the Board of Supervisors for thei~ foresight and interest in addressing the problem of water quality in the Rivanna Watershed at a time when affirmative action will be effective. "As you are aware, the State Water Control Board is vitally concerned with main- taining the water quality in the Commonwealth. One important aspect of water quality manangement is the protection of public water supplies, such as the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. We, as do the Board of Supervisors, believe the main- tenance of the surface waters of central Albemarle County as a water supply is extremely vital. "Land use patterns do have significant effect on water quality. It is our opinion that the reservoir can~be~fully protected only if intelligent land use practices are maintained in the watershed. We commend the Board for taking the initiative in this area since it is primarily a local problem. An effective land use program in the watershed that will not stifle economic development and concurrently will protect the reservoir can only come about by local, and I stress, local planning and zoning. We believe that such planning and zoning efforts can accomplish the desired results only if they are based on a firm knowledge of the hydraulic and physical characteristics of the watershed. We do, however, support the idea of some interim restriction on land use pending the completion of the reservoir study that is currently underway. Certain restric- tions, and enforcement of such restrictions would provide protection for the reservoir until sufficient facts are obtained on which to base your future planning and zoning decisions. "We have been asked by this Board to comment on the current condition of the reservoir. While we know that water_quality of the reservoir has deteriorated, there is not enough data available on which to base a true assessment of existing reservoir water quality~ The recently commissioned study ~s designed to provide that information. "Regarding the ~ffects of guture development on the watershed, we basically see two categories of development. One would be building immediately adjacent to the reservoir; the other would be building in the watershed but not physically near the reservoir. "Unfortunately, there is not enough known about the system to allow specific comments to be made regarding development in the watershed in general. Since same wastes carried in tributaries are subject to reduction by natural Pm~ification in streams, it would be extremely difficult to predict effects of additional development without first knowing the background conditions that represent total present inputs to the reservoir. Again, this data is at present not available. "The situation regarding development immediately adjacent to the reservoir is a bit clearer because, in this location, anything 'that is dropped, spilled or eroded from the site will enter the reservoir directly and is therefore undesirable. This would include all storm runoff and may carry such loads as domestic trash and general debris, pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum products, silt, snow melti~g'~ahemicats, and many other pollutants. "The physical and aesthetic effects of most of these inputs, trash for example, can be appreciated without an actual ~ata base. Others, such as nutrient and various chemical inputs must await the completion of studies to assess their long-term~effects. I refer here primarily to inputs originating in the reservoir watershed distant from the reservoir. There is no doubt that inputs from immediately adjacent land should be prevented. "There are several approaches to prevent or minimize the adverse effects development may have on th~ reservoir--these would include: 1. Imposition of limitations on population dansity and minimum lot sizes on areas adjacent to the reservoir or contributing streams. This is not to say of course, all low density is better than high density development. Low density development without proper~con- trols can create problems. 2. Imposition of an ant~-clearing policy. This would limit the ramoval of natural vegetation to the immediate site of the unit under construction. 3. Impose and enforce erosion and sediment control practices for 8-6-?3 slopes and soils or land that is easi~ly'.:erod~Uile. The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and Albemarle County's own erosion and sediment control ordinance will surely be relevant and helpful hare, but you may find that additional controls are desirable. Establish a sizable buffer zone around the reservoir and disallow all development or construction within this area. Fairfax County, for example, has developed~.some of the land adjacent to the Occoquan Reservoir as public parks. Once the study is complete and results are available, establish a master land use plan for the watershed that. is compatible with all necessary or desired growth and the protection of the reservoir. There is no reason that both desired growth and protection of your water supply can't be both accomplished with proper planning. "Again, we would like to commend the Board of Supervisors for their timely interest in this matter. The State Water Control Board will continue its active interest in this matter; however, a vital facet of the overall program is effective and informed planning on the local level." I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present this statement and if there are any questions, I will be glad to answer them. Fisher: You said~.something about hav~ing an adequate buffer zone around the reservoir. This is something that I think has been a question in the mind of a number of people for a long time. Are there any guidelines available-for areas with slopes such as we have,to be used for setback distances for developments, or other soil disturbing activities? Chewning: I am not aware of any specific guidelines that say how far it should go back. I think, personally, what I know about it; the area of the slopes directly run off of should be a buffer zone. Fisher: Is fifty feet an adequate buffer zone? Ch~wning: I think this can be conditioned on the slope percentage, the erodibl6 (character) of the soils and various (factors). As a general rule of thumb, any slope that drains directly to the reservoir, should be part of the buffer zone. Fisher: Ail the~.way to the top off'the ridge line? Chewning: If it immediately drains to the reservoir. A general rule of thumb is that what you are asking about? I think you have to look at each case individually and what precautions are being taken there to prevent erosion. What methods are (utilized) to catch runoffs. Henley: Is there any rough formula on how much distance it takes for a stream to purify itself from sewage; depending on the amount of sewage. Chewning: There is a model that you can use to determine the purification factor. lot of other chemicals that do not necessarily purify themselves. There are a Henley: Like detergents? Chewning: I was thinking about things like pesticides or nutrients such as phorphorous and nitrogen. They are not necessarily broken down. Henley: Mr. Chewning referred to the Crozet sewage problem. We have~-got the finest kind up there. I do not think we have any pesticides and so forth in it. I was just wondering if it did not purify a lot of itself before it got to the reservoir. Chewning: I am not familiar with the distance involved to Crozet, but a lot Of the organic matter can be broken down into stable forms. Henley: I think they are playing it up a little bigger than what it (actually) is at Crozet. Robert Humphris: I represent the Albemarle County Taxpayers. We have conducted a poll, in conjunction with two other organizations in the County, on the condition or situation at the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. I would like to report the results of this poll. Two weeks ago we gave you a copy of the newsletter that was sent out to these three organziatio~; the Albemarle County TaxPayers, the Citizens for Albemarle, and the Civic League of Charlottesville-Albemarle County. This news- letter was a compilation of facts put together by members of these organizations to determine at the time the existing condition of the reservoir. The first questions reads: "Are you for or against the proposal to call a halt to all land development around the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir until the recommendations of the study are known?" We had a total return of 513 ballots; 91% were for the moratorium, 7% were against it, and 2% had no opinion. The second question read: Wheeler: Let me ask a question. Did you ask about the area right around the reservoir? Humphris: The question read "call a halt to all land development around the reservoir." We are not trying to tie any distance at all because we:are not qualified to do that. We just want to call a halt to development which Wheeler: What did these people vote on? Did they vote on the area right around the reservoir or did they vote on the entire watershed? Humphris: They are not voting on any area. They are leaving that up to you'. are not experts, but we think that something should be done. We certainly Wheeler: I am just trying to get the exact que.stion they were asked. Humphris: I read you the question. I gave you a copy of it. Wheeler: You said around the reservoir.. Tn nnt ~.hna ,,~h~ ~ .~,.~=o~ ....... o _20 8-6-?5 Wheeler: I would assume if I was answering that (question), that it would mean around the reservoir. That would not be up at Crozet. Humphris: I see your point. judgment over what the opinion is. Let me put it that way. You will have to take this and read it and make your own But, 91% of the people feel that something should be done. Wheeler: That sounds better. Humphris: The second question reads: "Are you for or against the proposal that the Board of Supervisors enact reservoir protection or conservation type zoning around the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to protect this public water supply?" Of the total 513 votes, 92% were for, 7% against, a~d 1% no opinion. I hope you Will accept this in the spirit in which it is given. It is an attempt to communicate some feelings of some concerned citizens of Albemarle County to the Board to act as a feedback media. Bill Gentry, Public Affairs Committee, Charlottesville-Albemarle Board of Realtors. letter from our President, Christopher A. Georges, a copy of which you have in hand. "August 6, i975 I have a Mr. Gordon Wheeler, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia Dear Mr. Chairman: .'~he Charlottesville/Albemarle Board of Realtors would like to present as a matter of record, the following statement of its concerns relating to the Reservoir Moratorium under consideration. The Realtors are concerned with anything that relates to the quality of living for the people of our area...and the Reservoir and its problems of pollution is one of our concerns, too.. However, we feel that a great deal of emotion and politics have found their way into the picture. Since facts relating to the Reservoir are~ few, we would like for you to consider several vital questions in arriving at a decision on this matter for the people of Albemarle County. (1) Do you have sufficient information to justify a moratorium on development that is so broad? We note that preliminary reports tend to indicate that Agriculture, Forests and certain industries are the major contributors to R±vanna Reservoir pollution. We have not seen facts to prove that development is a serious factor in this problem. After spending s~me $149',000 for the study, and if it conforms to the preliminary study, what then? When you spend taxpayers' money, it seems to us they are entitled to know what they will receive for that money. (2) Since the Reservoir is in fact city property, it seems a little unusual that the concern of the County should be so much greater than that of the city. The reaffirmation of the City's earlier resolution concerning the Reservoir considered only the land immediately around the lake. The city has more at stake than the County in that it is watering two to three times the number of people in the CounTy who receive water from this impoundment. (3) Have you considered the state of the building industry? Think of the citizens of this county who are already out of work because of a recession-induced sickness in the building industry. A moratorium probably would further adversely affect this ~R industry. Simply put...more people out of work...more problems for the County. And, you are not even reasonably certain that development is a major factor in the pollution,f (4) A 14-month moratorium, which undoubtedly would be extended to two years or more, will certainly depreciate land ~alues in that area. When land values decrease, so do taxes. Are you prepared to deal with this problem...and where will the revenues needed to make up this possible tax loss come from? Conceivably you would simply choose to raise tax rates and let the rest of the County pay for this moratorium. (5) There are other issued which come to mind such as the financial liability of the County Government in the case of What may be an '!induced depreciation" of an individual's property. When the government denies the property owner the right to make particular use of ~his property it has "taken his property" The Realtors sincerely hope t~at this issue will not b~ further immersed in politics by those seeking County 6ffice. We trust a concerted effort will be ~ade to ignore special interest groups who might seize on the opportunity to inject speculation i~to She consideration to achieve their objectives. We recommend that you postpone a decision on a far-reaching moratorium until al~ the people of this County have had time to consider the possibilities." Frances Martin: "Citizens for A.!bemarle urges the Board of Supervisors to adopt a moratorium on intensive or high density development to protect the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir until completion of the study now under way by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. As most~x~st~ng high density zoning in the watershed is close to the reservoir, we feel that the original proposal of the area between Routes 659, 631, and 743 would meet immediate need, but we do not oppose inclusion of a larger area ~or legal reasons. We do not feel that a total moratorium on all building in the entire watershed is necessary, but if that is the only means of protecting th~ reservoir acceptable to the Board, we do not oppose such a measure in view of the urgent need for some action now. "There has been talk of protecting the reservoir by setting up guidelines and criteria for site plan control. Such guidelines would necessarily be complex and require vigilant and active enforcement. To date the County has had limited success in enforcement of such measures as erosion control for a number of reasons, including lack of staff and poor cooperation from the ~* ...... ~~ ~ ~~ers nor the County staff possess experience 22i have before you~tonight a letter from an experie~ced~soi-t' conservationist, listing the array of ma~y measures that would be essential to minimize danger to the reservoir on one site now slated for high density development. As you can see, these measures would require competent engineering and continuous monitoring to be of any value at all. "There have also been claims that high density residential development would not-pollute the reservoir because its present state is largely the fault of the farmers. Such claims fail to take into account the impact on the reservoir of recent interstate highway construction as well as a ~great deal of irresponsible land development that has already occurred, especially on Ivy Creek. Moreover, experience of other communities shows that urbanization drastically changes a watershed: in Montgomery County, Maryland, when 15% of the watershed was developed into garden apartments and townhouses, sediment discharges increased 1400% as a result of this construction. Storm water from urban a~eaa~arries heavy metals, trace chemicals, asbestos particles from roofs and roadways, and particles of miscellaneous debris. It also contains high concentrations of nutrients like phosphorous and nitrogen attached to the particles of dirt that trigger rapid multiplication or "blooms" of algae in streams or reservoirs. The State-Health Department has repeatedly expressed its opposition to new development along the South Rivanna Reservoir, at least until the study is finalized. And of course, it is the consumer or taxpayer, not the developer, who ends up paying the cost of cleaning up the water or replacing the source. "We feel sure the evidence placed before the Board tonight demonstrates the urgent need for action, and that such action will be taken by our elected officials." Leroy Bruton, Vice~President, Economic Development Commission (Chamber of Commerce): The Charlottesville-Albemarle County Chamber of Commerce urges the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to present a formal proposal in regards to the moratorium o~ building permits and controls on agricultural and industry in the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir, t~an~give the businesses and residents of the Charlottesville-Albemarle area an opportunity to study and comment on the proposal. To rush into a 14-month complete moratorium for one-third of the County could prove to have a dramatic economic impact on the area. At this point, no one can say exactly how this will affect employment. However, you would have to at least add to the unemployment of Albemarle County. With the several proposals mentioned in the news, the residents are uncervain of exactly how widespread and extensive the moratorium will be. A change to review the proposal would not only gain acceptance, but would result in a better ordinance. Werner Hausler, architect and planner: I would like to speak for controlled development in this sensitive area. We have been involved with a number of such projects. I do not want to get into any of those particular situations. My real purpose this evening is to introduce to you some gentlemen from Hittman Associates, Mr. Dwight Emerson and Mr. Mike Neurochey, whose credentials I will present to the Boar~. They are a professional firm dealing with environmental management and engineering and have drawn many E.P.A. guidelines regarding these matters. Dwight Emerson: In a large part, what I am going to say is going to depend on our credibility as a firm and what we have been doing in the area of storm water management, waste water treatment, sediment, erosion, and pollution control, for the last eight years. I brought along some of the work that we have done for the Environmental Protection Agency, for the Department of Interior, and other Federal Agencies, as well as state and local agencies regarding these matters. I will start by saying that for three years, Hittman Associates monitored the development of the new community of Columbia, Maryland. We looked at what the storm water runoff characteristics would be from developing moderate and high density housing in what was formerly a wooded and agricultural area. Our reports deal with guidelines for erosion and sediment control planning and implementation; processes, procedures and methods of controlling pollution resulting from all construction activities; approaches to storm water management.~ the beneficial uses of storm water; and considerable other studies made with your taxpayers money. I would like to say that the Federal Government has looked very carefu~ly!~a~'~th~se activities for the last ten years. They are cognizant of the fact that there is a som~ime$~a~?conflict between water supply protection and land use. They also recognize that technology is now available to control storm water, in many cases, to the degree necessary to protect water supplies. There have been other studies done by the Environmental Protection Agency with regard to. the water pollution aspects of street surface contaminants. Unfortunately, studies of this natur$ and issues of ~this ~nature, quickly get into the technical area. When you start talking about specific pollutants in water suppl±es, people arc,naturally concerned about the water they drink and how it is going to affect them. The City of New Orleans recently was shocked by the incidence of chemicals in the Mississippi River which tree. carcinogenic in nature. There is also a need to recognize that not all land uses res~t in ~he degradation of water ~uality to the extent that the water cannot be consumed by people. When you talk about land us~e control and watershed management, you are talking about types of land use end. types of controls~necessary for that land use to insure that the runoff from that land will not degrade water resources. I am familiar with some of the work that Betz Engineering has done. I am confident that the study they will perform, and the results from that study, will be helpful in making a decision as to the quality of the reservoir now; what the quality of the reservoir will be if all development in the drainage area is halted; and what the quality of the w~ater will be if all development in the reservoir area if NOT halted. It is beyond my imagination that anything of that magnitude would significantly affect the results of the study, given that any development in that watershed would have to undergo approval by this Board, or Planning Board. As a citizen of Columbia, Maryland, I was concerned about the development of that city and it.~ effect on the water quality and the environment in general. I came to work for this Company close to the initiation of that study ~he Fede~a!~ern- ~e~t~inanced. We looked at several of the important quality parameters associated in this area with residential housing, both high density and moderate density housing. The results of that study indicated that the technology is available to treat the st°r~a~r~nea~ricu~t~r~r~land and forest site to the degree that is necessary to protect the ~._~ ~ur svumy ~mnmmn~s~are. ' technology is available to control sediment, other nutrients, oth~er~pollutants, from construction activities and also from residential areas once construction has been completed. It makes sense to me to look at proposed land use~projects; agricultural, residenvial, commercial, and whether pollutants that come from those projects would be harmful to you in your water supply. The several studies in which the Federal Governmenv has spent literally millions of dollars to look at that question are not conclusive one way or the other. That is the reason you have experts speaking on both sides. They do agree that if you monitor and can characterize the storm water from the site, there is evidence'~hat the water that left your site is not a factor in degrading the water quality. As a citizen here or anywhere, I would support the recommendation that water coming from a proposed development be monitored and those parameters that have been identified in t~e several studies that usua't~y come from that type of development, be included in the criteria to be mon±tored along with some assurance that the discharge from that site would meet~th~criteria established. Water resources need to be protected,~but the question is: do you need to prahibit all construction to protect the water resource? Technology is available to protect the water. It falls o~ the developer to provide the~treatment to provide that assurance. 222 Emerson: The two most common types of nutrient factors associated with algae growth are phosphates and nitrates. The predominant source of those chemicals is fertilizer. Ability and technology to remove those chemicals is used in sewage treatment plants and in some cases for storm water runoff. The technology could require PH adjustment, coagulation sedimentation; treatment technology which is complex in nature~ It appears, to me, that if nutrients are a positive agent, a 'severe criteria should be established. Some assurance should be provided that those criteria can be met. The Board shouId determine what is acceptable in terms of what is acceptable in terms of protecting the quality of the reservoir and what they would have to do to assure those criteria standards. Fisher: What you have described is a sewage treatment plant designed to remove nutrients from storm water runoff. Probably, because that facility would not be able to handle a huge volume you would need a holding tank of some nature to accumulate storm water runoff in order to treat it at a lower-rate and discharge it into the reservoir down stream. Emerson: No, I am not saying that in all instances. I refer again to our study of Columbia, Maryland, where we monitored nitrates and phospates from was formerly an agricultural area and specifically looked at large lawn areas were a lot of fertilization was taking place. The increase in nitrates and phosphates from the runoff of that drainage area of approximately 40 acres was small;~__ the phosphates wen~ from .002 milligrams per liter to ~003 milligrams per liter. Some of the data I have seen on your reservoir shows concentrations of .009 milligrams per liter. I would say you do not need a wastewater treatment plant at every site. Wastewater treatment plants have traditionally concerned themselves with biological material; material that consumes oxygen. Most of the water that drains from residential areas does not contain the biological materials that sewage does, The degree of treatment required for organic removal is not that severe. Fisher: Let me ask one more question. Who do you represent? Emerson: Hittman Associates. Fisher: Who do they represent? Emerson: We have been engaged by Clover Realty to look at what protective measures are available to protect the drainage from a site they anticipate developing. What techniques and methods can be utilized,, what practices can be employed to prevent the amount of water that runs off of their proposed development and to estimate the cost of that activity. Henley: You said the major source of nitrates and phosphates is fertilizer? Emerson: In our studies we have found that f~r resident'ial~-.and agricultural uses, the primary source of those two nutrients is from the application of fertilizers. ~enley: How can you determine this? needs nitrates and phosphates. I guess you would agree that most everything that grows Emerson: That is correct. Henley: How do you determine what comes from fertilizer and what comes from up on the mountain?' Emerson: In the study that we did, we looked at it prior to construction and then after construction when people where living there. Kathy Gilman, League.~of Women Voters of Charlottesville & Albemarle County: "The League has long been concerned about the deteriorating condition of the Reservoir, and until the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's study is completed and its results used to formulate regulations necessary to protect this vital vital water supply, we support a moratorium on intensive development in the watershed. We urge you to seek expert advice from the State Health Department or other sources to help you determine the bouUdaries and extent of the moratorium that are necessary to protect the Reservoir. Should you decide to allow some types Of construction in this area, we urge you to adopt careful site plan control over any building permits issued to insure erosion control. Finally, we hope that when the study is completed you will be prepared to work with the CitN Council and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to implement the recommendations of the consulting firm. Then when development takes p}ace it can be regulated with assurance that the Reservoir will be properly protected." Col. Carroll Smith: I know that Mr. (John) Smart has already given you some recommendations in reference to the moratorium, however, I feel someone should say something in defense of the farmer this evening. The fact is that most of the folks who said agriculture is causing a large portion of the pollution of the reservoir, used the term agriculture and very few used the term farming. I happen to be familiar with the Ivy Creek area because I did work out there in 1937-39 with the soil~erosion service and that was at that time the worst eruded section of the United States. There were gulleys in that area which would hidden this whole courthouse. After we finished this 22,000 acre project, that was in fact the garden spot of Virginia and real estate values out there reflected that. The term agriculture, on the basis of zoning, is Ohe ~f~the'largest culprits, but not farming as such. Most of the farmers in that area use fine soil erosion techniquesi~taught to them many years ago; contour stripping, crop rotation, heavy vegetation in areas subject to erosion. This gentlemen from Hittman Associates has just verified what I was going to give you. that in his study of Columbia, Maryland, .they determined that the phosph~ag~s and nutrients were coming from fertilizers, but he did not say whether they were coming from erosion or just plain runoff. We have determined from our own studies by the Farm Bureau that the majority of phosphates and nitrogen which runs off, runs off with some red a~ay, sand, and other erosive materials. When you fertilize an area, the ingredients immediately attach themselves to soils and they in fact~ become part of that material. In order to wash these out, you have to wash out the soil. We have searched this County and found that the worst erosion we can find is not on a farm, but on agriculture zoned land in the hands of a developer which has been pregraded ready for selling to a building and which in the meantime is washing away. I have brought a few pictur~tonight to show that point and they are available for the Board's viewing. Darlene Samsell: I am a resident of the County and have no direct concern with the reservoir. I took a thorough tour of the sewage treatment plant on Moor6's Creek that serves the City of Charlottesville; this several years ago. In looking over the structure and the method of treating .... ~ ~ ~m ~w~s and other t~Des of sewers were one in the same. I 8-6-75 223 storms instead of the overflow including raw sewage. The_ supervisor said the water from storm sewers is also filty and he would not like to see the two ever separated. I trespassed on land between the S.P.C.A. road and the reservoir itself and I saw land no one would build on. Common sense only, not a $149,000 study or expert advise from consultants , is necessary to show that this is a piece of rock where vegetation has been able to gain a foothole in cracks and crevices over a number of years. If this vegetation is removed for human activity, thousands of dollars of soil will have to be brought in to make anything grow there. There is no reason to worry about phos- phates, nitrates or sedimentation runoff. A 200 foot buffer strip sounds fairly good, but the fact of the matter is, that there are only rocks and almost perpendicular slopes to the reservoir. Ail ~of the rest of the land slopes into a creek that goes into the-reservoir. I submit that high density development on land like this is a mistake. The zoning on this land was a mistake in the first pla~.e,;- It is a mistake to continue that zoning and a mistake not to place a moratorium on development in areas like this until proper zoning can be instituted. Bedford Moore:~ I would like to s'supplement the report given earlier this evening on the 500 citizens who responded vo the poll (Humphris) reported. I recall to you the petition that was signed last winter when considering the Evergreen matter. In just a few weeks time, some 1700 citizens of the City and County signed a petition which was presented to you. I have in hand tonight an additional 98 names that have come in since that meeting on January 22 and I will add those to the record. 78 are County residents. (Handed in petitions) [~I will recall the language which points to the concerns voiced this evening regarding the reservoir in general and not only to the immediate effects of the moratorium. I believe in September you will be taking up the new Zoning Ordinance and the two things are interlocking. The moratorium, the study and zoning in a permanent sense to protect the Reservoir. The language of the petition is: "Because the water supply of 30,000 people, inclUding 8,800 citizens of the County and 14 subdivisions, depends upon the already endangered Rivanna Reservoir, we, the under- signed residents of both City and County, most earnestly petition the Albemarle Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to heed and honor the recent, unanimous request of the Charlottesville City Council: (1) to halt immediately approv±ng any further development around the Reservoir, until the current study of the Reservoir can be completed; and (2) as soon as possible, to create a special conservation district (perhaps I should turn to Mr. Carr because this really is directed to him as well as you gentlemen of the Board in your respective capacities) around the entire reservoir for its protection, with whatever down-zoning and compensation might be necessary for the general good." It is disappointing that with all the weekl.y labors of the Planning Commission that this new (zoning) ordinance coming in is not going to give us a conservation zone at-the Reservoir because it is interlocking with this tonight. Mitchell Van Yahres: I am a member of City Council. I appear to tonight to present the actual resolution that was passed in November of 1974. We reaffirmed this resolution Monday night by unanimous vote. I will not go through all ~the normal "whereas" phrases. I will read just the resolved part: "RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, that we again earnestly request the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County to consider fully all lawful means within their powers to prevent intensive and potentially detrimental development of property in the area surrounding the Rivanna Reservoir, including without limitation the imposition of zoning and site plan moratoria, the creation of a special conservation district or the "down" zoning of parcels presently zoned to allow high density development, and urge them to adopt sUch measures as will best safeguard this vital community resource. That, as a minimum such potentially harmful development should be delayed until the afore- mentioned study can be completed, or other data gathered which would permit an accurage assessment of the impact of such development upon the Reservoir." Randy Wade, Vice-President, Blue Ridge Home Builders' Association: I represent that trade association which represents 50+ businesses in this area; home builders, allied associations and employee~ Many of these employees drink this same water whic~ we are discussing here tonight. It has become a matter of priorities. We are concerned with the water, but then comes the question of our livelihood. We want you to know the impact a moratorium would have upon this livelihood. We feel a moratorium would be a discrimination against one industry, an infringement against individual property owners rights. If you find it necessary to place such a moratorium, we would have no choice but to seek litigation to have such a moratorium lifted. We do not feel it is in our best intersts, or your best interests, to spe~d the time, the money and th~o~lnc~rgies necessary to do this. We ask that you find some other means to~mething about something~th~ave~ such a~r'a~_ma~ effect upon our industry. Kathy Tompkins: President, Woodbrook Community Association: on construction around the South Rivanna Reservoir: Statement regarding a moratorium "As users of the water from the South Rivanna Reservoir, we are vitally concerned about preservation of the reservoir and support a temporary moratorium on construction in the watershed. In view of the stake we have in preserving this most important source of water for the community and the investment we have in the s~udy which is about to begin, a moratorium seems both logical and vitally necessary. It seems unthinkable that the basic concept Of a halt to construction in the watershed for the duration of the study would be rejected by the Board. What needs to be decided is the exact land area and types of development which will be included in a moratorium. We feel very strongly that all development in close proximity to the reservoir should cease for the duration of the study. There seems to be some difference of opinion amount the environmental experts as to Whether it is necessary to put a stop to low density building (i.e., lot sizes of two acres or greater) in the far reaches of the watershed; but it is agreed that as development occurs closer to the reservoir, there is less chance for control of pollutants entering the reservOir from points along its tributaries close to where the water starts to pool. (As I listen to Colonel Smith and Mr. Tucker's long list of subdivision in the watershed, I feel it reinforces this point.) We feel that the reasonable solution would b'e for the Board to take advantage of the ~ive- mile ju~-isdiction Of protection ©f the reservoir allowed it in~'~Virginia Code 15.1-292 to halt all ~w construction close to the reservoir. In addition, we feel that large scale or intensive development farther out in the watershed also needs to be controlled. The Woodbrook Cormmun~tv A~son~t~om ~dom~ ~h~ fr~'~'~r~^r'~o- ~a~a~m~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8-6-75 'As users of water from the South Rivanna Reservoir, residents of Woodbrook urge the-Board of Supervisors to go to the greatest lengths that are~reasonable and allowed by law to protect the reservoir from further pollution until the study is completed. We request the Board to consider a moratorium on all building in that area of the watershed which falls within a five-mile radiums of the backwater pool of the reservoir, and, in addition, a moratorium on intensive development, including large subdivisions, in the remaining part of the watershed.' We leave the details of attaching the proper zoning classifica~ions and legal terminology to the Board ~nd hope that the philosophy of this proposal will be incorporated into the moratorium as it takes final form." E. E. Thompson, Jr., Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority: behalf of the Board of Directors: Statement on "One of the primary responsibilities of the Albemarle County Service Authority is to provide potable drinking water to our customers in those areas that we have been delegated juris- diction. We are concerned over the possibility of the Rivanna Reservoir being rendered useless as a ~aw water supply due to pollution and we support the efforts of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's test to determine the continual availability of the source. We are not, however, qualified to make recommendations on the protection necessary to safe- guard this impoundment. A moratorium on building would only alleviate those pollutants concerned with construction that would empty into the Rivanna Reservoir and we have been advised that the Soi!~Erosion Ordinance strictly enforced Would also alleviate those particular pollutants associated with construction. A moratorium that would disallow any building within the watershed would drastically affect permanent financing that the Albemarle County Service Authority will be seeking prior to the results of the study to be conducted. Maybe, with proper enforcement of the Soil Erosion Ordinance, the best interest of the Reservoir wo~ld be served, as well as the interests of all concerned. Since it is our responsibility to serve the request of all applicants within our juris- dictional area, we would regret the necessity of the County to enter into a moratorium in any designated area. However, if it is the conclusion of the Board of Supervisors that such a moratorium is deemed necessary, the Albemarle County Service Authority will make every effort to meet its responsibility to all customers." Mike Neurochy, Hitman Associates: I would like to summarize how we got involved in a moratorium. A couple of weeks ago we got a call from an architect-planner and they asked if we knew anything about controlling runoff from a construction activity. We said yes and came down to find out the problem. At that time,it concerned a dev~lOpment of approximately 30 acres on~the~b'anks of the reservoir. We have walked the site. Based on this one site, we came up with certain criteria~for use before the reservoir study is completed. F±rst~ findoout~what.~.wi!! happen during construction. We have conceptually designed some controls and proposed standards to use which, at this time, are cleaner than the U.S. Public Health Service standards for drinking water. I think that with good controls, good engineering judgment and good inspection and concern on the part of everyone involved that we can meet just about drinking water standards coming off of a constr~ation site. Basically, I think the technology is there to do it. Gerald Fisher: What do you propose to do about the long range effects of storm water and who will be responsible for operating the system and upgrading it if monitoring shows ~hat it is not adequate and it was degrading the reservoir? The liability for that,I, presume, must ultimately fall on the purchasers of the townhouses. Neuroch~: Our study was mainly involved with insuring that this would not happen. We recognize that it would so we continue the monitoring program that we set up after construction. We costed it ou~ and after this if pollution controls are required this was not part of the study. From your leading question, it obviously would have to be the~townhouse owners. What exactly would be required would depend on the degradation that takes place. Fisher: You are saying it is reasonable to assume that construction can go forward with monitor±rig which is the form of an experiment? If it doesn't work, what happens? Neurochy: We have set stringent limits. would stop at that time. If those limit~ are not met, obviously construction Thacker: It would be a little late. Terry Schnitman: Concerned resident. I have lived in Albemarle for eight years and for seven years there have been reports about the condition of the reservoir and how it is deteriorating rapidly and would exist for about one-half of its planned lifetime. I have been a member of the League of Women Voters and Citizens for Albemarle. There are erosion control ordinance~in the County, but if you drive north on Route 29 and a lot of other roads in the County,- there are vast areas bf land which have been stripped for construction and have remained vacant with no planting on them for seven or eight years. The prob~.m seems to be that the or~dinances are there, but for various reasons they are not enforced. I am concerned about the actual, practical Situation that would occur if building is allowed in the vicinity of the reservoir. There are communities in New York State, and other states, in particular, the Jamesville Reservoir which is outside of Syracuse, New York, where recreation is allowed in a large reservoir which is used to supply to the City of Syracuse. The population there is about 125,000 people. About !0 years ago, there was no building allowed around the reservoir although it was allowed for swimming and other, types of recreational use. Here, you have Sugar Hollow Reservoir and Beaver Creek and Albemarle Lake, which are water impoundments, and I don't see any sign of building going on around those. I do not know the regulations are governing the boundaries of those particular water impoundments, but if there are zoning regulations which keep building from occuring around them, I do not see why they cannot~ be applied to the Rivanna Reservoir. I think a boundary larger than 10 feet needs to be applied to the Ri~anna. technicaZ Mahlon Kelly, Aquatic Biologist. I served on the ad-hoc/committee that drafted the request for a proposal for the study. I would like to make two comments. First, the Environmental Protection administration during the last three years has undertaken an extensive study of all major lakes in the United States as to the stages of eutrophication. F.ive lakes were studied in Virginia, including the Rivanna Reservoir. By t~h~±.r~indices, the Rivanna Reservoir was judged to be the second most eutrophi% lake which they studied; the Occoquan Reservoir being the most eutrophic. I am sure we~ are all fami~ar with the studies and expenses required by the Occoquan Reservoir. Th~pre!iminarily conclude 8-5-?5 225 to the sediments and once they are in the water they are released by the sediments. This means that sediment control is tied in olose!y with phosphate control. Urban development, when it is at a distance from a water course leading to a reservoir, usually results in the water flowing off that development passing through the soil with subSequent loss of the' pollutant, phosphate. It enters the sci!~ just as it enters the soil in good farming practice (did not say agricultural,:-bu~ f'a~m~ng) and it does not usually pose a problem. If the phosphate enters a water course leading to a reservoir or the reservoir itself, it becomes immediately available to the organisms that cause problems in the reservoir. We do not, at this time, know the extent to Which this is occuring i~:the Rivanna Reservoir. We do know that the pounds per day from a ~-~re, latively limited number of samples coming into the Rivanna Reserv~±r from the Mechums River, draining the Crozet area, an urban and industrial area, is approximately ten times that from all the other tributaries to the reservoir. These were from a prelZminary study. I ~do not know if the major study will bear this out. One can conclude that if a moratorium is put on one area, the banks of the water courses leading into the reservoir should be protected. But, the like- lihood of damage or pollution from areas distant from a water course is much less, especially with good septic systems and go-od drainage field plan~ing and good farming practices. Therefore, it seems to me the question is not just one of the reservoir itself but the reservoir and the water courses that within 12 to 15 hours time dump their water into the reservoir. Secondly, in regard to the various comments made in regard to treatment of water co~ puts out a series of request~/~roposal~relating t( major topics treated this year and for the past methodS for treating non-point source urban runo] copt and remove Phospates from non-point source agency considers unresolved. Also, studies in S~ Canondagua; Lake Wanapasoci; Squam Lake in New H~ urbanization leads to excess~ fertilizer input on1 then runs off as surface runoff and that you haw the numbers quoted by the gentlemen:'; from Hitman runoff even though those numbers are in fraction~ him incorrectly) in a very high increase. There urban runoff in any economically feasible manner precipitate phosphates. It is economically, extl essentially building a coffer dam around your on1 one individual area,designing a holding pond thai and then processing it chemically (not biolOgica_- treatment) in order to maintain a low phosphate requesting permission to develop, willing to inw during the period of study? ~ ~ Satty~U~h'omas: The Thomas Jefferson Planni~ and~o~ a--~eed last night to a rough outl-' "The Planning District Commission is very City and County and Fluvanna. Our Water Ql that have been used tonight and in some ct! that City/County growth, industries, and p the County has before ~t which produces mcr around the City therefore produces more gr this reservoir. In terms off'general livin~ else particularly appreciate a reservoir d, reservoir would be a stinking marsh and wo' siltation is reducing capacity by eight pel suggested, if capacity is reduced to a poi] used for water consumption and nothing is that will be required in the waste treatme a matter of grave concern to City and Coun as far down as Fluvanna which i~of course Commission helped in a small way to get th, be a worthwhile study and not deal with th, comment I would make is as I am sure you h~ possible. I urge you not to be mislead by together and then declare the whole mish~m~ to absur~ lengths is an old trick invading amendments. It is a well~known trick in o~ those tricks in this serious deliberation. that citizens should be aware of the impli, of various decisions you might make tonigh' exception; the impl~aation of going the ro~ brought out at the Albemarle Planning Comm: may be considerable and the County should cost they are willing to assume. Likewise treating the water if the monitoring bring~ treatment is required of the urban runoff, it assure homeowners that they know this c~ ling off 'of an urbanized area. Every year, the E.P.A. subjects whmch at the present~qnmanageabte. One of the our years in their requests for proposals, have been 'f. I fail to see how anyone can tell us--~we can inter- ~rban areas if indeed this is still a topic the Federal ~attle, Washington; Long Island; New York City; Lake ~mpshire; Lake Mendotta in Wisconsin; have all show, that ;o lawns., it leads to pets and excrement from pets that a sizable increase in concentrations. I noticed that Associates involved a thousand fold increase in phosphat~ ~ and in micro~rams, it still resulted (unless I heard 'ore, I fai~ow we can be advised that we can treat Yes, Zt is possible to intercept the runoff and 'aordinarily expensive to do so.because it means ;ire reservoir area, channelling all the runoff into ; will retain the water during high ~unoff periods .ly, but with a heavily regulated chemical processing ~oncentration. Are any of the developers who are ~s.t in that level for the protection of the reservoir ig District Commission was requested to make a statement _ne of the statement which follows: rtance of the Reservoir to the Plan produced some of the figures scut the reserv0~r. We realize ~r0posed zoning ordinance that urban development in the ring ~hich is provided with water from ae district, we, nor would anyone and eutrophication. Such a leasant to have any where. If aich your Planning Commission staff ~ater in the reservoir must be n then the degree of treatment ~m from the reservoir will become ~11 the quality of the water perhaps District. The Planning District ad of course we would like it to lready been damaged. (A~personal ~es: Politics i~ the art of the mix. the possible and the impossible ~le. Carrying aTpra~tical suggestion ~actical suggestion, impractical auld hope that you do not fall for ~strict Commission has an objective ~ decisions and the implication ad out to ~ou perhaps with one ~oring on urban runoff. As was ~e cost of doing this monitoring to go that route if this is a the cost of deYelop;ing standards and the cost of about a situation where a very expensive type of is the County willing to assume this cost or will )st m~y be toomi~g on the horizon?~ ~ware of the impo ~a~ity Management ~er discussions a ~rticularly with~ ? opportunity for )wth in the area ~ conditions in t ~ad of Siltation ~ld not be very p ?cent, already, w ~t where all the ~oing over the da ~t plant downstre ;y taxpayers as w in our Planning study started a area that has a ve heard many ti those who try to ish to be impossi' , adding onto a p ~r Congress. ! w The Planning D ation of p~a~nin have been point .to of doing moni Lesion meeting, t iecide if they ar Jack Camblos: I think this is another inet;anco of increased government control. As a basic principle we ought to try to avoid increased gow~rnment control waere~er we can. Perhaps this is absolutely necessary, ~ht unless it is, I th~nk ~t should be avoided. At the risk of boringuyou gentlemen, I will remind you that you have arranged to provide perhaps the best pollution that this reservoir has by providing that every drop of wa~er that falls onto City garbage is going into this lake from your landfill[ I th~nk you should giv~ this matter careful consideration from'the stand- point that it is just additional government and ~nless it is absolutely demonstrated that we have to have it then we should not have it. Ann?: I am a resident of the County. Man moratorium. ] do not think this is the conclusi is not in favor of clean, unpolluted water, howe' a moratorium in a high density development is th people here tonAght have equated clean water with the ~n to draw. There is no one in Albemarle County that ~er, there are so~e serious questions as to whether means to accomplish this goa~. First, there is the question of effectiveness. Will such a morato~i'~m really have a significant effect on stopping the pollution?~; Is high density~development the prim.~ry cause of pollution? There appears to be no con- ¢lu~'ive e.:~idence to this effect. There is stronl evidence that a~ricultural runoff a~d spillage of raw sewage are primar~-.~'causes. Yet, the propose~ moratorium contains no proposals to'control these factors during the next 1'5 months. Further, thele is a ~uestion ~f whether such a limited moratorium i~ legal and will be upheld in a court of taw.iflchallenged. In ~iew of the ~uestionable effectiveness and legality of the~ moratorium,I.do not think it~is the correct sptuti0n at .this time. Instead, proper soil erosion an.d site-plan controls should be enforced on all activities, whether it be high density or ~._~?~i~d~elopm?nt, or a~ricult~e...When t~e study is completed, you can then attack the proven 226 Wen'~d',el:l Wood~ You ha~e heard, a lo't of' op~nion's tonight',. I do, not think you have heard anything that says development cannot'occur in the reservoir (area.). I think this whole thing was brought about by the same element that.has been in thi's County. They are determined that this County is not going to grow. Until they can put gates on every road leading into this County they are not going to be satisfied,_ You have not had one bit of information tonight that said development will hurt this reservoir. None. A lot of people have stretched the point trying to get to that, but there has been no factual evidence by any State, Federal organization that says development will hurt this reservoir. To the contrary, the only experts here tonight have given you concrete evidence that you can develop to the extent that the water runoff from this particular ddevelopment that seems to have brought all this to a head, the water quality will be purer than the water that is in the reservoir. I do not envy your position. You have a political football on your hands. You have the same 50 no-growth people who are trying to take over the County. They send out questionnaires. That is like going against motherhood. I cannoti~imagine that seven percent of the people would say something like that. You cannot put a lot of faith in s-omitting like that, it is a disguise. Zt is a no~-growth movement in disguise. They cannot stop it the other way and now they want to come out and start attacking our drinking water. It is my drinking water too. It is a political football, but I think you have a job to go beyond that and get the facts and base your determination2of what you are going to do on the fact~ presented to you. -' ~ony Iachetta: I have to admit that I could not resist Mr. Gentry's invitation to inject some politics. When you come right down to it, local government is politics. Politics are involved in trying to decide what is best for the community as a whole~, including those who are in the building business, the engineering business, the real estate business and~nM~'other business you chose to look at. I have heard some technical expertise expressed here this evening. I am not an expert in erosion control or water supplies. I am a technologist however.~and have taught for 21 years. We never have enough information. Technologists never have any absolute values to work from. By and large he has good fundamental information which he has to extrapolate. In some cases you can afford to extrapolate and you do not get into trouble if it works out badly. We are dealing here with a case where if the extrapolate in one direction and it w~s out badly, we end up having to build a new reservoir. If we take the more prudent course and at least wait until we get some facts about the state of the reservoir & the sources of potential harm then you might be able to decide if you will allow Wendell to do what he wants to do, or allow any of these others. If I were put in a spot like you are in right now, with the?information as I see it, I would at least have to support a moratorium back to (Route) 660. I have not had time to analyze beyond that point what comes from where. The 277 square miles that George St. John suggested was a bit startling to me when I first read it and I have not had a chance to look at that carefully. My thought is that Route 660 is a minimum distance point you have to go to try to assure that there are no changes in the reservoir during the study period. He~ley: I think some people have taken credit for something I did. Mr. Fisher, in his first resolution, included the small area that you mentioned. I asked Mr. St. John if he would draw up another proposal that included the whole watershed with R-2 and higher density. That is how that ~ame about. I did not want George to get all the credit. Whee!er~ The public hearing portion of this is closed. We have received some letters: John A. Smart, Ellen Craddock, William A. Perkins, Jr. and G. C. Gentry. This matter is now before the Board. Mr. Fisher .presented a motion to the Board several weeks ago and action on that motion was deferred. It is only fair that Mr. Fisher be recognized if he would like to again present his resolution. Thacker: May I suggest that we take a brief recess before we get into that? Wheeler: (At 10:10 P.M. the Chairman called for a recess. continued with the discussion of the reservoir.) When the Board reconvened,they Wheeler: I would like to make a couple of remarks before the Board continues along in the decision making process. There have been a number of comments about the ordinances in Albemarle County and the enforcement of those ordinances. I want you (the public) to understand that first of all the citizens of this county'- are human beings and errors are made. Our staff and the men who enforce the ordinances are human ~beings and when the violators do not use corrective measures they are often brought before the judges and they are human beings. We have a number of cases which are in these pictures (shown by Col. Smith) and some others have spoken about tonight that are in our courts. Not always do the courts agree; not always do they punish the violators; not always do they agree with the county's ordinances. I will give~..an example of State Troopers out on the highways who arrest everyone going 70 miles per hour, bring them to the judges, and the judges do not convict everyone they bring in. That is what happens to us in trying to enforce our ordinances. We are not always right. The violators are not always right. We have to work together the best way we can. We try for perfection' but we do not always get perfection. We want to enforce the ordinances. We insist that our inspectors enforce the ordinances and when they are not carried out, they g.o to the courts. Once they get to court, if the courts do not rule in our favor, we appeal or we stop. There is a certain process that has to be carried out and we have to abide by the laws of the land. I just w~nt to remind you that the citizens of this county are human beings and they do make errors. Mr. Fisher. Fisher: In 1971 the Board of Supervisors adopted a Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Since that time, the Albemarle Planning Commission has been working on a revised zoning ordinance to conform or be used for implementing that Comprehensive Plan. It took a longer period of time than either I or the Planning Commission expected to complete the ordinance. In June of this year we were presented with a revised zoning ordinance and zoning map which did not address either the problems of high density zoning around the reservoir by suggesting any downzoning of that or by providing any form of special control for deveZopment of that area. We have before us a zoning map that in this instance indicates no change~ It does not comply with the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. Shortly, thereafter, we are presented with a series of proposals ~or densities of approximately (before and .after that) six units per acre on the borders of the-reservoir. For the first of those proposals, the question Of storm water runoff was discussed at length.. Mr. Bailey, the County Engineer, responded to a question from~Mr. Thackerin-.talking about the quelstion of impounding and treating storm water runoff by responding that-"~it~isymore of a'problem than I ca.n just .off-hand tackle. I don't know just what would be required~ The treatment that would be of any concern to the reservoir for removal of nutrients and that is rather elaborate and expensive treatments" We have letters.f Mr. ~ii~eorge Williams of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority said about the same subject, "there is a question a little while ago that Mr. Bailey was discussing as to 'is there any effective way to control and treat urban runoff for nutrient removal'." He says "I frankly know of no practical means to do that. I have never seen it accomplished unless just treated for sedimentation, but not for nutrient removal." We had a series of letters at that time. One from Mr. Steven Young of the State Department of Health, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, that spoke to the question of protecting the reservoir from urban development on its border. We had a letter from Mr. M. D. Phillips of the 8-6-?5 .... 227 With that advise and beginning on a study of the impac~'°f all forms of activity in the County, I presented to the Board on the 17th of July a resolution that stated: WHEREAS, the South Rivanna River Reservoir is a resource of great value to the people of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County iS concerned about the continued viability of the said WHEREAS, the Board has been residential development adjacent diminution of the utility thereoJ WHEREAS, there is a substanl immediate drainage basin of the ~ the adoption of the County's Com~ therewith; and WHEREAS, the Rivanna Sewer study of the South Rivanna River urban development adjacent there1 ~eservoir; and presented with substantial evidence that high density to the said Reservoir is likely to result in the and of its chan~es for continued viability; and ial amount of high density residential zoning in the .aid Reservoir, which zoning was established prior to ,rehensive Plan~in 1971 and is in direct conflict Lnd Water Authority has proposed that a comprehensive Reservoir be undertaken to determine the effects of ~o on the quality of water Contained therein; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAIn[ED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that no building permit shall be issued for any development in the immediate drainage basin of the South Rivanna River Reservoir until such time as the Rivanna Sewer and Water Authority shall have determined the effect of such development on the said Reservoir. For purposes of this ordinance, the term "immediate drainage basin of the said Reservoir" shall be deemed to include all that portion of the County bordered on the west and north by the South Rivanna River Reservoir; on the south by State Route 631; on the west by State Route 743; and on the east by State Route 659. An emergency being found to exist, this ordinance shall take effect immediately. Subsequent to that time, the Bureau of. Sanitary Engineering ha~ provided us with another letter, which has not been read tonight but talks about storm water runoff, the many pollutants which could be detrimental to the quality of the water in the reservoir, a parcel of land to be developed which is characterized by steep slopes (this combination of steep slopes and close proximity to the South Rivanna Reservoir would probably increase the detrimental effects of storm water runoff. Plans indicate that several sewage pumping stations-will be required to pump sewage to the Meadow Creek Sewage system. Malfunction of sewage pumping stations represents a very serious potential source of contamination for the reservoir.) Further on in the letter '!this Department of is the opinon that development.~such as the proposed Panorama Townhouse development would indeed be detrimental to the South Rivanna Reservoir. It should be emphasized that all storm water runoff would discharge directly into streams that feed the Reservoir. It is the desire of this Department to prbhibit any new development alongth~e South Rivanna Reservoir, at least until the results of the R~servoir study have been finalized." With this information, I move adoption of the ordinance as read. Wheeler: Before I ask for a second, could I have Mr. Tucker~identify these lines for the Board? Tucker: Idenvified boundaries on a map. Wheeler: That small area? Tucker: Yes. Wheeler: You ha~e a motion presented. Do I hear a second? Henley: I will second the motion. Thacker: I will start. I am concerned that with the limited informatio~ we have that we are facing a moratorium as a final step. The moratorium would continue ~for at least fourteen months, possibly even longer. There is no question that everyone setting at this table, as well as everyone in this romm and everyone within the City and County are vitally concerned about the Reservoir. Perhaps before we vote for a moratorium because it might be pol~ally expedient, that it would behoove us to investigate this matter further. I do not think this is a decision to delay this. This is a decision that has to be made~-~and made promptly. With this in mind, I would like to offer a substitute motion~in the form of a resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County as follows~: (1) That a committee be, and the same hereby is, created for the purpose of formulating a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors concerning the control of development in the watershed of the South Rivanna River Reservoir; (By this I am encompassing the entire watershed rather than a limited area.) (2) That such recommendation shall include: (a) the formulation of guidelines under which development may be carried out i~ the said watershed; a proposed ordinance designed t.o apply such guidelines to such development. (3) That the committee shall return its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors within fourteen (14) days from the date hereof; (4) That the committee shall be composed of the following members: (a) a representative of the State Water Control Board (which is, I understand, required by law to provide advise)' (b) a arepresentative of the State Health Department ( I understand someone has agreed to serve in such capacity) (c) Dr. Lawrence Quar~es, Chairman, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 228 (e) David Cart, Chairman, Albemarle County Planning Commission (f) J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, Albemarle County (g) Guy Agnor, Director of Public Works, City of Charlottesville (5) That the County Engineer of Albemarle County be and hereby is authorized to employee such consultants as he deems necessary to expedite the formulation of the necessary standards and h~ shall act as Chairman of this committee; (6) No applications fbr.special permits, rezonin~', subdivisions, site plan reviews, soil erosion ordinance reviews, or building permits i~ the watershed of the South Ri~anna River Reservoir shall be accepted or acted upon by ~he County of Albemarle within the aforementioned fourteen (14) day period; (7) An emergency having been found to exist by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County this ordinance shall be effective immediately. As I indicated before, it is not my intent to d~tay this. It is my intent to be absolutely sure in which direction we are going. The people ~l~osed to comprise this committee are people with~-- technical expertise End vitally concerned, in many cases, with the welfare of both the City and the County. I realize that 14 days is a short period of time, but I think~we are facing a vital question and I feel this can b~ accomplished in ~4 days. It may be that such a committee cannot formulate these guidelines. I think we have heard evidence this evening that such guidelines can be formulated. The imposition of a moratorium for~an~.~x~ended perio~ of time has many ramifications. We have to consider the well-being of the community in every respect from the standpoint of providing water and the economy. This is certainly a situation that would drastically effect the economy of the community. I offer this resolution as a motion. Wheeler: Do I hear a second to this substitute? Wood: Tell me again the intent of the committee. Thacker: The intent is that a~committee be formed~.to~i, formuiate guidelines whereby construction could be allowed. It may well be that such a Committee cannot formulate such guidelines. This would in effect have the same effect as a temporary moratorium. Wood: My question would be, how is that addressing the true problem o'f getting into some type of holding pattern until the study is completed? How are we going to deal with the problem of possibly preempting the study? Thacker: As I envision this, we would hold for fourteen days until we get such a report. The committee may come back and say there is no way to safeguard the reservoir at whic~ time we would have to address the question. In the meantime, we have taken the time to investigate this. Wood: As I see the problems with the reservoir, and as I have heard stated here tonight, we know that the reservoir is in some state of deterioration. It is becoming more evident every day and as you (Wheeler) and I have known for the last seven years. It is time we recognized the state of the reservoir. This Board is on record as being committed to protecting the reservoir. The Board worked out with the City and Rivanna Authority a means by which the study would be made and paid for. Kn0~ing those facts, and the background that we have, tha~ we have to deal with the problem. I did not know about the 14 day resolution, but I did know about the resolution that Mr Fisher offered ~ I believe that if the problem is of the magnitude that it seems to be that we have to deal with it on a larger scale than Jerry has proposed. I am not convinced that we can go to the entire boundaries of the watershed but I think it has to be larger than the "immediate area". How to get to that, I do not have any suggestions, but I would like to go much further than Mr. Fisher's resolution. I do~ not think I can support the 14 day moratorium. That does not seem to be the move that will deal with the problem. I would like to vote for some moratorium th~i~would deal with tb~problem and can be defended in court on more sound legal ground than Mr. Fisher's resolution. Maybe it is in order for the legal department to ~e us some advice. Wheeler: Before that, we do have a substitute and motion and we should have a second..or the motion will die. I would like to make a few comments.' A lot has been said about politics and politicans. I can assure this Board that we have always faced up to things in a forthright manner. Anyone who presents a little deal like this (pointing to map) is going hunting with a water pistol. Let's cut the foolishness out. If I heard these people tonight, agricultural, the Crozet area, any number of things are deteriorating this reservoir. So you come in with a water pistol and you pick this little area right here. I say do nothing or go all the way. I think you are playing politics when you come in with foolishness like this. Y~u~don't'want to face up to the other because you know that is not politically sound. If I heard these people tonight, farming is just as detrimental as building a house. Do you want to stop farming? I do not want to stop farming. I want to try to do something sensible. I think what Mr~ Thacker is presenting is a holding pattern for 14 days and gett~n~ somefresponsible gentlemen from the community and the state to take a look at it and bring some guidelines. If we do not accept those guidelines, then we can go to any kind of a moratorium that we want to. Certainly, nothing is going'to happen in 14 days, Certainly, his (Thacke~) proposal makes some sense if we are going to tackle the problem. This does not make any sense at all and I say this is shooting with a water pistol. Fisher: A political water pistol. Wheele~: I don't care what it is, it still has no effect. with a loaded gun. If you are going hunting, go hunting Fisher: I musv respond to that. The only people we have who are trying to deal with the health, safety of the people of this community, who have come and spoken to us, have, talked about high density development along the reservoir. That is their word. Presumably they know more about this than you or I and they state that this should be prohibited until the results of the study are finalized. It is on that basis that I have proposed this. ~heeler: I think that one other gentlemen 'said he had monitored ~ Mechums River and mentioned what is coming out of that. I would like to remind the citizens of the County, Mr. Thompson of the Albemarle Service Authority, those members of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and its C~rman Lawrence Quarles and before him George Palmer, the number of times we went to Richmond and Washington to try to solve that problem there. I say again, some of the people tonight speaking for the moratorium and are p~esenting resolutions, are the very same people that have s~ed down our efforts for seven years to solve the problem out there. I am saying i~ you want to solve problems, let's solve them everywhere. Let's not pick on those (I will have to go to Mr. Wendell Wood's commenvs now),.~.let's face the "bite the bullet" kind that are not so popular in solving things. Ail of us 8-6-75 229 help then. I did not get it. That is why I state, why?shoot with a water pistol now? I think Mr. Thacker has a reasonable solution. Do we have a second to the motion? If not, we will move on to something else. Carwile: i will second the motion for purPoses of further discussion. (Mr. Thacker's substitute motion.) Henley: It is pretty evident to me that some~mem~ers of the ~Board are gun shy of this moratorium, but I have seen us put a moratorium on a development because there was $10,000 to $20,000 improvement needed for a road. Here we are talking about a multi-million dollar reservoir. I think you are getting your values mixed up. I think'development can be done around the reservoir, but I prefer to wait until the study is completed to see how this should be handled, to see if~zthere are proper controls so we can be assuredlthat it will not be further polluted. One of the two gentlemen who spoke for the developer said we need to monitor these developments to see what they are putting out. We have plently of them to monitor. That is what we are asking to do here. He also said that if this developar went in and started construction and they were polluting the reservoir, that you would stop construction. That is a big joke; to stop some¢~rom building after he has gotten started. Here we have not even started and I do not believe we can stop them. I am not the greate~ advocate of moratoriums, but I think this is one time we need to stop and give this thing a chance to be completed. I think it should be on the high density development and I~.~do not see any reason for not putting it on the whole watershed, tt might be just picking on that one particular area that is being talked about by Mr. Fisher, but still that is what we have been talking about all night; high density. would like to see it on the whole watershed as in this motion that I asked Mr. St. John to bring in. Wheeler: That is what I am getting to. If you are going to have a moratorium it should not be just on th~s little area. It should~be on the watershed and face up to it. You are not facing up to it with this little area. Z think it is diScriminatory. I think you have recognized that high density all up the line would be just as detrimental plus any of these other things I have stated. We have a substitute motion. Any further discussion? Thacker: I am not sure all the members of the Board picked this up, but the purpose of this substitute motion is to allow a committee composed of experts in this field to look at this thing. They may come back in two weeks and ~ay we need to apply a moratorium to the entire watershed. They may come back with some other recommendation. At least this will remove the emotionalism and the political aspects and that is basically the reasons for my proposal, to look at it in the cold hard light of facts hopefully. Fisher: I have no disagreement with trying to establish some type of controls to be used there. The ~lanning Commission and the Planning Staff have not proposed any and that is why we are here. Zf realistic controls can be developed in.14 days, I will be surprised.. If this is what you think~ should be done, I have no objection to that. What is the language of the paragraph dealing with applications and permits? What does this say to anything that may already be pending? Thacker: It speaks for itself. It says that "no application shall be accepted or acted upon." I do not'know if the Planning Staff has the expertise to address the problem of safeguards. I do~ not think anyone setting at this Board is qualified to address the question of s~'feguards. Fisher: Mr. Williams (George) are you willing to take on this task? George Williams: I am not familiar with the resolution. Henley: I do not think that is possible. Wood: I do not think you can do it in 14 days. Williams: I think that may be a short time. T.hacker: It may well be, but I hope to express the urgency of the situat~nn and it may be that the committee will come back and ask for an extension. If so, we could take it up at that time. Wheeler: I think we could face it at the end of 14 days. will h'ave a call of the roll. Any further discussion? If not, I Wood: I would like for Mr. Henley to state just what the intentions of the~second resolution drawn about the densities for the entire watershed so we know exactly what we are talking about. Wheeler: That resolution is not before us. Henley: I think the only difference is, Mr. Fisher in his first one said no development, and I said "intensive dev~lopment shall mean any development ~nich is not permitted under ~r~icte~ 2, 3, and 4 of the existing Albemarle County Ordinance." Thi~R-2 and higher. the Wood: That is/entire watershed? Henley: The whole watershed. Wood: That is the type of motion I would like to support. I think we need to deal with the Henley: I do not see how you will come up with anything in fourteen days. court, in two different courts, the County and Federal Court, on one. We are already in Wheeler: I can assure you that if you pass the first motion you will be in faster than that. Henley: If this 30 acres ge~ approved, there is ten times that much that is already zoned and they ~ill be back the next week ~f they want to come-in. I do nov see how you can do this. Wheeler: Well, this does put a hold on for 14 days. Carwile: Thacker~:~ meeting. When d.o we meet next? That is the reason for the 1~4 day-s, so it would come to us at regular third Thursday Carwile: I think at that time if nothing has been accomplished this Board' has the r. ight to further extend that moratorium. 23O 8-;~75 Henley: I still hate to see us do something that will take away'..from the results and the recommendations of this study we are having made. Wheeler: I don't think this will do it. This puts a hold on for 14 days. Henley: That is right, but I think if they do come up with soms guidelines, it will let the cat out of the bag. When you let it get started, I do not know how you will stop it. Thacker: This committee may come back and say there are no safeguards. Henley: I have found that these studies can come up with almost anything they want to. Wheeler: If there is no further dicussion, call the roll Miss Neher~on the substitute motion. AYES: Messrs. Gentile, Fisher, Henley(~t has gotten further than I thought it would get so Z will give it<another twirl for 14 days), Thacker~Wheeter and Wood. MAYS: None. Wheeler: Z would place this on our agenda for our meeting on Thursday, but I am not sure this should be on the day meeting. If this is to be on the agenda, it should on a night meeving; Thursda~ night at 7:30 P.M. It can be either the 20th or 21St. Henley: I would ~ather have it on the 20th. Thacker: I will offer motion to hear a report from the committee on Wednesday, August 20, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. Wood: I will second that motion. AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. At 1i:00 P.M. the Board took a two-m&nute recess. No. 2. Appointment: Welfare Board: Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to appoint Ms. Jane K. B±ltonen to t'~i:s Board. He stated that she has been very active in civic affairs, helped initiate the emergency food bank, has a nursing backgound, and has done fiel~the welfare area. ?(.This appo&nment ~as made for replacement of W. A. Pace, Jr.) Ms. Biltonen's term to be for four years and will expire on June 30, 1979. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker,Wheeler and Wood. None.' No. 2. Appointment - Charlottesville Transportation Restudy: Technical Committee. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to appoint Mr. Calvin Moyer as a member of this committee. He stated that Mr. Moyer is head of the transportation di~&on~.~of the Post Office located on Route 29 and head of their s~ety committee. (This appointment to replace. Mr. Fred Foster who ha~ declined appointment to this committee.) Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. No. 3. On motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Carwile;.minutes of the meetings of May 21, May 28 and June 4, 1975, were approved as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Not Docketed. Mr. Wheeler said he had an important matter dealing with personnel that he would like to discuss with the Board and he asked that this meeting be adjourned to the earliest date possible. Xt~tZ,::03 P.M. motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Thacker to adjourn this meeting until 4:00 P.M. on August 7, 1975, ~n the Board Room of the County Office Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. C ha irman 8-7-75 An adjourned meeting of the County Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 7, 1975, in the County Office Building Board Room, Charlottesville, Virginia, said meeting being adjourned from August 6, 1975. PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E; Fisher, J.T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler, and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. T.M. Batchelor, Jr., County Executive.