Loading...
1975-08-20N8-20-75 An adjourned meeting of the. County Board o.f Super¥isors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 20, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemar~le County Courthouse. Meeting was adjourned from August 18, 1975. PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, Joseph T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler, and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs.. T. M. Batchelo~, Jr., County Executive; Attorney, and Frederick-~w."'~a~ne, Deputy County Attorney. George.R. St. John, County Meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M. by Mr, Gordon L. Wheeler, Chairman, who made the following opening statemen~ "we notified you at thc last meeting that Mr. Lloyd Wood and Mr. Stuart Carwile had asked tke. Commonwealth's Att~rne~ Mr-, Charles Haugh~to render an opinion as to whether they have-a conflict-~f interest and~could~ or.a~uld'not vote on any ordinance per- taining to~,th~ ~es~r¥~r ..... M~r~.Helvin~ .aqt~iD~o~ Mr,'Haugh~ notified Mr. Carwile and Mr. Wood vha5 5ne~ .~ a con~±~c~ ~ m.n~-eress,.an~ cou±~ .no5 r-enaer the requested opinion. Since that time, Mr. Wood and Mr. Carwile and. Mr. St~. John asked the Attorney General of Virginia, Mr. Miller, to render his decision; he inturn has referred it back to the locality saying the local Commonwealth's Attorney had to'make that decision. At the request of Mr. Carwile and Mr. Wood, Mr. Brian Donato, o~ the firm ~Taylor, Michie & Callaghan, Mr. Donato is a substitute judge in the City, has rendered a verbal opinion to Mr. Carwile and Mr. Wood and they will be voting. The written opinion will be~filed as soon as received. Mr. Stuart F. Carwile: Perhaps it~should be said that Mr. Donato was appointed as an acting Commonwealth'~s Att~rne~ for'Albemarle County-to do this by Judge Berry, Judge of the Circui~ Court. Mr. Wheeler: We are here tonight, to receive from the Committee, appointed several weeks ago, their report. You will be able to ask questions, and receive any comments that the citizens might want to make, At this time, I would like to ask-Mr. J. Harvey Bailey to give the report, and if you will, Mr. Bailey, ~efore you start, name the members and the organization which they represent... Mr. J. Harvey Bailey,. County.Engineer: Mr. Chairman, the Committee which the Board of Super- visors appointed on August 6, 1975 t~o weeks ago. We have been able to meet on two occasions on August 12, at which time themembers of the Oommittee were able to get some thoughts in their considerations and thinking that they could instruct the firm of Betz (Environmental Engineers, Inc.) to draw up guidelines for~use in this discussion. The second time was August l$th, and further discussion was reached..~certain conclusions, and instructed the Chairman to prepare this report. The-Committee'was composed of first a.represem~attve of the State ~eaith Department, Mr. Ron Conners, who~'is here with us this evening. At the original meeting, Mr. Conners was present and.also Colonel Adams of the State Health Depar~tment. Mr~ Bradley Chewning of the State Water Control Board who was present at both sessions, but is not here today. Mr.. Eugene Potter of the Rivanna'Water & S~wer. Authority who was present at both sessions, Mr.?George Williams of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority who was present at the second session, Mr. David Carr of the Albemarle County Planning. Commission.was present at koth~sessions, and is nos present this evening. Mr, 'Guy Agnor of thelCity, of Charlottesville~and Director of Public Works was present at both meetings, and is present this ~evening. Mr~ Patrick Ga!lagher representative of Betz~ Environmental Engineering, Inc. was present on both occasions, Mr. Gallagher formulated the guide- lines which we have used. Mr. Marshall Craig of Betz was present at the second meeting and is here this evening. Dr. Lawrence-Quarles, Chairman of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority was present at the second meeting and is with us this evening. Myself, J. Harvey Bailey, was present on both occasions. Mr. DeFalco of Betz Environmental Engineering, Inc. is with us tonight also. A great number of different matters pertaining 5o the instructions which.you gave this Com- mittee. A great number of ideas'were put out and modified and some were discarded entirely. The report that I will read to you is the end result of the deliberations. These two Committee meetings were held without benefit of any outside observers. We had been requested by several people who were interested in attending the meetings of the Committee, and we politely declined to allow the public in, principally because we felt there was not much time for us to conduct our meeting, and if we let one in we would have to let all in who were interested in coming. We felt we should in such a case notify the public. We apologize if this is against the grain of public thinkling, it is too late to correct now. REPORT OF. COMMITTEE FOR THE CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT IN T~ WATERSHED OF THE SOUTH R~VANNA RESERVOIR August 20,~ 1975 Mr. Gordon Wheeler, Chairman Board of County Supervisors County of A!bemarZe, Virginia Dear Mr. Wheeler: Pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Supervisors, made at its meeting on August 6, 1975, the Committee thereby formed has met and deliberated on the formulation of guidelines under which development may be carried out~within the drsinage basin of the South Rivanna Reservoir and on an ordinance designed to apply such ~uidelines to such development. We submit this report of our deliberations. The motion which formed this Committee also authorized the County Engineer to engage a consultant. 'The firm o~ Betz-Environmental Engineers, Inc. was retained to assist the Com- mittee. This is the consultant who is conducting the water quality study in the South Rivanna Reservoir and its tributaries for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The Committee also had advice and guidance from Mr. Fred Payne of the County Attorney's Office. A majority of the committeemen ~ere present at the Board's August 6th meeting and, therefore, had firsthand knowledge of the County Staff report, public debate and the Board's deliberations. This furnished ample background material for the Committee's assessment of what is expected o~it. Also,'the Committee has had communications from several organizations who are most interested in the matters at hand. The following were discussed in the two meevings this Committee was~ able to hold within the brief time allotted: A water quality.~study of...the Sou. th Rivanna Reservoir and its tributaries is in progress. It is essential to ~th~s study~that the_ status quo of the reservoir be preserved through- Continuing deve!opmenv within the reservoir basin is desired by some as evidenced by the submittal of plans for the development of a certain area. Certain members of the public are concerned lest development be accomplished within the stmdy period which may be beyond reach of recommendations that the consultant may make for the management of the reservoir as the result of the study now in progress. Respecting the matter of maintaining tha status quo of the reservoir, the Committee foresees no'change in farming 'practices or industry which will significantly affect the reservoir, nor does it see how new development now proposed can exert an appreciable change in its environment within the fourteen month study period. As to the continuing development of lands within the reservoir basin, i~t is the opinion of this Committee that such may be allowed under existing state and county regulations. Intensive development of land for residential or commercial purposes requires public utilities. Sewerage within the reservoir watershed, particularly where pump stations and force mains are required, offers a chance for pollution. However, present regulations regarding such installations - such as duplication of pumps and power sources - offer many safeguards against accidents occurring. Erosion and sedimentation are the prime targets during con- struction. Treatment of stormwater from heavily used areas may be of greater concern after a site is fully occupied. Albemarle County has ample provisions in its Zoning and Erosion Control Ordinances to fit any normal circumstance of a development situation in the area of erosion and sedimen- tation control. The provisions contained in the Interim Guidelines which accompany this report are aimed at the continuing use of sedimentation together with provisions for additional treat- ment of stormwater at some future date. These guidelines also speak to site selections and to specific natural conditions that should preclude any attempt at development. The Advisory Committee that operates under the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance should be authorized to use these guidelines in making their reviews. Concerning the building of potential, as well as actual, sources of pollution within the reservoir basin, the Committee understands from its discussion with Council that the Board by enacting an ordinance adopting a certain provision of the state code which pertains to the pro- tection of public water supply, may require the abatement of any pollution that may be proved - regardless of how longstanding such source may be. In order for such an ordinance to be capable of enforcement, the term, '~po~lution", must be clearly defined. The~ data for such definition is expected to come out of the reservoir study. The Committee unanimously agreed that the crux of the matter, the control of pollution, lies in the enforcement of the several ordinances which regulate development. It recognizes that enforcement and inspaction have been lacking in times past. It also believes that a better climate for enforcement of the ordinance has come into existence since the County has acquired so great a stake in the South Rivanna Reservoir. An interesting sidelight: many County residents are under the impression that the County is financing the Water Quality Study of the South Rivanna Reservoir and its tributaries, whereas the study is being financed wholly through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Service water use rate charges. Consequently, the City and County water customers are paying for the study. The Committee recommends the following to the Board of Supervisors: Development within the South Rivanna Reservoir watershed shall be allowed to continue as it will until the Water Quality Study now in progress has been completed and the consultant's recommendations published, provided the same is done in accordance with the existing regulations contained in the Zoning, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinances as supplemented by the Interim Guidelines attached to this report. Wherever public sewers are required, the most con- servative regulations of the State Water Control Board and State Health Department shall be employed, particularly those regulations which treat of infiltration-exfiltration the duplication of pump facilities and the duplication of power sources. As soon as data is available to permit the preparation of a proper ordinance following the conclusion of the reservoir study, the Board shall prepare for adoption, an ordinance respecting the protection of the reservoir from unacceptable pollution. The Board shall require vigorous enforcement of the above-cited ordinances by its staff and shall fully support the staff in its efforts. The Board regards the measures recommended herein as applicable to the period of the reservoir study and are expected to be altered to respond to the recommendations of the consultant which may be forthcoming from the results of the study and which are anticipated to embrace all the several land uses within the reservoir damage basin~ Respectfully submi.tt ed, J. Harvey Bailey, Chairman DRAFT INTERIM ,GU IDELINES S~0RM rWAT.~R RUN©F.F Q~AL~T~ ~©NTROL F©R HRBAN DEVELOPMENT South Rivanna Reservoir Watershed I. Site Selection GENERAL: Land development sites shall be reviewed with due regard~to potential impacts on reservoir. SPECIFIC GUIDELINES: 1. Eliminate development on steep slopes (15%). 2. Land use mix should be compatible with site characteristics. 3. Eliminate/prohibit site development and substantial earth moving in the floodways of the 100 year (or more) frequency and in marshy areas. ~. Deter development from areas that contain highly erodible soils. It. Site Planning - Source Control GENERAL: Land development projects s. haI1 utilize various source~control measures and com- ply with the objectives listed herein, to the extent feasible. ~ ~' ....... ~.*~ ~ ~ ~f .~.~mw~t~r runoff. 24_!. OBJEGTIVES: 1. Minimize imperviou~.c'~v~e~,and.main~a~n surface infiltration capacity. 2. Minimize rate of runoff. POTENTIAL TECHNIQUES: t. Porous pavement; open, grass-lined culverts for stormwater collection; seepage pits and basins; fringe area around large imPervious surfaces (parking lots, etc.); minimize use of curbs and sidewalks; porous pathways (gravel, wood chips, etc.) 2. Roof storage of rainwater; intentional pondering; retention and detention basins. III. Site Planning - Storm Water Runoff Treatment GENERAL: Land development projects shall provide for pre-planned management, collection and treatment by sedimentation basins of storm water runoff from'developed and disturbed portion of site to a central point, land development projects must also allow adequate open space for the future installation of additional storm wa~er runoff treatment facilities as additional treatment requirements may be imposed upon completion of current Water Quality Study of the South Rivanna Reservoir and Tributary Area (scheduled for completion around October, 1976). PURPOSE: To provide for treatment by sedimentation of storm water runoff and allow for additional treatment at some future time. (Note: design criteria contained herein is'not intended to provide for flood protection.) DESIGN CRITERIA: 1. Calculation of storm water runoff quantities, both peak rate and total volume, shall_ be according to the Rational Method, Soil-Cover Complex Method (developed by the Soil Conservation Service), or approved equal. 2. Storm Water Collection System. Recommended design ~torm frequencies are presented as follows: Residential: Inlets; sewers 75~years Low points; outfalls 10 years Commercial: Inlets; sewers 10 years Industrial 10 years 3. Potential Treatment System.. Although the specific degree of treatment necessary'for urban storm water runoff has not as yet been identified, add- itional treatment requirements may be imposed in the future. The required treatment system will likely include chemical feed and storage equipment and additional filtration mechanisms (e.g., microstrainer) in addition to the permanent sedimentation basin that is persently required. In order to provide adequate space for the possible future installation of additional treatment facilities, the land development project shall provide space immediately adjacent to the sedimentation basin that is equivalent to a minimum of 20% of the basin surface area. The following design criteria are presented for the approximate sizing of sedimentation basins that must be prowided at this time: 1) Design storm frequency - 2 years (24 hours) 2) Provide capacity to handle both the peak rate and total volume. 3) Basin detention time = 1 hour. 4) Basin surface settling rate shall be a maximum of 500 gallons per square foot/day. 5) Basin minimum freeboard requirement shall be 24 inches. 6) Minimum length of flow from basin inlet to out!~t shall be 10 feet. 7) Sediments shall be removed as required to preserve the volume requirements of 1, 2 & 3 (sediment storage). 8) An appropriate baffle mechanism must be included, to prevent "short circuiting" and to maintain a quiescent condition for settling. I don't know what further comments I can make, certainly the Committee in these discussions that the consul~.ant said very plainly, that it foresaw no reasonable possibility of development that could take place in 'the t4 month time period allotted for the study to have an effect, a measurable effect on the study that was being made, nor would be the nature of whatelse has been said in here be regarded as a permanent fixture or liability on the reservoir itself. The Committee took into consideration the fact that the present existing condition have caused the reservoir to reach a state w~ere it has been regarded necessary to make this study which has been approved. Most of this will continue through the length of this.study anyhow. The findings of the study may be such that will address what can be done to alleviate and roll back, and what. may happen within the 14 month period of the study will be subjected to the very same treatment, Any questions'or comments? .Mr. Wheeler: Just one question of you. Is this the majority opinion of the Committee? Mr. Bailey: There was no request on the part of anyone to put in anything different than we did put in. Mr. Wheeler': Do we have committee members who, would like to make some comments at this time? Mr. Gerald E. Fisher: In the site under the guidelines that were proposed under number one under site selection, specific guidelines; number four says deter development of areas that contain highly eroded soil and I wondered.the definition of the word deter and highly eroded soil, are these things you can amplify on or are they to be discussed in each individual case? Mr. Bailey: Well I'll try the later part and perhaps Mr. DeFalco can address the first part of the question. Yes, this is in recognition of the fact that there is a vast difference in soil. What might be permitted development on one soil might not be appropriate for another so the dispersal of the guidelines speaks to those. Invision good soil with respect to its resistance to erosion. We feel that there shauld be some limitation on an inferior soil, you might not want to go to a 15% slope, you might want to put on other restrictions. This would be on a submittal basis. Mr. DeFalco of Betz Environmental Engineering: I think the distinction that Mr. Bailey made regarding the need to know what the slopes and the kind of soil that was present with regard to that particular slope is very important. Highly erodable so~ls are those which are poorly floculated soils which are rether light in relation to other soils such as sand which'settles readily. I am talking now of a soil which might be construed to be either a silty clay or something of that nature which is easily scoured by a mild rainfall. Conversely you could have a rather steep slope with a well floculated soil that might be a potentially erodable situation. So it depends largely on the situation. Mr. Fisher: The goal would be then to allow the review Committee under the Soil Erosion Ordin- 242 Mr. Bailey: Yes the latitude would be helpful to the Committee because I don'.t think there is anything in theSoil Erosion~Control Ordinance now that says anything about differentiation of soil. Of course, the manual which we follow does give you different --does give just the basics, slope conditions, etc. Mr. Fisher: Z have another question on guideline' #3 which speaks to the treatment of storm water runoff and provides for~addZtional treatment at. some future time, some future treatment beyond sedimentation. And~it says that additional treatment-requirements may be imposed in the future including certain types of chemical feeds, storage equipment, additional filtration mechanisms in addition to the permanent sedimentation basins and ~atl it says here is that the land developed pro- ject shall provide space for such additional treatment, but does not st'ipulate any mechanism for paying for that. I am wondering whether or not it is the feeling of this Committee that if development is allowed to occur, or if development that has already occurred is creating the problem, that it will be the County government~or the Rivanna Service Authority's responsibility to pay for additional treatment of storm water runoff. Mr. Bailey: The discussZon on that matter was first of all the Committee was of the opinion that this is~something that should be done right away. I can't tell you what they intend to do with this additional treatment.~ I can't tell you I don't know yet. You should hold that until you have an ordinance that is responsive to the study and the recommendations. We further agreed among ourselves that'it is proper for the user to pay for such treatment. But we thought it was advisable rather than ~ntrusting the operation and maintenance of these devices to say a Homeowners Organiza- tion, that the organization should take the responsibility for it and should charge the user; the user being whoever was in the development at that time. Mr. Fisher: So at the time that the Rivanna Authority or someone determined that there was a problem from untreated or poorly treated storm rmnoff, that at that time a governmental agency would construct and begin to operate such additionat~treatment facilities and charge the users for that service. Mr. Bailey: That is the opinion of the Co~ittee. Zf there was an expense within a particular development, then the people within that .development had to take care of it. Mr. Fisher: Cam anyone speak to the legalities of the question of knowing if we can implement such an additional storm water ~reatment system after a development has been completed and then trying to charge the users for ~that service. Mr. Bailey: I don't believe that particular point was discussed. Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney: I thinkwe did discuss that at the meeting and it is my opinion that exactZy how it can be done is really a question of a final draft of the ordinance, but there are a couple of statutes which will probably permit you to carry out a program like the one Mr. Bailey is talking about. Mr. Wheeler: Have any of-you gentlemen had any experience with in this field. Mr. Guy Agnor, D~rector of Public Works, City of Charlottesville: Mr. Chairman, it is very similar to the assessment for public improvements which are under the laws of the Commonwealth, available to the governing body. Mr. Fisher: You made another statement Mr. Bailey that the committee foresaw no major damage that could occur in the next'fourteen months while the study was being completed. Mr. Bailey: Not major, but sufficient to have impact... Mr. Fisher: Now, the next question is what if during this period of time a considerable number of new proposed developments are approved by the County, s~te plans a~bdivZsions, etc. without benefit of the study results and therefore build in a considerable number ofyears of development along the reservoir or watershed 'that does not have the benefit of the study. Can you talk about that and the construct±on that will take place five to eight years into the future that could be approved in the next fourteen months as it stands. Mr. Bailey: Yes, we took that into consideration. If we hear Mr. Payne correctly the power is there for the County to use,-not only does it correct that situation, but situations they already exist. It wouldn't be right to just giv~ car~ blanche to someone or to say they are immune to what might come out of this. We take the position knowing we can, whether it is an existing use or whether it comes into use during this Study. That is the way I read it. Mr. Fisher: How do we implement if site plans or subdivisions are approved next year and the study recommends considerably different controls that have been approved in the site plan. What does the County do then. Mr. Payne: Well, the County has, statute p$tice powers not relating to zoning and not relating to zoning or the statutory authorization to soil erosion controls. These police powers first to the general welfare, and second to the prevention of pollution in public water supplies. The power which ! suggested to the committee is one which would be a general police power and will probably d~aw its reliability from two statutes. One being the general health safety and welfare based police power statute, and the other being related specifically to pollution. That being the case you would have the power of regulating the pollution of the reservoir in relation to a given source, would not be related to development. The example we discussed before was that if a septic pool drains into the reservoir that has been there for fifty years, as I interpret this power, you could require the abatement of that septic pool just as readily as you could a new development that had a defective sewer system. Mr. Fisher: Specifically speaking, this question of site plans and subdivisions if they are approved in this interim period and not built. How does the County go about trying to incorporate these n~w~controls after the applicant's site plans have been approved. That is the question Z can't deal with. Mr. Payne: The power of the general police power ordinance that I have suggested you are involved in the question of an existing situation. You are saying this man is polluting the reservoir, or it is obvious that if he does this he will be polluting the reservoir; then you go in and render this, you strike before the problem exists. Mr. William C. Thacker: Mr. Chairman, I.have several questions on clarification basically. Mr. Baile~, Zt is the inten~ of the Committee that these interim guidelines would apply to the entire 8-20-75 24: Mr. Bailey: Yes ........ ....... ~ Mr. Thacker: The report also referred to development. I think perhaps we should be very clear as to the type of development that you would propose these guidelines on. Is it intended that it be any type of development, site plan, or soil erosion. Mr. Bailey: Yes sir, the~discussions that we engaged in we used the term intensive develop- ment, and we~agreed among ourselves ~hat the purpose of the discussions was development in any residential area of a greate~ density than one-dwelling per two acres and the development of any commercial or%usiness, which Is p~etty inclusive. Mr. Stuart F. Carwile: Mr. Bailey, with respect to the possible needs to install a future treatment system. Could we establish now the parameters you would have to use.in such a treatment system. M~. Bailey: I believe Mr...Potter can speak to that. Mr. Eugene Potter, Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority: Z think one thing that we would want to say from the point of an engi.neer, and that is important to all the interested parties dealing with this particular subject is to reaiize that as engineers we should keep our minds open not to presume the conclusions of that study are going to be. Z think the ultimate design of these particular facilities'will be d.ictated largely' by the outcome of the study. The various Conditions of the lake, how~utrified at this particular time., what has to be done to stem the possible sources of the utrification, and soforth. I think the idea of your question specifically is that we do not know really, what the precise design would be for this particular basin is going to be or even if they will be needed. This is a question that we would like to~ reserve the answer t.o until the study is completed. Mr. Carl Landis: I would like.to ask just one simple question, who is this report, so thoroughl~ worked on~and-calculated, to.please, Ail us citizens or a limited group of speculators and gamblers. Mr. W.heeler: the water supply. This report sir is for the citizens .of this area. Next. It~ is an attempt to protect Mr. David Roth: A moment ago someone asked the Committee to define the term "intensive develop- ment''. They said so many dwellings per acre. Mr. Bailey: Any development beyond one dwelling per two acres could be subject. Mr. Roth: "Intensive industrial commercial use". Mr. Bailey: We are not qualifying indUstrial use beyond industrial or commercial beyond commer- cial. That by its nature is intensive. Mr. Roth: guidelines. The extension of an ex~sting building effect the applicant under these special Mr. Bailey: Do you have to bring in a plan for approval. I mean under this.present zoning regulation, if you have suc.h a plan then it~will be reviewed in th~s light, if not, no. Mr. Roth: that correct. addition to commercial building, you have come up with special guidelines, is Mr. Bailey: Yes. Mrs. Francs Ma~tin: -~ would like to request that you take the sthdy under advisement and give us a delay.of some time so that the public may really evaluate it. We could not have a copy of it until th~s ~fternoon, and we need. this time so it may be understood by the public, we need to be able to understand if the gu~idetines are specific enough and'whether more needs to be added in order to add to the protection. I know you need to make a decision whether to accept this report tonight is really premature. We were not permitted to attend, and would haYe liked to follow along the thinking day by day. Because of the way the committee decided it wanted to do its work, I really feel the public does need more time. There are really many serious question.s which I feel have not been answered. First of all, really, all these guidelines will need enforcement, and who will do the enforcement. We would like to know~how much staff will the county have to use to enforce this. How much time can you devote to' an individual development which will require very intensive struc- tures. How much money is it going to cost the citizens. Will it be cheaper for us if you extended the moratorium until the study is completed. How mmch cheaper. We would~also like to know what guarantee that~if these g~idelines are vi~ated by a particular_developer, that even if a particular supervisor were to refer the matter to. the Commonwealth's Attorney that .he will act. We don't even know who the Commonwealth Attorney will be in six months, and we are not sure whether they are going to act We really need reassurance before we can feel confident that our interests are really being protected, and therefore I would like time to e~aluate this report before you adopt it. I think even though the effect of any one individual development on the reservoir may not be serious enough~to egfect the outcome of. the.study, that a precedent ~ould be set by allowing development to go there may in the long run he.very damaging to the reservoir because you may have no power to deny further development, and in the,longrun an individual development may not have mu.ch effect, the cumulative effect may certainly~'do so. There are many undefined tierms in this report, and I think we should have a closer.look at them, and you may find a few you may wish to have spelled out. Another question disturbs me is the frequency of rains going into the sedimentation basin. I understand the sedimentation basin is supposed to be sufficient to hold a ten year rain. Could you explain to us what that means? Mr. DeFa!co: Yes, when they say design frequency storm for 10 years, that is each storm expected to occur once in ten years. Therefore, the ten year storm is of a higher, magnitude than a five year storm, or that storm which is expected to occur once in five years. ~t is based on statistical way"of evaluating the way of a storm. Mrs. Martin: But during a heavier storm rain, the basin would be washed out. not be protection. There could Mr. DeFalco: That is right you see there is economic trailoff, you would not design for a 100 year storm because~it would involve all the land in the basin. You would have to make a judicious se-lection of the design~frequency storm. These are traditional engineering parameters. Mrs. Martin: That is all very nice, but we do have ver~ heav~ storms here and we hav~ h~ m~t~ 244 Mr. DeFa!co: I would like to point out to you that it is certainly one of the questions we ex- pect to address ourselves to~ Zn reviewing the accuracy of the lake and its ability~to supply suf- ficient water to the~community, we are not only looking at the quality of the water in the lake, not only the quality of the contributing streams that runoff in the area, but all conditions, everything that has anything to do with a source of supply of water. Mrs~ Martin: We still need more time £or the public to study this report. Mr. Wheeler: 'Mrs. Martin, I have no idea what the decision of this Board will be whether a moratorium, no moratorium or if we will accept this report, but I think it is pretty well understood that if it is the direction to accept this report, that we will have to be sure that our staff will be able to police th~s, and~if it means some extra people, we'll have to pay some. I think the Board will have to accept that responsibility. This may be the direction we are going, I don't know. Now when you speak of the Commonwealth's-Attorney, I'm sure you must be kidding when you say wait six months to see who is going to be Commonwealth's Attorney, certainly you must realize we can't do that. That is on the rediculous side, and furthermore,I would like to remind some of the citizens, I con- stantly hear the responsibility of elected officials, and I would like to remind you that the Common- wealth's Attorney that we have now.and the ones in the.future are elected officials respOnsible to the citizens of this county, so if you don't like what he is doing, tell him. I think that is the direction you should go. Mrs. Martin: I would like. to.briefly comment on that, as an alternative to allowing development which-you may not be able to force contro-ls on, or you can reduce development to a level which will not require such.enforcement. Mr. Wheeler: This is to assume that all the laws will have to be carried out, we cannot refuse to do things because we are afraid someone will nov enforce the law, that would be. other members may have other ideas. Mr. James Girkie: I would like to ask the Board. There are some of~us whose lives have been disrupted, who make their lives But of building big buildings on single-family sites. More hastily I think adopted a moratorium two weeks ago, since there seems to me the perspective of this report was to inform the Board whether there was the least expectation of serious damage to the reservoir, not that there was a certainty. So the standards here are not that everyone be certain that no damage happen to the reservoir. The Board has no raasonable basis in depriving one third of the county land- owners of their rights. I think you heard Mr.Bailey indicate that it was a unanimous decision that six of the best qualified people the Board could scrap up, and there was no reasonable motive for the Board to suspend the rights of property owners in the area. That any decision to do so would be arbitrary and capricious. That you are dealing with a remedy for a moratorium that has severe economic repercussions. Unanimously the Board has said there is nothing to be expected to occur that could be seriously damaging or permanently damaging to the reservoir or the water supply of the City. Then you must keep it in respect to what burden~of proof must you have before you take this ~rious action of depriving property owners of the use of their land. I would also like to point out as a builder, developer and person who owns property immediately on the reservoir, I'm not for dirty water. You can't necessarily say that all developers and~builders are after polluted water. It is stupid. There are many of us who would like to take all reasonable care required, all reasonable burdens imposed by County Ordinances to make sure no damage occurs to any one else's~property or to the water suppl'y, and I would just ask the Board to keep this in prospective, I think you need to act on this study, I think the proper course is for you tor~accept the'thrust of the Committee's recommendations which is that there is no basis for cush drastic action as a moratorium~ I don't see how you can avoid that conclusion from the six members who unanimously recommended that. If you need to set back and let more scientific data come in before you arbitrarily suspend property rights for one third of the county. I can't see where any such action could be held up in court now if before it could, when the Committee unanimously said that nothing harmful or permanently harmful could happen. I don't see any reason to through chaos into the affairs of the people of the county any longer. You found out there is no reason to continue the moratorium or do anything this drastic. Apply the recommendations, let development go on in an orderly fashion, and that is fine, but there is no reason to deprive that area of the county from proceeding about its business and no reason to fear that you haven't done so. Mr. Walter Cushman: I would just like to add one statement.~ It strikes me that high interest rates during this past year created a recession, and I think that if you have a moratorium such as the type passed for 14 days,~this will perpetuate the recession. You will put a lot of people out of jobs. I'm only one person, and I agree with Mr. Girkie, the moratorium is not the way to handle it, you have plenty of ways to handle it and control it that will not effect property. Unknown Citizen: t wonder, seriously, how important people think the water is to our whole lives, next. to oxygen, I think it is the next thing. A hell of a lot of discussion is going on here tonight as though we were talking about making a baseball diamond. Water is the most import- ant think ink,the world and nobody can get away from it. We can let anybody who wants to make some money regardless of what happens to the reservoir. I pass it every d ~' ay~ have you seen how awful it looks~ the color it is. I say again, lets take this seriously as water, not as some play field where someone can have fun. Water is too serious for that. Mr. George Cason: The thing I'd lire to ask, is where were they eight months ago when the land- fill question came up, when the City, County and University were ready to dump 400,000 tons of garbage in the Rivanna R~ver Reservoir-basin. Not one good c~tizen showed up at any one of the public hearings to discuss the matter than. I would say that I would recommend to you all that you accept Mr. Bailey's recommendation for what it is worth, go ahead and leave the moratorium off and let the people use their land as the Zoning Ordinance requires. Mr. Pat Janssen: There have been some very intelligent remarks made. There was a biologist here one night who said runoff from erosion brings more phosphates in than fertilizers do in farm land, and that phosphates are released when .this soil gets into the water. Mrs. Martin made a lot of sense this evening. Mr. Thacker asked for a two week moartorium to study this matter by these learned gentlemen. Well I don't think it would hurt a bit since you meet tomorrow, to give a 24 hour delay on any decision you wou~d make tonight. I think it would show a lot of common sense. Some of the citizens who never saw this report and could ask a lot of questions, I thought there would be some design criteria or specifications on the quality of the water that would be allowed to enter the reservoir from a subdivision or anything else. Maybe Mr. Williams could teZ1 us tonight that peoples property rights, and their freedom to develop their lands will be perfectly alright. You gentlemen have a very important decision to make. I don't know how learned you gentlemen are with regard to water sedimentation or the pollution of this reservoir, but I think it would be well advised to defer any. judgement this evening, and give some of these citizens who are concerned an opportunity to study this and we just might come up with something that would make ~ood sense. There are two sides to be addressed to in this, the property rights of the people are and also the people Ms. Sally Thomas: You speak of the Soil>E~.o~s,i.on Committee chairing this. I don't believe that committee has the power to declare that no development can take place on this property... I would like a lawyers opinion as to whether the Soil Erosion Committee definition of highly erosion is likel to be a definition defendable in the court... When you talk about additional treatment being required in the future, there should be some way that residents should be informed of this hanging over their piece of property. I don't think this would go on a building permit... The question as to whether the County has police power to reduce pollution as an existing situation, they do require people to get site plans approved presently, but building doesn~t take place until after the study and you may realize you may have to require something in the future, is it possible to have a conditional approval.. I don't think it is written in that these requirements are for developments over one dwelling unit per two acres, t don't think that is written in if that is your intent. Ms. Kathy Tompkins: t would like to read the letter submitted to the Board of Supervisors on August 15 for"the-Woodbrook Subdivision. "Gentlemen: We call to your attention in the enclosed letter by the associations 14 day study committee. We would receive any guidelines submitted by the committee with great apprehension. There is indeed the possibility that developers would under- take a project under stringent regulations and then be unable to continue either for financial reason or because of its effect on. the reservoir. We question whether anyone at this time can predict whether it will have an effect on the reservoir. We submit that it is the responsibility of the County Government to insure that the water supply is not .... and the only way to absolutely insure it is to refuse to permit~construction. If the study should advise that a large area of land around the reservoir be left undisturbed as we understand has been allowed in some other communities, and we have allowed'additional construction to proceed while the study is underway, we will have added permanent irreversable liability to the reservoir. Every effort should be made to maintain a stable environment around the r'eservoir during the study. We reiterate our request to you about the enforcement of any guidelines adopted. To really protect the reservoir the construction sites would have to be policed with such frequency that to-maintain the guidelines would be terribly costly. A long range study has already been endorsed by you. How can it be considered reasonable to incur additional costs to enforce regulations researched by a committee of people who have been... Who if the guidelines are adopted will be presuming to know in 14 days why we are paying $150,000 for the study' team to find out. Rreempting the study could lead to tragic effects to the reservoir, as consumers of the water and taxpayers in the County we strongly urge you to enact a temporary moratorium. No doubt this decision will be tested in court, but where the major water supply of the community is concerned, it is the time public interest took priority over private invest- ments. According to Virginia Code 15.1-292, governing body has the power to go so far as to condemn land within five miles of the water to protect the source from pollution. Mr. St. John presented that he can defend the moratorium, so we urge the Board to take appropriate action as allowed by law. Sincerely, Kathy TompMins, President, Woodbrook Community Association. I would like to ask one furth~ question, in your report, you say in order for such an ordinance to be capable of enforcement the term pollution must be clearly defined. The data for such definition is expected to come out of the reservoir study, the committee unanimously agree~..that the .... that the enforcement lies in the enforecment of the several ordinances which regulate development. This confuses me as I don't know how you can set up guidelines for pollution which you have not been able to define. Mr. Wendell Wood: You have already heard everything I'.ve had to say, and I would only be repeating myself. I can't help but to come down here and listen to these people say the same thing time after time, after time what goal am Z after; that is'~to bring this County to its knees. That is all they ask, they are not going to stop until they have put zero gr_oxth in this County. I can't believe I was in the same room. with them tonight, when we have an impecabte committee, there isn't anybody who could attack their credentials. (There is a disturbance in the room at this point, and Mr. Wheeler asks someone to leave the~meeting)... I ~eard Mrs. Martin and Mr. Jansen attack and present questions that were thoroughly gone over and answer, ed by the Committee, by Mr. Payne. We don't even have a Commonwealth's Attorney in six months now I understand. It is a little disgusting to have to come down here time after time like this. It. is time for action and I would like to see it. Colonel Carrol Smith: I represent the Farm Bureau, and I am only speaking because Mr. Smart is not here, and I think if he had been here he would like to make some comments. I feel there is a solution. We at the Farm Bureau are not either for. or against the moratorium. Specifically we leave that up to the-Committee and the Board and we feel we will be able to live with. We feel there have been some comments about the farmer being the chief polluter ~and we don't agree with that. I have a thought, I was in the army for thirty years and we always used a commissary, and most of you know some of which were.in an old outmoded barracks initially how. did we ~prove~them, We charged every customer a.certain amount of his purchase dollar, which went into a savings fund which was called a building fund and it. was controlled at a central level within the army. When that had reached the proper proportion.a chunk of that money went back into that particular commissary based on the number of customer that used that commissary over the years, and they used that to build a new commissary or put in something necessary to modernize it. I therefore think it is a practical solution and'may well be usable. We have been told 15,000 county residents and about 8,000 city residents use the reservoir water. This fluctuates. However, if it is identifiable in your computer system, is it not possible to start immediately regardless of a moratorium, to charge every customer who uses that water a surcharge and build a fund now no matter What comes out~of the study. Every- one knows you have to do something to protect the reservoir and. that is a foregone conclusion. It will require some protection. If the average bill is $4.00, suppose we said 10% and so every month each customer pays a0$ extra surcharge, it goes into. a savings account and~draws interest. If this happens, you will be drawing $9,200/month, $110,000/year-if interest a lot more than that. In ten years, it'will be $1,104,000. That is the users portion. Now for Mr. Wood, Dr. Hurt and all the others, t would say that they too should pay'their share, and therefore a reliable group such as this committee could very well work out the ratio and say the citizen pays this percentage, the developer, not the people who buy the houses~ but the developer pays in advance a certain percentage of his total investment, and it too goes into that escrow fund and draws interest, to help build the treat- ment plants or to build a canal around the reservoir. In Mr. Wood's case I have already walked on the property, and I'm an engineer too, and I could build you one there too, very reasonably, and take his runoff and let it go down below the dam. Representative Woodbrook Homeowners Association: We must urge you to be extremely cautious in allowing development around the reservoir. I would like to. read ~you a portion of a letter sent to the committee for them to consider as they developed their guidelines, and I would like to read just a portion of that letter. "residents of Woodbrook have witnessed Albemarle Square the shopping center boardering Woodbrook where construction was supposedly underway. The site was partially graded this spring but~no work has been done there since early May. Another site located on 29 north just north of Carrsbrook Drive has been graded for several years, and nothing has been done there. There is land proposed for a shopping center on the southeast corner of Rt. 29 North, it has been graded for years and years and nothing has been done. If this sort of thing were allowed to occur around the reservoir, it could have tragic effects, and that is why, we are so concerned that there be some control. Once development has gotten underway, it should be continued 246 of potential and actual sources of pollution in the reservoir basin, the committee understands from its discussions with Council that the Board by enacting a certain provision of the State Code which pertains to the protection of a public water supply may require the abatement of any pollution that may be proved regardless of how long standing such source may be. I am curious to know what you mean by abatement. Does it mean if pollution cannot be controlled, that you would go so far as to say that a complex should be vacated. What would you do if you could not control pollution entering the reservoir. Mr. James Fleming: The. consumer always pays the costs. Mr. Patterson: I would like to say that the moratorium is very serious, and there have been a lot of questions on both sides. I would like to say that you have a report from a very qualified committee, and in all these meetings that I have attended and after hearing both sides, we do have the proper direction. These people who are opposed and constantly telling us of the pollution, t hear constantly one point made and that is against the development and against construction. I have never heard one yet say move something eZse, there are other sources of pollution. There is farming, and we do have a landfill, but these same people preach the same old spng, it is always the developer and against growth and building, and property rights. Mr. Wheeler: I feel I have to make a couple c.omments this has to do with statistics, I don't have statistics on hand, but if I had wanted to, t c'ould get them, and I coUld assure you that a certain number of citizens in the State of Virginia are not going to be living tomorrow morning. You can not pay attention to those statistics and say that it does not apply to me, and the same thing applies to me. Mr. Smith says the farmers are not polluting, developers say they are nov polluting, industry says the same thing. Nobody pollutes the reservoir, but all point their finger at the other people. I can't make on that basis, and am not going to with one group going against another group. In making a decision I am going to have to rely on the best information the Board can get. You can't do it with groups pointing fingers at one another. Somewhere along the line when these gentlemen finish their report, someone is going to be guilty. I have some good ideas, and I want you all back in this room when we get that report, because I want to have a little talk. The day of recogning is coming--judgement day is coming ladies and gentlemen and remember, I want to say this to the Board, and I argued long and loud that this committee should be let alone and given the chance to work. Thank goodness they worked hard and we do appreciate that gentlemen. I think they have given us a report we should be able to handle, and I want to be sure this Board has given ample opportunity to study this and make a decision, whether to go with this report, place a moratoriu~ lift a moratorium whatever. If the Board members think it is in the interest that they have further citizen participa- tion, well voting tomorrow is too quiclk. The decision should be made by the men at this table. Gen- tlemen, I think we should vote tonight or next Wednesday night. I don't think tomorrow---you might as well vote tonight. Do you have comments now. Mr. George R. St. John, County~Attorney: Mr. Chairman, I only have a few questions which I only ask now because I feel they may be..questions that are in other peoples minds I need some guidance if in voting you are going to ask my opinion on certain things, I'~ll need some answers from the committee, while we are all assembled. That is the only reason I will take the time to do this. I did not partici- pate in formulating this report. I didn't participate in the Committee's deliberations like Mr. rayne did, I guess I had better stand here because I have some notes here. The first question I have is addressed to Mr. Conner of the State Health Department, In giving my opinion previously as to whether this moratorium could be enacted in the first place and initially when it was done, I relied heavily on a letter from your office whZch~you--I think we talked about it in here subsequently, it is from Mr. Steven Young, and it is dated July 24, 1975, you are familiar with that letter. In one paragraph "after reviewing the facts as to this application, he says its the desire of this department (the Health Department) to prohibit any new development along the South Rivanna Reservoir, at least until the r~sults of the reservoir study have been finalized. Well I agree with what has been said by other people that this moratorium is a drastic thing, it affects peoples rights adversely, and in order to do that, it has to be based on some Sort of testimony. Somebody that knows what he is talking about saying that the kind of development which is being prohibited by this moratorium is likely to cause irreparable damage to that Reservoir, and this is what I base my opinion on, see your letter, because under chapter 4 of title 62.1, that is the code title on waters of the State; the legislature has assigned your department primary responsibility of protecting the public water supply. So therefore, it has been my position, I took this position in formulating my position that this mora- torium if possible, that no matter what anyother hired experts might come in here and say, not to denigrate their ability or their qualifications, but other people may be paid to accomplish a dif- ferent goal than what your purposes are, you are the State Health Department and you are objective and your interest is the general publics welfare, and~so when we have this paragraph in this letter from your department saying that it is your desire that all new development be delayed until this report is finalized, this to me carries grate weight, great weight, greater weight than any ~ther engineering expert that came in here with testimony. Zf Z understand correctly, the Health Depart- ment is uniting and this report that was given to us tonight is a unanimous report and that would include yourself, that is that the State Health Department, unites officially, this report which this cimmittee has given us tonight. Am I correct in making that assumption. Mr. Conner: I would like to make a comment on that particular point. Colonel Adams, who is the Director of the Division of Engineering for the State Health Department in Richmond, was app- ointed to this committee, I am his alternate only, serving on the committee. The letter that you have in your file came directly from my office from the Lexington Regional Office which covers the territory. We do believe that anything you do on this reservoir will have an effect on it. And, as you can see you have some activity going on at the reservoir and the watershed proper and you have a problem. In our evaluation, in the terms of the next fourteen months while the study is going on, if you strictly control what is going on in that reservoir, we don't believe it will effect the outcome of the study. That is our opinion as far as our serving on the Committee is concerned. Now, granted we have taken a much more serious look at it while we were serving on it, and we are going basically on our knowledge o£ what has happened to other reservoirs tike in ~he (proper name) reservoir we have in Prince William and Fairfax County, we also have the Swift Creek Reservoir in Chesterfield County. We have shown great concern about development around the wavershed as it does. have a potential flow of pollution, and so we have taken a look at it from the development standpoint in the watershed, the moratorium is a very serious thing, and we look at it in that particular respect. I think it you will look at the letter we wrote you people, we are really talking about development around the reservoir proper, and we strictly control that development we don't th~nk it will have any effects on it during this study period. Mr. St. John: You did unite in the report then, it is a unanimous report. The Health Depart- ment does not decent from the report of the committee? Mr. Conners: That is correct. Mr. St. John: I have a couple other questions here for the Committee at large, or someone who- ever as the case maybe. As I read this report, and~I didn't get it until about five o~clock this afternoon, but as I read it this report itself invisions before any earth breaking whatsoever is 8-20-75 · will/ena~t some sort of ordinance ~mplementing these guidelines before this moratorium exists. 241 Mr. Bailey: ]~t' is righ.t~for the guidelines to be incorporated inta the structure that now exists. It is mn.addmtmon t~o~_or~dmnances that now exist, but... Mr. St. John: The only way .to.make them enforce the law is to enact them into an ordinance of their own or to add"them to· some ..existing ordinance. Mr. Bailey: Whatever you would require in that respect. part so they can be used. We recommend that they be made a Mr. St. John: Alright, ti ment of this kind'of ordinance and maybe he already has'an anl faced with when we go to enfor-( case, my question is not criti( situations have happened in th( have a seri.ous situation on yot suppose the developer doesn't ~ollow your guide by the time the damage is done~.it] is a large s is long.gone or bankrupt, and ~e has either sol~ pastures, or he.is 'out of business, and Zn othe: him saying that he must do thi~ is not worth th anything about this is not to end ~him to jail or send him to ja±l, that won't accomplish a th ~e next question and last one is Z would like to talk about the enforc~ for a few minutes, and I~m sure you discussed this with Fred rayne, ~wer to it, Z haven't talked to him about it. But here is what we are ~e an ordinance of this kind. I'm not saying this will happen in this ~al of anybody but you can invision a hypothetical situation, and thes~ past, and if they happen one time out of a hundred, then you still ~r hands.· Suppose the guidelines that you lay down don't work. Or ~ines exactly. Either way, lets suppose further that ~gnificant and serious situation, and the developer off what he could sell and gone someplace to greener ?words, he ~has no resources, and a judgement against ~ paper it is written on. The only way we found to d~ ~r try to get the Commonwealth's Attorney to fine him ~ng, and if he is broke or he's gone, the only remedy you have is naturally a bond t~ that what'ever you do here is ge will be money available when t? Mr. Bailey: The way ~t e~ is to compel the compliance of compel...my thought was that t~ Mr. St. John: This would be incorporated by the ordinan¢ Mr. Bailey: The same for~ .at he would have to put up beforehand. Does this proposal invision ing to. be armed and have teeth in it, with a bond to assure that there ~e situation comes up. ists.now under the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance that..ordinance on the part of the developer, if.,you have a way to is thing would be appended to that ordinance. ~hen by definition make it absolutely necessary that these guidelines e. e now. exists with what you desire. inadequate. I agree with Fred approved this gevelopers plan, work. This code does allow th~ or owner, whoever owns a buitdi don't have any bond in that cas place, there is no way to do t~ work on it right away, but Z t~ is feasible to say that several and the th~ngs that have been a innocent purchasers w~thout not doubt in my mind that you can r and say were sorry, we were wr¢ Mr. St. John: That is not the question, we can do that, it can be done the same way as the Soil Erosion Ordinance. That is in case the de~eloper didn't follow the ordinance guidelines, and now you ask the question of the developer that ~e h~s followed the guidelines and they proved to be Payne's opinion that even in a case like that, that even when you and it turns out they are just plain inadequate, they just plain don't county to abate a situation like that or to require the developer ng or structure ~rom which is coming pollution or soforth, but you e, because you d~n't bond things that you didn't require in the first at, and ! would like,--we~ are drafting this ordinance, we will go to ink.we need further guidance in situations like that, t don't think it years from now 9r 14 months from~now even, when we get this report llowed to go on .~re not working, that you can ~then go back and require ice to assess for someth±ng like this. I think you can, there is no equire a developer to go back and change his site plan and go back ng too, this is ~ot.working, but you have to change the site plan, and you ha~e to fix this mess here. You have t¢ stop this pollution, I question whether you can do that with respect to homeowners or.innocent purchasers who have gone in and purchased this property from the developer and they are contributing to the pollution, but they are not contributing to this cause, and. they are going ito be hit with a~ assessment, that they didn't know anything!~about. I question if this can be done,|and I. think tha~ is a~problem we will have to address. Mr. Ba~ley: I'll answer t~e quiestion with a question. There are a couple of high density developments on the watershed a~read~, when they were developed, nothing was required, no controls for water.runoff. They may~be perfe~ctly innocent of any poilution chances are ~gainst it. They may be found~to ~be polluters of[the ~eservoir to such an exten~, that it could be allowed and yet preserve the integrety of the r~servoir~. Do I understand ~hat you said it will be impossible to go back and force a former .landOwner to comply. · Mr. St. John: That is exactly the point. The Supreme Court of Virginia under the existing legislation they have now.has m~de ~a distinctio~ between and the State Wa.ter. Contro] Boare recog- nizes this distinction, and ~b~liev~ Mr. Conner will be able to vouch with this because of his work with the State Water Contro~ Board o~ cooperation with them, in his capacity in the ~ealth Depart- ment. But the State Water Cont~ol especially recognizes the distinction o~er controls over new developments and going back and especially because they are the lets face it. A case in point, Morton Frozen Foods, they are o. of pointing my finger~ But~'the existing pollution by industry, make this industry clean up thi to do ~t. And it is then the b as the quality of. our water. So body pay through the nose to cl somebody is going to get sick t only time they will do anything which is not built yet, the sta~ build then the standards you ar That is because you are dealing dealing with one owner like M0r future things to be built, and making ~eopte correct existing Mr. Bailey: Now, I'm read~ tions exist as you picture, thal any facilities, that are require~ turned over in turn to the City turn would take their individua[ Mr. Williams on this, but he ma will end up. impouing corrective measures on pre-existing industry. Industry ones who are. She big polluters of the waters in the State of virginia :and ~ne.of .the most Often cited cases in point to your question is ~ntributing a loti to the degradation of this reservoir. I am gu~tty Supreme Court anld the State Water Control Board in the case of pre- applied what is known as a balancing test, they say you are going to ~ pollution unless it is economically unfeasible for this industry ~lancing test says the economics of the area are just-as important they' don't~make you.do anythin~ tike that, go'back and make some- on up an existin~ situation unless they are going to find that ~orrow~. because someone~is going to die because of it. That is the ~bou~ 6his. So the test.~is not the same for control over development .ardu you are going to put on a developer who is getting ready to going to impose on somebody or a development that is already built. especially .in ~ residential situation, because you are not just ~ons' you are dealing with developers when you are talking about the ~ou are talking about innocent individual homeowners, and you are ~ollution, or assessment for it. to ~ns.w.er your ~u. estion. MY opinion would be that if such condi- it.~i!l fall on,the Rivanne Water & Sewer Authority to construct They wish to ~reserve the reservoir and the charges would be of C~arlottesvil~e and to t~e Albemarle Service Authority, who in- customers and extract mone~ from~them. ~haven't cnnsulted with ~ have an entirely different opinion, but I thi.nk that is the way mt Mr. St. John: These gentlemen are in this every day, and I'm sure they know more about it than I do, this is what~ am acquiring £rom reading all these cases which,.statutes and opinions of the water control board on'this subject. If I am wrong, please correct me. Dr. Lawrence Quarles, Chairman Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority: I~don't mean vo usurp the authority of the Chairman either, but it does not make a difference what ~We do or what recommenda- tion we make, it isn't going robe worth a ni.ckle unless it can be enforced~ The key to the whole situation is enforcement. Wha~eYer regulations and gu~idelines we can quote, and ~e hope that you gentlemen will put the necessary teeth into it. I would also say that as one ~member of the Board of the Rivanna Water & Sewer-Authority_, I think Mr. Bailey is right, when we went into this situation, you hypothesize, and it was very serious that the Authority would have to do something about it an~ go back to its customers, through the usual channels. Mr. George Williams, Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority: Yes, Z would like to comment on Mr. St. John's comments on the industrial situation. I think some of the old philosophy under the old law has been superceeded by the Federal Water PQllution Act as Amended, Public law 92-500, and I think there is ample statutory authority under Federal Law if necessary to. abate an existing pollution as well as a new source. I think this Grandfather clause of pollution sources has rapidly gone out the window. Mr. C.onners: In addition to what Mr. Williams~has said, the Federal Law 92-500 the Federal Water Pollution Control Law, under that particular s~ction the Water Control Board is issuing new permits to each'discharger in the State. There are certain limits set in that permit, if you don't meet those limits, the State Water Control Board can do whatever is necessary to clear up that par- ticular pollution situation. This is my understanding that iS the way they are operating now. They are operating under Federal Law, not State Law. Mr. Leigh Middleditch: I would like a point of clarification from the representatives of the State Health Department and the Water Control Pollution Board as Mr. St. John's first inquiry, that is with respect to the impact of development on the public health in terms of the water quality. I have studied the letter that~r. St. John refers to written by the State Health Department, over the signature of Mr. ~oung of July 28, 1975 and also a statement delivered by Mr. Chewning of the State Water Control Board at the last public hearing on August 6, 1975. As far as the last letter is concerned and the statement in it, there is not enough public data available on which to base the true assessment of existing reservoir water quality, and~I would like a representative of these two agencies.as to whether they mean there is sufficient data currently to determine whether there is a danger to public health, concerning water quality in the reservoir now, and whether there is sufficient data to predict if the water quality would be adversely effected to the extent that public health would be detrimentally effected by development in ~the watershed area during the next twelve to fourteen month period. Mr. Conner: Zn their study of the Reservoir...I don't beli~v~ that you have a public health problem there at this time, and we don't have enough-data to base that on, but recommendations on previous developments that were referred to us as I may have said before, with my experience in other areas of the commonwealth. Zn the particular ~ccoquan Reservoir there is a'study very similar to what is going to be done on the Rivanna Reservoir underway there now. They had a study like this a couple years ago and recommended that effluent be piped off ~the watershed, We had the conservation group say, well if you pipe that off the watershed, we won't have that available later if the treat- ment technology becomes available for us to reuse t~hat water, then we've just lost it by piping it off the watershed. They are now c~onstructing an advanced waste treatment center up there a very sophisticated treatment which.will treat the waste water that is on the watershed now, and it will be tested before it is discharged into the reservoir. Actually discharged from the treatment plant into a large reservoir and be tested there before it is actually discharged into the water supply reservoir. Now they are ~resently monitoring the watershed while this treatment system is un~er construction to determine just what the status is and ~then just what effect the new treatment sys- tem is when put into effect. They are monitoring up and doma~this reservoir, and their indications are from the testing they are getting is that pollution from urban runoff sources is three times worse than what it is from agriculture sources. This is the type of data they are coming up with now and they are saying that on an acre for acre basis, that your pollution of one acre of urban runoff is worse than thre~ acres of agricultural. This is what we primarily based our prime recom- mendations are, with this particular report, if you don't enforce it you may as well not have it. Mr. Joseph T. Henley: The report, I think one thing~ that bothers me, is that we haven't had the enforcement we Should have. I have a good example in my district a lady who had a foot of mud washed in her yard and into house, and it was six months before this even went to court it was appealed, I don't think she has received damages from it yet. There seems to be a snag in the courts. There are a number of other cases where we haven't had goo~ enforcement. If the people on this Committee didn't have some question in their min~s that there would be some additional treatment nec- essary, they wouldn't have put it in here. I can't see. letting a lot of development, high density and commercial development, close to the reservoir take place until the study is over until we can see what additional requirements may be needed. I wonder what effects will happen if we let more high density development around the reservoir on re~oning of other land around it. I don't know how you are going to deny someone else rezoning with'less density than now. As mentioned the last time, court cases'that deal with this very thing. We shomtd wait on high density development and commercial development, right adjacent to the reservoir, and maybe later high density development in the whole watershed. I don't go along with a complete moratorium like we have now, I think that was a mistake myself. I still think ~ should do something. Mr. Fisher: I think the provisions for control which have been proposed are in one sense to guess what the ~study is going to say, but perhaps the committee ~as operating on some experience from other areas that lead them to believe that these would be good basis guidelines to use in the even~. What concerns me is the problem of insuring the quality of discharge, in this sense, storm- water runoff; and it seems to me that there is no way of really assuring that without some form of bonding provision. But the qu.estion is this is not just a short-term event such as the construction and closing off_~f graded areas and seeding and construction of drainage structures, but it is a long term effect of the stormwater runoff which will go into the reservoir forever. And I can't visualize how a bond will work that has no termination time to-protect it. So I am left with a question of a serious problem which can probably mnly be handled through a bond, but doesn't seem reasonable to as- sume that anyone would want to require or pay for an indeterminent length bond. i'm left with a dilemma if we permit the development with the controls and the storm water runoff does not meet suitable standards, and these are not spel.led out, what happens then, and I just don't see it, except the Rivanna Authority picks up the tab and bills all the users. That doesn't seem quite right either. Mr. Henley: I don't think you will ever find a perfect solution, but I do think it is reasonable that we wait until this study is over on something that we probably know there are more strict controls if you applied this high density development where you've got a lot of...you know you've ~ ...... ~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. I don't think you will ever Mr.. William~C. Thacker: Mr. Chairman, I think we are very fortunate to have this Committee, and I don't ~think'~hey were scrapped up, they are:~Ory:~apabto, conscientious qualified gentlemen. I'm amazed' they came.up~wZth;those answers in two weeks time, I didn't think they could do it. Per- haps we need to put all our Work on a~tight time fram. They have met, they considered the problem, most of whom wore probably~famlliar with the problems of the ~eservo~r. Their report says that unde~ certain guidelines de~elopme'nt can proceed. ~f we enact~this as an ordInan'co, we heard from Mr. St. John that it will have to be an amendment .to the Soil Er~.sion and Sedimentation ordinance we do have bonding provisions, we do.'haYe Federal.Laws which do allow abatement of pollution. Zt necessary hav~ the Rivanna Authority use th. air. ability to'pass on the charges o'f any of these costs to the consumer~ I think we are'all.~itally concerned with the water, and X submit we all have to be concerned with the economic viability of this c~ommunity as well. This is something that must be considered very strongly. I think~there wi~l~bo problems, I think:.thoy can be.resolved,~hould We enact an ordin- ance, like many other ordinances,: will have to be amended over a period~of time. It seems as though this is what ordinances are for. Mr. Carwite: ~ don"t have anything to say right now. Mr. Wood: Z think the Committee has done a good job in the Short period-o.f time. However, in reading the report, it l~ft some areas of doubt and concern to me, and some of them have been reaffirmed here tonight. F~om;'the:Board,, Mr. Bailey's statements, and the County Attorney's questions. One we don't want to-overlook is if we do continue to allow possible things to happen that may~cause further deterioration to the reservoir even with these guidelines, without bonding provisions being clarified, Mr. ~Bailey tells us he feels the service authority will have to make the user pay, I think this meeds to be re-emphasized the user is already paying for the study. I can see where we w~ll end up. in the position that the pollutants in the reservoir that tho user is going to have to pay:~to get..corrected.it ~an be, and~these things can happen at the same time as while they are paying for the cost of the study', I'm not at all ~convinced that we should adopt the report, not at all sure we can adopt the report and draw up the necessary ordin- ance and documents With the enforcement to make it work; and if t~e user is ~oing to be paying this $150,000, I can'~ see where'14 months is a small price to pay that we don't preempt the study. Now as to.where we g'o, I'm ready to vote on this tonight, or if you need further input. Z could go for a weeks delay unti~ next Wednesday or I'm prepared~to vote on it. Mr. Wheeler: Z think we are still pointing the finger. I can't get around thinking that and I still have t'o say that what we are looking at, we are looking at one third'of the county, we are talking about.the' watershed. Z think.we have to consider the users and the potential users, and we will have to consider the economic situation. T~here'.are two sides t~'it. Mr. Henley says stop the development~right around the reservoir. I heard people say.there are other problems. I have~t heard them say close down Mortons, Acme, I haven't heard him say cut out farming. If we are going to take drastic Steps that is what you would do,~but I.don't'think we want-t~ take drastic steps. If we wanted this I don't th~nk~we would have had this Committee make this stmdy and present this report. I think:what we must d~.~is take steps that are'fair to everyone, but still at the same time not disturb the water supply during this study. I can vote'on it tonight or I can wait until next week, but Z am convinced that taking everything into consideration and on enforcement you~have to look on the~ositive side, if we didn, t lock'on the. positive side you would never pass speed limits. Zt~is recognized that there are ~lways a certain number of people who are going to drive above 55 MPH. Zf you took that attitude you wouldn't pass speed limits. You have to take the attitude that regulations are going to be enforced. We must enforce regulations. Inconnection~with-this report and the guidelines, if we adopt it, we must enforce. Now about paying for it, as ~ar as Mr. St. John is saying it is for those that arc'already there. What if we find that they are polluting; either they have to pay or tho Rivanna water and Sewer Authority has to extend it over the area. Lets face up to it, in cases of emergency in t~is County s~noe it has been'organized, the general citizen pays for it. There is always an emergency and we've got to turn to that, because one particular area can't afford it, and I think we have to face up to these things as they come~. I don't think it is doomsday, or look at it ~with that attitude. I think we should look at it with a positive attitude that we can carry on the business of this county in.an order!y way and can enforce the ordinances and we won't disrupt anything. I think this Comm±ttee~'s report, implemented in the proper ord±nance can do that and I am going to support that. Mr. Fisher: -As a matter of practical procedure, we don't have anything to vote on except the guidelines, we do' not have ~nc~ordinan¢o, we do-not have any. bonding,procodures-that might be estab- lished by the County Attorney's office and at the most that could b.e accomplished would be to in- struct the staff to see if they could draft such an ordinance. The questiom that I have-are serious questions are about enforcement, and I can't answer those questions, and I don't think anyone here tonight has been able t-o answer completely what happens in the events of non-compliance, bank- ruptcy and the continue water.quality from storm runoff-forever. These are three issuea that have to be addressed. Mr. St; John: I think I can clarify~that, Mr. Fisher. The first two, the bankruptcy and non-compliance are'or can be. co~ered with an adequate bond~ng provision in'the ordinance. The con- clusion I,ve reached and the point I'.ve made now as a result of talking to'you and the answer to Mr. Bailey's question'is this; that when I first read this report, I-thought this report said that even if these guide!ines~prove;inadequate, even if the guidelines don't work, at some future date we can go back and make the developer or those who purchased properties at their own expense bring them up,to a standard, that-would prevent pollution; I don't think you can do that, and I don't know the report says 'that, I may have misinterpretedit, I probably did. My point is that although I believe enforcement can 'be accomplished'adequately and satisfactorily.throu'gh a bonding provision suppiimented by the criminal laws, through the Commonwealth Attorneys office, and injunctive pro- cedures, but mainly through bonding; we had better get these standards so they work. The guidelines we lay down will have to work or e~se if~ the guidelines themselves don't work, you're not going to make the developers come back and correct their work or make homeowners or occupants come back and correct it. Either the General County funds would have to do that or the Riva~na Service Authority would have to do it, and remember you are saying that the user pay for it, you are talking about all the customers of the Rivanna in the City and County. If the guidelines themselves; if it is possible.for any group of engineers or the Committee to lay down guidelines right now or while we draft this ordinance; they lay them down so we know they will work, then this whole thing will work. But if the guidelines themselves are in doubt, and we don't know whether they are going to work, we are nov going t~ go back later and change them at anybody's expense but the County's or the Rivanna Service Authority's. That is what I believe-.the situation'is now. Mr. Thacker: George, it seems to me that here you are questioning the interim guidelines es- tablished by the committee and I think~this committee of experts that was formulated to establish these guidelines. Some of them are discretionary, but · think in this particular case a lot has to be left to the discretion of the Committee. Mr. St. John: I agree, I think this is a Blue Ribbon Committee, but I'm reading in their 250 enacting an ordinance adopt.ing certain provisions (I'm reading from the report now)(if we've said something here which is going to lead to a lot of trouble in the future, X'd rather correct it now than later). This says they may'require the abatement of any pollution that may be proved regard- less of how longstanding the source may be. Now, thaa may be true, but it 'is going to be done at the County's expense or the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority's expense, and not at the developers expense nor of residents in that. development, if it was done in accordance with the guidelines we wrote down. Mr. Carwile: Z would disagree, George, that it'doesn't necessarily have to be that way. the expense of the general public as opposed to. the'occupants and the developer. At Mr. St. John: You mean the developer could follow the guidelines, and they prove inadequate, and you are going to make the developer go back... Mr. Carwile: You can establish certain parameters that you want the quality of the water that is being discharged from the site to qualify. If these are agreed to, then the mechanism that is employed to do that does not accomplAsh that goal, I think you can say go back and bring us some- thing that will do it at your expense .... Mr. T. M. Batchelor, Jr., County Executive: We are empowered with that right now by the State Water Control Board, amd we' have ~been.following this same code for the last few months and just spent half a million dollars. ~f they approve our. plan, but ~f we don't meet that criteria, we have got to re-do and rebuild until it meets State standards. Mr. Henley: That's fine, but suppose the developer has moved to Florida, then who is going to pay for it the people~who are living there? (Batchelor absolutely.) Well, I'm not going to do that to somebody. I wouldn't want it done to me. Mr. St. John: My opinion, the State Water Control Board telling the City or county that when they approve a sewage plant it is different from our telling private individuals to go back and do that, I don't believe we can do it. I believe if they follow the guidelines and the guidelines don't work it will get'.fixed at the County expense. Mr. Bailey: We were not thinking of the guidelines as suggested here as being applicable any further than the length of the study and the recommendations from the study saying you should do such in the management ~ur land. We say, and we are doing this on the advice of the consultant, that it is better to put things that are now certain such as controlled sedimentation which will be also active while under construction. Now when the development is constructed your pavement is down, you may have a very minimum amount of erosion and-sedimentation, but from the area occupied and used you can get runoff carrying nutrients, even though you-are controlling sedimentation. So all we are doing in these recommendations is saying require the developer to provide a site on which additional facilities and treatment may be statione6. I don't see how you are going to get into trouble with the inadequacy when you enter into the conditions that we are suggesting. Mr. Thacker: Mr. Bailey is At also.true that Betz proposed to furnish interim reports as t~e study progresses, so some determinations can be made on these guidelines. Mr. Bailey: The company has told us they will. Mr. DeFalco: I'll talk about the selection of'these criteria'as interim guidelines. I think they were selected to serve the purpose, and I must say 'they were selected on the basis of exper- ience. We know that these particular solutions or things we suggested work, but I also must say at the same time that the study of the lake itself has to be done with the lake remaining in a status quo position. Since the lake is a dynamic eco system, that it is continually changing, these are the things that we want to actually study too, so we are not really in great haste to cu~ off all these sources to the lake without first finding out what they consist of and what their impact on the lake is so we can make more intelligent'and precise recommendations as how to control these sources. I think the recommendations that were made in the report are designed to avoid any major problems which may come to pass as the result of any increased active development in the area, to this extent, I think they will exceed. Remember the life of a lake is many many years, so we have this time span to look at, and would also indicate that it is a dynamic type of system that has to be studied under dynamic conditions and to this extent this is the way our study has developed; and we will certainly deliver periodic reports to the proper persons as often as they deem nec- essary, the progress of our study. Mr. Wheeler: ~es Mr. Chairman) Under these guidelines, can your study go on without interruption. Okay gentlemen., what direction do we go? (DeFalco: Mr. Carwile: I would suggest and agree with Mr. Fisher, that procedurally, we don't force anything that we can adopt tonight. I think that before we can make an intelligent decision, we would have to see what the County staff, this Committee and engineering and County Attorney's office can come up with in implementing these detailed criteria into an ordinance, bonding provisions for it and things of that nature. I think this time what we can do is instruct the staff to go to work and present to this Board a proposal. Mr. Wheeler: The staff might need the help of this committee, if we could impose on them. What would you need Mr. St. John to.develop an ordinance. What would it require time wise. I would like for you to participate, are we talking about a week? Mr. St. John: No, we can't do this in a week. I think we need at least two weeks, are these just general guidelines, or are these just general standards for the implementation of these guide- lines in an ordinance, would you not Mr. Bailey? You would need.., we can draw the ordinance very quickly, I'm not concerned about the time in doing that, but I'm concerned about are the standards put into the ordinance which come to us from the technical staff. You can't just leave it up to aa approving official to handle. Example leave it up to his discretion to approve or disapprove the design of a holding pond etc. Are the criteria spell.ed out the way you want them in the ordinance, or are they just general information for this meeting. Mr. Fisher: They are not very specific to me. seepage pits and basins are not very specific. Porous pavement, open grass lined culverts, Mr. St. John: Let me tell you the usual procedure for doing something like this. We work on something ourselves, and draft something from our own initiative. Meanwhile we would send off to every county and municipality in Virginia that has had this kind of problem, and if they have an ordinance which attempts to accomplish this, get copies of. the ones that have been tested in the courts and get the courts opinion, they will try to get one that will withstand any attack. I think at least two weeks to do it, and it has got to be advertised. 8-20-75 Mr. Wheeler: We can take action on it in probably two weeks. (St. John: if you wanted to do that, yes). ~ don't plan on spending the rest of the fall onlit,~.~we can do it sooner than two weeks,.we witl do it, but I don't know. Mr. Fisher: 1 can't tell whether or not I could support this until 1 see it. Z know two things that bother~me very much; one granting approval on site plans and other development which could occur a,fter this study ia completed and we have the benefit of that, without being able to change those requirements prior to the completion of those developments. I don't want to see everyone in.the'watershed come in and.get site plans approved.under these controlled conditions, and all the development that occurs is essentially six or ten years past the study would be approved by these interim gu±de!ines. Now What'you ~are saying is that the site plan becomes conditionally approved. Mr. St. John: built. That is right, it is no longer conditionally approved once the building is Mr. Thacker: What I think George is saying is that you can't put a ~time limit on the be- ginning of construction under site plan approval. Mr. Fisher: Occupancy permits are a much more definitive point, somewhere between the two you have to argue about it. Mr. Wheeler: to build. You'won't get someone to put up money for a site plan approval and not expect Mr. Fisher: At.what time is the bond money put up now? Is it put up when the site plan is approved or withthe building permit. (St. gohn - Prior to the building permit.) So the site plan-can be approved without putting up the bond. (St. John - It is conditional on the bond being put up before you get the building permit.) Mr. Hartweil Clarke, Building 0~fician and Zoning Administrator: The Erosion Controls would have to be approved beforeit~'left the Planning C0mmissiom. ~n the future~it will have to be done prior-to approval by the Planning Commission... Mr. St. John: It can be drawn to show that that particular problem is handled in site plans which no work has begun. Nobody is going to get a vested right to pollute in otherwords, until the work has been done. Fred'looked at that, and I wasn't through it myself. Mr. Fisher: I would likevery.muah then to concur with the recommendation that this go to staff, try and draft this ordinance. I'm not convinced that Mr. St. John is completely sure of his ground on some of these issues, and ~'m not sure, when I hear his final opinion what I am going to say, but there ~i.s~~ enough evidence here that proper controls under a proper ordinance with proper enforcement, and with proper bonding could possibly work. I would like to ~give it a chance. Mr. Wheeler: I essume you gentlemen ha~e heard it, but is it your intention to carry this temporary moratorium forward until we take action, is that what you are saying? (Mr. Fisher: Yes). That is the reason why I urge that we don't spin-our wheels for too great a time, we should make a decision one way-or the other, and not continue this hardship, tt is a hardship and we can't continue it beyond a certain time. Lets get,a date now so it can come before these members and hopefully vote. Could we ask the Committee to stay together to assist our staff, I know we have asked the impossibl.e, and we are asking it again. What are we talking about for a time frame. Could we~have a motion carrying this over ~o the 4th of September, and continue the moratorium until the 4th of September. Mr. Carwile: So move. Mr. Wood: Second the motion. Mr. Wheeler: It will be .at 7:30 P..M. in this court room. Mr. Thacker: This~is the moratorium as amended. Mr. Wheeler: Thav is right, it does not include single-family-residents. Call the role. AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M. "August 27, 1975 Mr. Lloyd F. Wood Route 8,~Box 112 Charlottesville, Virginia Mr. Stuart F. Carw~le 700 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia Re: Advisory Opinion on Conflicts of Interest in South Rivanna Reservoir Watershed Legislation Gentlemen: In accordance with your ~equest and pursuant to the Albemarle Circuit Court's Order appointing me acting CommonweaZth's A~torney on 20 August 1975, the following is my advisory opinion concerning your position under the Vir- ginia Conflicts of Znterest Statute w~th r~a~a ~o ~~ ~ ~ ~~ legislation affecting the entire South Rivanna Reservoir Watershed. I have attached a copy of Mr. St. John's letter to the Attorney General in which he poses three questions to be answered: a) ~do either of you have a "material financial interest'' under Section 2.t-348(H) of the Virginia Code?;- b) is this a transaction of general application under Section 2.1-3527; and, c) if you allege you intend to vote a certain way, does that affect any conflict you may have? With regard to a), 1 find, based on the contents of Mr. St. John's letter, that each of you has a material financial interest in the South Rivanna Reservoir Watershed area. As you ~now, Section 2.1-348(f)1 defines material financial interest in a firm, partnership, or other business as "ownership of an interest of five percent or more in a firm, partnership or other business or aggregate annual income exclusive of dividend income and interest income of'more than $5,000.00 from a firm, partnership or other business .... (emphasis added)." In view of the above-quoted definition, it seems clear that both of you gentlemen have material financial interests in the area. With regard to b), after having read the opinions of the Attorney Gen- eral, with particular attention to the informal opinion rendered for the City Council of the City of Charlottesville-on the question of the legis- lation for the mall project, I find the proposed legislation affecting the entire South RiVanna Reservoir Watershed is of general application, and that you are, therefore, not required by the Virginia Conflicts of Interest Statute to abstain from.voting on such legislation. It is quite obvious that there is a large geographical area involved in the South Rivanna Reser- voir Watershed. Moreover., the principal and direct beneficiaries of legis- lation affect'ing the entire wavershed would be numerous and their interests quite varied as to an~ particular point raised by such broad legislation. Finally, with regard to c), the law is silent on the question of whether a legislator intends to vote against his financial interest affects his potential conflict. There may be some reason to believe that a legis- lator should be permitted to vo~e against his own financial interests. How- ever, since this point is not addressed by .the law,-I do not believe that it would be a relevant question for this opinion. I sincerely hope this advisory opinion is helpful and serves the interests of the citizens of Albemarle County. Yours very truly, (signed) Brian J. Donato Acting Commonwealth's A~torney County of Albemarle~ "August 11, 1975 Honorable Andrew P. Miller Attorney General Supreme Court Building 1101 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Mr. Miller: A question has arisen with regard to the applicability of the Virginia Conflict of Interests Act (Virginia Code Section 2.1-347 et seq.) to a cer- tain issue now before the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. The Albemarle County Commonwealth's Attorney's office has declined to issue its advisory opinion concerning this issue on the ground that the Commonwealth's Attorney himself has a conflict of interest with regard to the subject matter thereof. Therefore, I request your opinion regarding the following set of facts. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is presently considering t. he imposition of some type of stringent development control ordinance anchor moratorium on development i~ the watershed of the South~Rivanna River Reservoir with the objective of inhibiting pollution thereof. Such an ordinance would encompass the entire watershed of the Reservoir, consisting of an area of approximately 260 square miles or approximately 35% of the county,s land area. It is contemplated t~at any such ordinance would substantially inhibit development in this area pending the completion of a study now underway to determine the sources of pollution in the Reservoir. One member of the Board of Supervisors is an attorney representing certain land developers having large land holdings in..the watershed. His income from these clients is substantially in excess of $5,000.00 per year. A second member of the Board is part owner of a corporation whiCh holds approximately 38 acres o£ land in the watershed, the proportion of which is substantially in excess of 5% of the total and the value of which is substantially in excess of $5,000.00. Both of these members have publicly expressed their intention to vote in favor of a moratorium on development within the watershed pending the completion of the aforementioned study. On these facts, my questions are as follows: 8-2O-75 25{ So the interests outlined above constitute "material financial interests" as defined'by Section 2.1-348(f.) of the Code? Does the imposition of a moratorium on development in the watershed or in a substantial portionth, ereof constitute a "transaction...of general application" under the terms of Section 2.1-3527 Assuming that a conflict of interests exists, are these supervisors nevertheless permitted to vote on the morator±um issue where their publicly expressed intention is to vote in a way which would be detri- mental to their own financial interests? As the Board intends to consider this matter on the evening of August 20, I respectfully request your earliest attention in this matter. Sincerely yours, (Signed) George R. St. John, County Attorney" VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT. COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY Re: Appointment of An Acting Commonwealth's Attorney This day came Stephen Kelvin, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney for the County of Albemarle, Virginia and advised the Court that the Commonwealth Attorney's office has a conflict with ~espect to rendering an advisory opinion under Section 2.1-356(b) of the Code of Virginia, to members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, it is hereby ORDERED that Brian J. Donato be. and hereby is appointed as an acting Commonwealth's Attorney pursuant to Section 19.1-9 in order to render such opinions as may be requested with respect to the Rivanna River Reservoir. I ask for this. (signed) Stephen A. Kelvin Assistant Commonwealth Attorney Enter: Date: David F. Berry (signed) August 20, 1975 Copy Tests: SHELBY J. MARSHALL, CLERK by J.M. Taylor, Dep. Clerk Chairman