Loading...
1975-09-049-3-75 9-4-75 work that needs to be done to the ordinance, but I am not sure that sending it back to the Planning Commission is the correct way. The suggestion that the Planning Commission speak to the Board and the public about the deviance from the Comprehensive Plan is an interesting one. I hope that somehow we will get the thinking that has led to the ordinance as it stands at this moment. Thacker: I would like to thank those citizens who have shown an interest in the ordinance and spoken tonight. I agree that there is a great deal more work needed. Carwile: No comments. Wheeler: Mr. Carr. Do you have any comments? Carr: I would like to say that the Commission awaits your directions as to any additional work required. They are interested in presenting an ordinance that is acceptable to you and the people of this county. I made six notes of major concern tonight, but I will address only two of those. I would like to meet with the Board and the Commission and discuss why I think the Commission deviated from the Comprehensive Plan. That would be a worthwhile discussion. Secondly, the Commission dealt at great length over a two-year period with preservation of agricultural lands. From comments tonight, we apparently missed that goal. If we did, maybe the Board can give us further guidance. Wheeler: We do appreciate your (public) comments. This is the beginning of our work on this ordinance.~which is before us because we think it is time to make changes and corrections in the ordinance to bring it into line with the Master Plan. I want to say that zoning is controversial, has been, and always will be controversial. I remember when zoning was first passed. It was said there would be a big exodus from Albemarle County. Well, exactly the opposite has happened. We have more people coming all the time and we have to deal with those people. I want to remind you that while there are quite a number of people here tonight, there are almost 45,000 people in Albemarle County. The decision this Board makes has got to be something that will be best for the majority of that 45,000, not just for one specific group, or the developers, or the property owners, or the agricultural people. We will hold a workshop next Wednesday afternoon and set a course of action at that time. At 11:25 P.M. Mr. Wood offered motion, which was seconded by Mr. Thacker, to adjourn this meeting until 7:30 P.M. on September 4, 1975, in the Albemarle County Courthouse. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Chairman 9-4-75 (Adjourned from September 3, 1975) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 4, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T.Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, T. M. Batchelor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St, John; Deputy County Attorney; Frederick Payne; County Planner, John L. Humphrey; County Engineer, J. Harvey Bailey; and Assistant County Planner, Robert Tucker. Wheeler: Meeting come to order. We are here tonight to dis~uss an ordinance which has been drafted by the County Attorney and the s~aff using guidelines recommended by the committee appointed to draft guidelines so development can be carried out in the South Rivanna River Reservoir watershed. I will ask Mr. St. John to go over the ordinance and then we will hear comments from the committeg, Board members and the citizens Present. St. John: I will read the ordinance and suggest two changes be made in same. ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE TO PROTECT THE QUALITY OF WATER IN THE SOUTH R!VANNA RIVER RESERVOIR Prea~&e WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Being gravely concerned for the viability of the South Rivanna River Reservoir as a public drinking water supply for the County and for the City of Charlottesville, has determined to protect this irreplaceable public asset by employing whatever measures may be necessary to effect the same, even though such measures ~ay have an adverse impact on certain segments of the local economy and on certain individual property rights; and WHEREAS, a study is ma~b~ing made, at the instance of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, (~ will stop right here. I am not sure that this study was aole~y &h the instance of the~Authority. Perhaps it was at the instance of the Authority, and the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County.) by Betz Environmental Engineers, Inc., t~ be completed in approximately 14 months, and the Board is concerned lest development during the said 14 month period should result in ~reparable damage to the reservoir; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 1975, in Order'to protect the said reservoir, the Board of Supervisors enacted an ordinance suspending development within the waterhhed of the said reservoir for a perio~ of l~ days; and WHEREAS, while the Board of Supervisors fully intends t'o protect the said reservoir from pollution, at the same time it recognizes a duty to accomplish this objective in such a manner as not to d~ress the local economy or interfere with individual property riEhts except to the extent that the same shall be absolutely necessary to accomplish this 'objective; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors on August 6, 1975, appointed a committee to study the control 286 9-4-75 (a) (b) (d) (e) (f) (g) A representative of the State Water. Control Board; A r~p~es~atative of the State Health Department; The Chairman of the Rivanna Water and B~wer Authority; The Executive Director of ~he Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority; The Chairman of the Albemarle County Planning Commission; The Albemarle County Engineer; and The Director of Public Works for the City of'Charlottesville; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 1975, the said committee made its report,~ which report indicates that a moratorium on building and development in the watershed of the Said reservoir is not, in the opinion of the committee, absolutely necessary for the protection of the reservoir, provided, and only provided, that certain guidelines ~formUlated by the committee and appended to its report be enacted into law and strictly enforced along with existing county ordinances;and WHEREAS, in view of the report of the Committee, the Board of Supervisors, while remaining committed to the protection of the reservoir, hereby makes the following ~actual findings: (a) It is not necessary for the protection of the reservoir that the heretofore imposed moratorium on building and development in the watershed be continued; and (b) In order, however, to protect the reservoir from possible irreparable degradation during the period of the study being made by Betz EnVironmental Engineer~$~ Inc'., in lieu of a building and development moratorium, it is necessary to enact into law and to enf~J~e certain guidelines for building and development recommended by the committee as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, be it~ordained .by the Board of County SuperVisors of Albemarle County', Virginia, as follows: SECTION I - PURPOSE The purpose of.this ordiaadne shall be to protect the South Rivanna River~servoir from pol~utimn and eutophication; ~a prevent the development or use of land in the watershed of the South Rivanna River~Reservoir in a manner tending adversely Jto effect the quality of Water in, or ~ending to have a substantially adverse effect upon, the South Rivanna River Reservoir as a publiodrinking water supply; and to prevent pollution and euthophication of t~e same in order to enhance the overall development of the County and the proper planned promotion of agric~ulture, tourism~ and appropriate residential, c~mmercial, and industrial development within Albemarle County and to promote the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville.' It is intended by the Board of Supervisors that this ordinance be interpreted liberally in view of the paramount public interest involved in the preservation of the South Rivanna River Reservoir. SECTION II - AMENDMENT TO ALBEMARLE COUNTY SOiL EROSION AND SED!.MENTAT~ON CONTROL ORDINANCE The Albemarle County Soil EBosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: (a) By the addition thereto and inclusion therein of a Section 6-3 reading: 6--3- All plans and specifications submitted pursuant to this ordinance relating to land in the watershed of the South Rivanna River Reservoir, in addition to all other provisions of law, shall be in accordance with ~he guidelines which are attached to this ordinance as Appendix A. (b) By the adoption af Appendix A to the said ordinance of a set of guidelines, which guide- lines are hereby given the full force and effect of law by being attached hereto.and incorporated herein~by reference. SECTION II! - EFFECTIVE DATE An emergencyg~eing found to exist, this ordinance shall take effect immediately. EPPENDIX A TO ALBEMARLE COUNTY SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENtaTION CONTROL ORDINANCE GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE WATERSHED OF .THE SOUTH RIVANNA RIVER RESERVOIR RestriCtions on~Deveiopment in the Watershed ~f the South Riv~na River Beservoir Land in the watershed of the South Rivanna River Reservoir may be developed a~ otherwise provided by law except that on slopes of 15% or greater (now, omit the following ~ords "the only permitted land uses shall be open space, utility rights-of-way and/or roads, i will come back to tha~ change and discuss it when I finish reading the ordinance.) the only permitted lan~ uses shall be open space, utility rights-of-way and/or roads. No building,ggrading, or excavative activity, except such activity as ah$11 be necessary for the construction and/or installation of utilities and/or r~ads, ~hall be permitted. The location and design of roads shall follow topography whenever possible in order to minimize excavation and embankment. B. Minimization and Control of Storm Runoff 1. The erosion and sedimentation control plan shall include an engineering hydraulics analysis of storm water runoff under proposed developed site conditions and an evaluation of the ~roposed measures ~o control the same. 2. During development and construction, adequate protective measures shall be provided to minimize damage from surface water to the cut face of excavations or the sloping surface of fills. 3. Soil and~or other materials shall not be temporaril'y or permanently stored in. such locations or in such a manner as to cause suffocation of ~oot systems of t'rees required by law to be preserved. 4. Bamage to vegetat&on on stream banks shall be minimized such that all living trees shall be retained within the boundaries of flood~ways or wet lands and within five feet on each bank of any stream for which a flood way has not been identified. Permissible exceptions to this guideline include road and utility rights-of-way, ~etention pOnds and ~elated drainage improvements. 5. A combination of storage and control release of storm water runoff shall be required for development and construction in all cases in which the committee shall determine the same shall be reasonably necessary for the minimization of soil erosion, sedimentation and/or pollution of. dowmstream water courses. To this end, the committee may require control measures, including but not limited (a) The rate of storm water runoff should be minimized by-the use of ~oof storage of rain water, intentional ponding, retention and detention basin. (b) Sediment basins shall be installed in conjunction with the initial grading operating~ and maintained throughout the development process to provide for the management, collection and treatment of storm water runoff from land undergoing development. The approximate sizing of sedimentation basins shall be based on the following design criteria: (t) Design storm frequency - 2 years (24 hour); (2) Sufficient capacity to handle both peak rate and the total volume of runoff; (3) Basin retention time shall be a minimum 8f one hour; (4) ~Basin surgace settling rate shall be a maximum of 500 gallons per square foot per day; (5) Basin minimum freeboard requirement shall be 24 inches; (6) Minimmm length of flow from basin inlet to outlet shall be 10 feet; (7) Sediments shall be~ removed as required to preserve the ~olume requirements of control measures (1), (2), and (3) as set forth above; (8) An appropriate baffle mechanism shall be included to prevent "~hort circuiting" and to maintain a quiescent condition for settling. (c) In addition to the provision of adequate sedimentation basins,~ each development shall also provide and maintain open space adjacent to eaoh such basin, such open space being equal in area to a minimum of 20%.of the land area occupied by the basin. (I will come back to that in a minute). This space shall be maintained for possible future installation of additional storm water runoff treatment facilities, should such additional treatment become necessary to prevent pollution and/or eutrophication of the reservoir. 'In the event that such additional treatment become necessary, th~zoning administrator shall require the installation of such additional treatment Egcilities pursuant to Section 7-6 of the Albemarle County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance. 6. Retention facilities and drainage structures shall, where possible, use natural tophgraphy and vegetation. In lie~ t-hereof, these shall have planted trees and vegetation such as shrubs and permanent ground cover on thedr borders. Ail on site facilities shall be properly operated and main- tainedby the owner such ~hat they do not become n~isances. For purposes of these guidelines, the term "nuisance" shall include, but not be limited to: (a) improper storage resmlting in uncontrolled runoff and overflow; (b) stagnant ~ater with concomitant algae growth, insect breeding and odors; (c) discarded debris; and (d) other public health, or safety hazardg created by the operation ofthe facilities. 7. The use of impervious cover should be minimized in order to maintain infiltration capacity. Therefore, the use of pervious ¢o~eri~ encouraged~.where~ (a) (b) such usage effectively contributes to a reduction of storm water runoff; and such usage does not conflict with the maintenance of stability required of the cover. 8. The design of the storm water runoff collection system shall be based on the following storm frequencies: (a) residential (1) Inlets,sewers - 5 years (2) low points, outfalls - l0 years (b~ commercial and industrial - l0 years 9. The storm ~requency criteria used in this appendix shall be determin&d in.accordance with the Virginia Departmed~tof Highways and Transporation rainfall intensity duration curves, which are shown on Exhibit I hereof. ~lationship of Guidelines to HandbOok ~nd 0rdina~ce These guidelines shall be deemed supplementary to the provisions of the Virginia Erosiom and Sediment Control Handbook and shall be construed in accordance ther~'~bh. In the case of any conflict betweenthe~Standards set forth in ~hese guidelines and those contained in the said. Handbook, the more stringent shall prevail. Nothing in these guidelines shall be construed to authorize a departure from sound conservation and engineering practices nor to mestrict the zoning administrator's powers to administer the Albemarle County Soil~ Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance or to remedy, correct or abate any violation thereof. (NOTE** CHART ON TOP'OF PAGE 288~should be inserted in this spot). ~ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 17-6-3 OF~ THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO REDUCE THE TIME PERIOD FOR EXPIRATION 'OF SIT~ PLAN APPROVAL BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of. County Supervisors of Albemarle County that Section 17-6-3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be, and the same ~hereby is, amended as follows: 17-6-3. Approval of a site development plan pursuant to this article shall expire six months after the date of approval unless actual constructions (I think this should be construction; singular.) shall have commenced and is~thereafter prosecuted in good Daith. St. John: I would like to explain these corrections. I would like for the Board or members of the committee who m~y have this information, at some point during this ~iscussion, tell us whhther this study was at the instance of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Of course,.this is simply a-clerical matter and is not of importance to the effectiveness of the ordinance. On Page l, I have suggested that the words "the only permitted 'land uses shall be open space, utility rights of way and/0r roads" be omitted. The ordinance will then read '~land in the watershed of the South Rivanna River Reservoir may be developed as otherwise provided by law except that on sloDes of 15% or greater, no building, grading, or excavating activity except such activity as is necessary for installation Of utilities and/or roads shall be Dermitted." I have recommended that you omit the first part because on its face it would exclude agricultural or graxingactivites. I do not think that was the intention ~ the committee. I did.not understand that you intend to allow development of roads.and utility rights of way, but exclude grazing, etc. on these slopes. On Page 4, and I would like for the committee members to be sure this is correct, it says 20% of the land occupied by the basin is to be set aside for a treatment plant. Should that not read 20% of the-land area occupied by the land area served by the basin~ 28,8 9-4-75 Thacker: .Occupied by the basin? Bailey: (J. H. Bailey-County Engineer) That is the ba~in~itself. St. John: Then it is correct as it reads? Bailey' Yes. Thacker: This simply provides that an additional 20%' of open space shall be provided adjacent to t~e basin. St. John: 20% of the size of the basin itself. Not 20% of the land served by this basin. Thacker: An additional 20%. St. John: I had thought originally that this meant that you were going to set aside 20% of the entire land served by this sediment basin. Bailey: A relatively small area. St. John: Let me make some procedural remarks. Our office simply assisted in drafting this ordinance. This ordinance is the product of the committee. We received a lot of valuable heSp from committee members and from citizens. Some citizens provided us with materials, publications on how other localities have handled this type of situation. For example, Mr. William Colony lent us a manual published by the Southeastern. Wisconsin-Pl-anning Committee.on "Shore-lands and flood land controls, etc." The~e were useful, however, by and large these guidelines are.~.he product of the sommittee and they do not deviate substantially from the original guidelines promulugated by that committee.~oIf you have questions directed to the guidelines,please address these, questions to the committee. Our office has no more knowledge than any other layman as to the mean of or the effectiveness of the guidelines. We authored the part of the ordinance which comes before the appendexes. Look at the first two paragraphS'. I would like to explain the purpose of these paragraphs and ask that yo~ look at the findings on page 3~' "Whereas, in view of the report of the committee, the Board of ~up~visors, while remaining committe~ to protections of the reservoir hereby makes the following ~actual findings." In draWing this ordinance, we have not purported to put the factual finds in the mouth of the Board. We have not presumed that you have made the factual findings. If you elect to adopt this ordinance t~night, however, some factual findings are positively necessary to support this ordinance. I1 feel this ordinance is likely tc be tested in court and in order for any ordinance to withstand such a test, you must have findings of ~act incorporated in the ordinance and findings of ~act in the minutes of the meeting at which you enact the ordinance. The findings on pa~e 3 arethe findings which in my opinion are necessary to support this 0~dinance. Fact no. i says "it is not necessary for the protection of the reservoir that the heretofore proposed moratorium on building ~nd development in the reservoir be continued." We do not presume to say that you have ~ound this as~a matter of fact~ or a majority of the Board has found this; you may not. But, if you enact this ordinance, this paragraph shows that you as one alternative to this ordinance, the continuation of this'building moratorium and that you are consciously weighing the facts before you. It shows that you elected, in lie~ of continuing this moratorium,to do something that would have a lesser economic impact upon individual rights than.would the .alternative which you considered and found unnecessary. This is the purpose of that finding of fact. 9-4-75 Fact #2 is the finding that is necessary to support the regulations you are imposing on developers in this area. This finding shows that i~i~yeu do not impose these regulations,lirreparable degradation to this reservoir is like to occur. The paragraphs on the first page are simply historic reasons for the ordinancaf If the ordinance is tested, before then you are telling the people of the county who are going to be subject to the ordinance why it is being enacted. There are more of these paragraphs than the average Albemarle County ordinance and there is a reason for this. This is a rather drastic ordinance. It is an ordinance which by its terms overrides other ordinance which may be in conflict. We feel it is best to have these paragraphs and there is a reason for every word contained in the ordinance. The "purpose" clause of any ordinance is important. If the purpose of this ordinance were to simply impose the Board's judgment as to how to direct d~velopment from one section (of the county) to another section (of the county) or how to direct density without regard to preservation of the public water supplyiin the County, the legal situation would be entirely different in my judgment. You are stating in the ordinance that the purpose if not to simply direct or control growth or non-growth or impose the Board's judEm~nt, or the Planning Commission's judgment on how the County should develop. The purpose of the ordinance is to protect the reservoir from pollution. That is a different thing. One other thing about the ordinance. The area effected by the ordinance is the entire watershed. Some discussion was held (at other meetings) about the area that should be eo~ad; whether the area could be diminished down to the area immediately adjacent to the reservoir. Mr. Conner of the Health Department has told us, with respect to his letters which the Board is aware of (the letters from the Health Department are supporting documents for this ordinance) that he did not intend to include the entire watershed of this reservoir in his letters,but, that area is included in this ordinance. There is no differentiation with respect to density of developmen~ or differentiation with respect to commercial, industrial, as ppposed to residential deVelopment. There is no length of time in which the ordinance will expire. It is envisioned that the ordinance will some day be superseded by other regulationS, further or different regulations as a result of the Betz Company study. That is not put into the ordinance because, i~ is unnecessary. You do not have an absolute date by which the study will be returned to the Board and this ordinance is in effect until it is either a~d~d, repealed or superseded by another ordinance. As a matter of law, that will take care of the time element in this ordinance. It is not necessary or wise to put a time limitation on this thing. I will anticipate one or two questions on the legal aspects~of the ordinance. l) It is enviSioned that~if treatment of the runoff during and after the construction stage, there will have to be treatment plan~s and theme will have to be put in at the expense of ~he developer. Whatever the nature of the treatment may be, it will require some maintenance,©a treatment plant, and could include ~edimen~ation ponds also. All of the facilities may require maintenance and the question~is whether the developer, or his successors in title (the residents in that area) will have to pay for this or whether the public at large will have to pay. By the public at large, i mean either the general fund of the county or the entire segment of the population of the city and county which use this water. .The residents who live in the ~ea being served by these particular treatments plants cannot be assessed by the governing body of the county, but they can, in our judgment, be bi~ed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, through the Albemarle County Service Authority, for this .~ service~. Th~ State Statute governing rates and fees for a service authority for any water and sewer authority ssys that fees do not have to he. uniform for all of the persons served by the authority. The rates shall be determined according to equitable principles with respect to the particular service given to theParticular u~ers. I have no ~oubt that the people whose property is served by these facilities can be billed for the cost of maim~ai~d~Eit~ese facilities by the (Albemarle County)-Service~Authority without anybody else joining in to pay for same. The people who use thempro-rata~could be billed pro-rata. Wheeler: Do any Board members or committee members have comments to make? of the ~uidelines ~ Bailey: On. Page 2o/und~r Section ~(a) the last~.~wo~d should be basin, not basis. Also on Page ~ of the firSt-section,~ the last sentence of Section I says "It is intended by the Board of SupervisorS that t~is ordinance be interpreted liberally in view of the paramount public interest involved in the preservation of the South Rivanna River Reservoir." Please qualify the word ~"liberally". St. John: Two methods are used in construction of an ordinance. One is strict and the other is liberal. A liberal construction means the ordinance is designed to promote the public interest and ambiguity is to be resolved in favor or,overage of the ordinance. A strict construction has to do with a statute which changes the common law and is an abrogation of the common law, or criminal statu~9, where all ambiguities are to be construed in favor, in this case~the landowner, the person who is trying not to'be covered by the ordinance. That is the reason this phrase is in here.~ It is the intent of the Board of Supervisors, if it ever~draws any question, and that is the question always before the Court as to interpreting the ordinance. Once it is interpreted, it can be declared arbitrary, capricious, unconstitutional, ~tc. But, in interpreting it, what the court has bo do is first of all find the intend of the body that 'en&cted it. This phrase is in. here to guide the court in inter- preting any ~mbiguity. There are'probably many of them in here. You cannot forsee thema~ll~ George Williams: In the second parag~Dph "At the instance of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority~ I feel it would be appropriate to add the Board of Supervisors and City Council. ~ J. T. Henley, Jr.. On ~age 3, you said something about testing the ordinance in court. is tested~in, court, the ~uidelines will be in effect until ruled otherwise? IF it St. John: There are several ways of testing. One way is to violate the ordinance and then ble served with a criminal warrant. Then you would go to Court and your defense would be that this o~inance is void and cannot be enforced. ~. Henley: That would not necessarily mean that everyone else does not have to abide by it. St. John: Only those who are willing to take a change on being convicted if the ordinance is upheld.. That is one way to test it. Another way is to abide by it, but to seek an injunctiOn from the court saying it is void. But, you have to go to court to see if it is void before you test it. It would,certainly be valid on its face u~til such time as the court wyuld say that~it is invalid and subject to someone else being able to come-in later and persuade the court that the~committee members, the engineer, and membersm~of the committee who drafted the ~guidelines were in error. Subj'ect to that happening, in my judgment, there is nothing invalid about the ordinance. Henley: I~would like for someone to give me an example of a 15% slope. Bailey: The hiI1 going down High,Street toward the high school is about 16-17%. That is the closest thing I can think of at the moment. Leigh Middleditch: I would like to know i£.th~ way this has been described to me is erroneous. I was told that if you have a 30 foot wide hOuse, and you have a drop of one and one-half feet for 290 9-,tt.-75 Bailey: That is extremely accurate. Henley: I was interested in getting an &d~a of a 15%degree slope because on the first page of the guidelines, Section A, it looks to me like we are eliminating all the single-famil~ homes in the watershed on a 15 degree.slope. It would be interesting to know how many .homes we now have in-the watershed on~a ~15 degrse slope. I am sure there are plenty 'of them. Batchelor: I think you are .correct. Mr. Bailey might add a little to that. Bailey: Let me e~and on the 15% further. First, when the committee was formed, the Board of Supervisors gave the ~County Engineer authority to employ a consultant to guide the committee. We employed the firm of Betz Environmental Engineers because they seemed to be the most concerned. (They are making the study and since it was proposed that the condition 'of the reservoir be kept static while the study was made, they had that interest without having other interests which would influence their judgment.) In their meeting with the committee, the staff members present from Betz did ~di~cuss with~ us and prepare provisions which are in these recommendations. We discussed their recommendations, eliminated some, and added to them ~ntil the committee was Satisfied with the conditions set. We have looked further into the 15% number that was expressed here. By the nature of the-subject with which we are dealing, there are a number of v~riables. There is no sacred number that could possibly apply to ~overn all the different classigications of soil that are found within the area to be developed.~ ~aobtained expert advice from the Soil Conservation Service soil scientists working for the county in preparation of the land act, studies and determinations. They pointed out to me figures that have been developed by the Department of Agriculture and figures that apply to different classes or names of classes of land used engineering wise to facilitate or be used in construction, road work, etc. It is significant that a majority of these types of soils have asba breaking point as to what is acceptable and what is not, 15%. Dr. Brown from Betz is here and can expand on this feature better than I. Dr. Brown: We researched the 15%. In-many states across the country, this is used as a regular standard for the maximum slopes to be developed on. ~oil Conservation publications of November, 1971,-~e~ used for interpreationSoof soils. At slopes from 0 - 30%, they found that from 0 - 10% there is not that much erosion. From !05 to 15% there is an incraase. At 15% and'above, hhere is a significant increase for most types of soil. From 2% - 10% you get erosion from 1/2 to .05 tons per acre. Up to 15% you get .75 to 1.5. Above t5% you get from 1,5 to ~ and hi~her. This was tested on actual soils; not in the laboratory. the Soil cover Henley: I just wondered if ~/~ made a d~fference. If you have a good solid cover, there would not be as much erosion. Brown: There would be virtually no cover during constrmction. Henley: You would have a hard time convincing me that if you bare five acres of land with. a good sod and ~uild a single-family home on a 15~slope that there will be a lot of ero~sion. Payne: There is one answer to that. This amendment does not expand the scope of the soil erosion ordinance. It merely applies the guidelines to certain applications that would be filed in any case. One of the exceptions to the ordin~ance,Otypes of development for which no application would be filed, is for single-family homes,individually developed. These are not ~ubject to this ordinance at all. Bailey: What about a subdivision with 20 houses? Pay.ne: That application is subject to this ordinance. Batohelor: So a single-family ~house in Crozet, on five acres is not subject to mthis ordinance, But if there were 20 homes it wou~ be subject to the ordinance? Payne: This provision is adopted into the soil erosion ordinance by reference from State . e~abling legislation. The enabling legislation provides that houses can be identical, ~ht a single~ individually developed home that is not part of a multiple development is exempt from soil erosion controls, but if there ~ more than 0~e home, they are subject to the ordinance. Fisher: On page ~ of the guidelines it~talks about reserving land for possible treatment facilities ~ndthe event same become necessary. In the next sentence it says: "In the event that such additional treatment becomes necessary, the zoning administrator shall require the installation of-such additional treatment facilties," No where does it specify who will monitor the effluent (runoff), nor does it state who is ~oing to decide at .what level that runoff will require treatment, Until it is clear who has the responsibility for making that decision, the zoning administrator could never be called into action. Wheeler: Would anyone like to answer that? Guy Agnor: The reason for the study is to provide Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville with a basic management plan. In adoption of that plan, certain ordinances will be incorporated. Some of those were referred to earlier by Mr. St. John, such~as the cost of moperation of these facilities. Those ordinances will provide for testing the discharges and the level when the effluent is p~lluting the reservoir. The zoning administrator will have those guidelines to determine when addit~ional a~atment facilities will be required and the type of facility. Fisher: That is totally separate from this ordinance and does not show in here to work in this ordinance. Agnor: No. That is yet to come. Fisher: If that is the case,-this last sentence~ does not belong in here because there is no way to tell i~it is needed. Whey give him the power to do anything? Bailey: Are you suggesting that this be eliminated? Eisher: I think it should be clearly spelled out who has the responsibility for monitoring and who has the responsibility for making the decision as to whether or not the quality of the effluent is so great that something needs to be done. That is not in this ordinance. Bailey: No. There is a reason for that. We do not believe this o~dinance will stay in effect lon~nough ~or such a situation to arise. We expect the ordinance to be superseded before that time, At the conclusion of the l~ months plus, there should be guidelines by which a more comprehensive Brown: It is possible, but more toward the end of the study~ Wheeler: Do members of the committee have any more comments on Mr. Fisher's question? Agnor: Mr. St. John may be able to answer this. ~I presume that this sentence is included because earlier it referred to the reservation of space for future installation of additional facilities. This is a matter of explaining that need~or~Z:~abi~h~u~ese~r~bher.~,~ha~h~i~E~m~ure. St. John: I feel this is one of the purposes. Another purpose is to establish a record so a developer who proceeds in the face of this ordinance, or under this ordinance, is proceeding or charged with the contents of this ordinance and cannot later say the county is trying to hit him with an expense not anticipated. Mr. Fisher certainly ha~s a valid ~oint. The zoning administrator cannot be the person charged with the duty of deciding when and if a waste water treatment plant is necessary. This is not his training or his function. In my Judgment, that is the function of the County Engineer,s staff. At such time as it is deemed necessary by the County Engineering, these improvements would be required to be installed at the developer's ~xpense. This does not mean that it will not be as a result of the Betz study. It does not mean that it will not be at the suggestion of the. W~ter Control Board or the Health Department, but a determination of this kind has to be made by somebody in the county government. This is our function. This is not the Health Department's function&and BetE is only acting &R an advisory capacity. I would like to hear from Mr. Bailey on this, but I think this is your function. Bail.ey: I-think the Staff had a little more material than was suggested. the Albemarle Service ~uthority to the Rivanna Service Authority on to ... Material from Betz to St. John: WheFever it comes from, it must stop in your office and you must make...? Bailey: ... St. John: That&&s the way I think it should read-: "UPon ~etermination by the County Engineer. Fisher: Page 5 of the ~guidel,ines. This is a technical matter and I do not pretend to understand this. They are talkinab out. the design of the~storm water runoff collection s~tem (Section Sa). This talksbabout 2~e and ten year frequencies. Does there not have to be some duration associated with that in order to determine the total volume of the basin~ Bailey: Yes. But that wo~ld vary with each installation. Fisher: I realize that. Does it require some storm duration? Bailey: The storm duration is determined by the con~ibio~fof the drainage basin that is involved in the request, whether it is just a minor basin involved...or extended. I~ your ~computations, you must take intoco~tderation what is known as~collection time. How long it would take the first drop of water that falls on the extremity of the basin to reach your ... pipe. That is going to vary with the particular piece of land being studies and would ~e determined as it comes. Fisher:~ Looking at th~ . , t.h~y are talkin~ah~t a five year return period. Looking at that curve on the five-year return period, it goes at one end from 6 inches per hour to the other end at something over .15 inches per hour. Would not the basin size be different for those two extremes$on any Eiven~piece of properSy? Bailey: That is what I am tr~ing to explain. Here we have a basin that from the end of the basin to the pipe in question is 500 feet. You also have~s~ch and such a slope and such and such a ~Omver, whatever the water is to run off, over and thhough. You have tO make a judgment according to your tests that have been run and tabulated as to how lon~ it would-~ake the v~rto reach from the remote area to the structure. In this case, you might~have 155minutest Then you use a~ 10-year frequency curve and you find What the ~ntensity will amount to on that durve for 'a duration of 15 minutes. That will be the rainfall intensity ~hat you use for this instance. ~No matter the time-concentration, ~your $~~ curve ~wilI give you the time~cencentration to determine the rate ~of rainfall for the ~articul~r sitaa~ion. You combine that with-the area of~ the basin that~you are draining and that will determine the quantity of flow that the' structure will handle. Fisher: You are saying that i~ 8ocs not make any differenge on a given piece of land whether or not you have a five-year frequency storm that occurs at the rat~ of six inches per hour or occurs at ~o-tenths of an inch per hour. The basin will be the same in any event? Bailey: If it rains on this ten year curve for five minutes, it will rain six~ in~??~ per hou~. If it rains for ten minutes, you reduce that to aboUt seven inches.~You get your time. Fisher: Mz,. Bailey, Z think we are losing on this. , Bailey: Mr'. Fisher the formula is "Q" is equal to "CIA" where "Q" is the dubic feet Der second, 'C" is the runoff factor, "I" is ih~ensive rainfall and"A" is t~e ar'ea. Fisher: ! will talk to you about this l~ter. Under the sGil erosion ordinance, there arelsome fines thaa can be enacted if a violator does not do what-is required of him under the ordinance.~ What are tBai~es ~that wOuld come-under this? Payee: Are you asking for just the criminal part or all o Fish~: Under the soil erosion ordinance, what are the fiK Payne: There are two kinds of remedies. One is criminal. $1~000 or B0 daySm~ln jail for each-violation, or both. The civi these? e structures? The remedy is a fin~, not exceeding i part is essentially any appropriate proceeding to corredt and amend or ab&re whatever is necessary to keep it from occuring. The most Useful procedure iB an injunction~o$~must remember .that under this ~ordinance, there Is~a special provision that makes the injunction procedure easier to come by than it was formerly. I was -~ Fisher: /~pecifically thinking of instances where the soil lerosion ordinance has not been complied with fo'r~period of time in excess of a-year,Jo Do theseffines compound in any fashion~ under the criminal structure or is it just $1,000 if they .do not comply and are convicted?~ Payne: i do not know that they would .... 2'92 9- -75 Thacker: I have a ~uestion about page 4 Of-the guidelines. Mr. St. John, in addressing the. subtect of future treatment, should be in this ordinance attempt to set forth how these treatment facilities would be paid for or how monitoring costs would be recovered? St.-John: Are you talkin~babout the maintenance Of the treatment facilities-or the installation? Thacker: Both. St. John: I do not think the maintenance ~o~s~,need be addressed in the ordinance. I-think they can be incorporated in the regular charges. If you insert the words "if in the judgment of the county's engineer such additiOnal t~eatment becomes necessary, the zoning administrator Shall require.the installation by the developer of such additional'.treatment facilties.~ I recommend the words "by the developer." Thacker': What would happen if at some point after the developer had completed his development and sol~ it out, a determination is made that additional treatment might be reqUired? Would it,aat that time, b% up to the homeowners? St. John: No, it is not up to the homeowners. At that time, there is no way to have the developer do anything. What you would do is have the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority build this facility and the Albemarle County Service Authority, acting as retailer, would monitor and maintain the facility. You do not have a homeowners association assigned the responsibility of maintenance of a sewage plant. The homeowners association is not qualified to do that'. Under Code Section 15.1-1260, I believe, the authority would automatically bill the particular users of the facilities for their pro-rata' cost. I do not ~ink it is appropriate to put that in the ordinance. The developer is mentioned in the ordinance because it is enVisioned that any development of a substantial size will not be completed and the developer will not have removed his assets by the time we know this treatment is necessary. Payne: As the ordinance is written now, the person who obtains a permit, or his successor in interest~ is going to be the one to install these facilities. Thacker: If we adopt this ordinance, it is not my intention that either the cost of construction or mainta~a~ce and/or monitoring of these facilities be borne out of county funds. Payne: That is not the intent. ~St. John: This could only happen if this deVelopment is started with an inadequate bond, but, the sedimentation and erosion control ordinance has bonding provisions. If they are applied properly, you would not have that. ThacMer: You See no necessity for any other wording? St. John: I do not know of any wording you could put in the ordinance. The w~rding ~s already in the erosion control ordinance and State code. Thacker: Paragraph A, Page I of the guideli~es~ Mr. Payne. ~I believe the erosion .control ordinance .says if one owner wishes to construct's-on two adjacent lots he~has to submit a site~plan for review. Pa~y~ue: The stat~e exempts preparation for sing~ family residences separately built Un~ess in conjunction with multiple construction or subdivi~ien develop~m~. Thacker: This is my pOint. What is the definition of multiple? Payne: It certainly is not one, but it certainly is three. The only question I have is that it comes up with two. May feeling is that ~he exemD$ion as a whole would include two, but not include one. Thacker: My point is that this would effectively prevent an subdivision on any property on any 15~. If you slope greater than 15% in the entire watershed. I have several questions concerning the ~ have a subdivision proposed which contains an area, say $0% on slopes of 10% and 50% on slopes'of 15% or more, does this necessarily prevent development of the ~entire ~ubdivision, or only that portion which would fall in excess of 15%. (No answer) Carwile: What other activity, if any, would be exempt from the soil erosion ordinance other than single family acil~ities? Payne: The best answer is to read you the statute. There are l0 of them. l) Such minor land disturbing activities as home gardens and individual home landscaping repairs and maintenance work. 2) Individual service connectiOns and con~tructimn or installation of public utility lines. 3) Septic tank lines or drainage fiels unless inCluded in an overall plan for land distubing activity relating to construction of the building to be served by the septic tank system. Surface or deep mining, 5) Tilling, planting, or harvesting oF agricultural, horiicultural, or forest crops. 6) Construction, repair or rebuilding of the tractks, rights of way, bridges, communication facilities and other ~elated structures and .facilities of a railroad company. 7) Preparation £~r single-family residences separately built, unless in conjunction~with multiple construction in subdivision development. 8) Distubed land activity involving an area of not mo~e than ten thousand square feet other than such an area disturbed as part of a plan of land disturbing activity involving ... of more than ~0,000 square feet. 9) Installation of fence and sign posts .or. telephone and elect~ poles and other kinds of posts or poles. 10) Emergency work to protect life, limb or property, and .emergency'repairs. Nheeler: I have a question to do with Section 17-6-B, ~pp~o~l oF a site development plan pursuant to this article shall expire six months after date of approval unless actual construction shall begin. My question is this. What happens to site Plans now? Is there a time limit on site plans now? Payne: The ~ime limit is 15 months. The crucial part of this is nat the time period, not the date from which you start measuring to where you stop measuring, but now it is the obtaining of the bui~ting permit. This change is of tremendous importance. 9-4-75 29c Payne: My thought would be the~former would be ~e case. Wheeler: Would it affect the site~plans that have been~approved before? Payne: No. There is one technical item here which has become aTsubstantial question in our minds. We do not believe it is lawful to enact a zoning amendment as an eme~rgency measure and that is why there are two ordinances here. The soil er~msion part can be enacted as an emergency measure. The site plan ordinance is part and parcel of the entire package and what is being proposed and the ~ea is to get the-first on the books as quickly as possible~ Wheeler: I am just trying to get two things straight. If I get a Siteplan tomorree and do not start construction in six months, then evidently it expires. If I got one the last week or two it runs for 18 months. Is that right? Payne: A building permit Carwile: This amendment with respect to mite plans would apply to the entire county and not just the Rivanna watershed? Payne: Yes. Thacker: There are some activities that require site plan approval that do. nOt require a building permit. I am thinking of grading and road construction. Is this not true? St. John: They.~do not all require a site plan. Thacker: I do not know that all of them do, but some of them do. Humphrey: Also the designation of a~site plan for a subdivision. different' entities. ~ To my mind, they are two Fisher: What did you say? Humphrey: ~,~Speaking of site plans, referring to subdivisions and tieing that to the site plans which is also ... or exempt subdivisions entirely from the six months, St. John: ... Fisher: The question I have now is a general question. That has to do with the~confidence we can have in these~ control .measures if they are adopted and if enforced. Do you know of any reservoirs in Virginia that have had~similar controls on urban development? What has been their experience with these reservoirs? Are we getting into an experimental situation or do we have a history whereby this is shown to-work? B~adley Chewning: The regulations that have been developed here and the guidelines c~m~ from the engineers. I assumed that this was~based on studies. I am not aware of any regulations in other reservoirs along these same lines~ This is not to say that they do not-fit. For example, the Occoquan localities were required to put in~edimentation basins downstream from development. The~e w,ere monitored by thecounty and are-,controlled in that way. As far as the slope goes, I am not ~a~e of any specific ~eEulation !n~a~reservoir in the ~tate. There have been some, regulations in other areas on slopes. Fisher: Are you saying that this particular set of guidelines, to your knowledge, has not been adopted on any other reservoir in the State? Chewning: Not verbatim the way'they are written here.- Fisher: reservoir~ From what I have been hearing about the 0ccoquan, ~may be in more trouble than this Chewning: I think that is-correct. I think part'of the probl,em iS~that there may have been a lack of enforcement of the regulations they already had. Wheeler: Now we will hear from those (citizens) who would like to speak. -:George Gerken: Since co.nstruction is'a temporary process, are these basins en~is:ioned~ aspermanent and will they remain in place after a subdivision or development has been completed and everything is seeded over again and there is no bare soil to errode? ~ 'DeFatco: (Betz Environmental Engineers) pervious surfaces such as parking lots or addendum type facilities to the home; a physical change in the contours of the actual perviousness ~ the-soils and the surrounding areas. I think that some parkings lots get a quicker run--off, sssenti~lly gas, oil, grease and this type of thing that makes an ~mpac:t-on the reservoir. The answer to~ your qeustion is that as a long-range control~, it is envisioned to be used. Gerken: ... sedimentation basin. The runoff from the ~ocality after construction includes DeFalco:' ... conceivable. I think it has to be done on an individual bas~s on the final plan of the subdivision or whatever. Robert Merrill: I have a couple of questions based on my experience on abatement and solving of water pollution problems.during 35 years in industry. First, I think you need a definition of eutrophication. This is the key to the whole situation. Our problem is not the reservoir, but the nutrients that-are getting in there from a source unknown rather than the silt and so on that can be solved by the guidelines already developed. I would ~mggest a definition which would include a discussion of phosphorus, nitrates and potassium. Secondly, the guidelines say the road shall follow the contours as m~ch as possibl~. ~s~ that wording consistent with the~ ne~ road.building ordinance you are considering? I believe you have eliminated the~200-foot line of sight grading which did require a lot of grading in the county to meet State standards. I just want to be sure that the statement in this ordinance is consistent with the others $~u are considering. Wheel-er: We do. not' have a county ordinance on ro~ds.~' They~ come under the~State. Merrill: But you are considering one. 294 9-4-75 Wheeler: Is that consistent? Merrill: Is that 200 line of sight eliminated in the one you are considering? Wheeler: I do not know. This would be on. very small lots~ Bailey: The one that is being studies would take the place of the existing non-conforming roads so a road would have to be developed to:standards that are acceptable to the State. The thing about following cor~ours, is to keep the embankments and cuts as light as possible. Iq is not intended to supersede any road standard. Merrill: Can the Albemarle CoUnty Service AUhhority bill maintenance of these treatments_centers to owners who are not on the sewer and water system? Say they have their own sewer and water system. St. John: That is not against the law if the sewer and private well is within the jurisdictional area of the authority. The authority can do that. I do not think that is envisioned in this area where development will take place. ~t ~.~ ~h~y Bailey: I do not think it would hinge on whether or not these individuals have utilities if they are getting the service that would be demanded by reason of these basins and the treatment of storm water. They would pay for the basin, care and maintenance and treatment of storm water. They would not be billed for water and sewer service. They would be ~illed for specific services. Merrill: I just want to be sure that it is legal to do that. St. John: As long as it is in the jurisdictional area of the authority.- outisde of its jurisdictional area. It has no ~ow~'r to go Merrill: I think the 15% slope is going to create all kings of problems. For instance, this may be inconsistent with the statement made last night in the zoning discussion that the object of the Zoning O~d~Na~8~ is to ~ry to preserve and promote agricultural land. The 15% slope will force~a lot of building to be done in the flats which are good for~farming. I know what you are trying to do here, but you are~going to use up a lot of good farming land to put houses on. Maybe there is a way to put houses on a 15%, or greater, degree slope and not ~reate a problem. I do not really have an~amswer to that. Wheeler: Are you saying to build,on slopes? Merrill: With proper engineerinE and construction standardz, I think we can build on steep ~lopes and preserve the flat of the land for farming. Wheeler-: Are you ~saying in the watershed around the reservoir? Merrill: No. I do not hhink we can build on steep slopes right around the reservoir. Mahon Kelly: I am an aquatic biologist and an asso ~ate professor at the University. My work is associated primari-ly with theStudy of e~rophication for early detection, and treatment. I also w~te~ a large part of the original proposal that resulted in the Betz study, I would like to make four points in regard to the ordinance. First, nearly all of the discussion, and the ordinance itse~o, has been addressed primarily to erosion and siltation control. There isa difference between that and the question of the control of nutrients. T~p~blem in the reservoir is that of eutrophication. Zn response to'~the previous speaker's comment, eutrophication can be defined in qu&~e a number of ways.~ To be precise it should be referred to as cultural eutrophication. However, we can consider it to be due to an excess of nutrients entering a waterway or a standing water body with subsequent excessive growth of algae which cauzes tasks, odor and health problems. It is the nutrients-that control the rate of and the degree of eutrophication. These may or may not accompany the input of silt and clay. I believe you may be locking yourself into an ordinance which requires stringent control for erosion and~siltation control. As bad as that may be, it may be totally irrelevant to changes in the input of nutrients for the reservoir. That is not addressed either in the text of the ordinance or in any of the ~iscussions this evening. It seems that the proposed ordinance is proposed to maintain the status quo during the experimental period and to prevent any irreversible deterioration in the vicinity of the reservoir during the period of study. Yet, the ordinance provides no basis for monitoring to ~ind whether or not the effecgs of the ordinance are effective. As a professional, ~ question~ whether the ordinance will be effective. A requirement for collection basins will be placed on all developers ~ithin the watershed whether or not their land and their activities are going to'lead into waterways effecting the reservoir. It is going to place a burden on the person who wants to.build three family units. It is going to place a burden on planned un.it develop~e~s regardless of whether or not they are having an input into the waterways. I do not believe that this is necessary. I would like to suggest that it is unfair to place a ~0~zden of that nature upon all individuals within the basin. I propose that there is an alternative. It does not involve a moratorium on all building within the basin. It does not involve an arbitrary moratorium on certain areas immediately adjacent to the reservoir. It simply would involve a moratorium on high ~ensity development within one-half mile of any major tributary of the reservoir or the reservoir itself. A proposal of that nature would protect the ~nput of nutrients to the waterways, would have i~pact on less area within the drainage basin and thus less leconomic impact and would cause less hard~hip to all individuals who may w~nt to build three'or four houses on a large'planned unit development, etc. Personally, I would rather not see thi~:.~rdinance passed. In other words, I would hate to see individuals, developers, or people who Want to subdivide into three units of housing suffer. ~fwould rather see no action if we cannot h~ve a reasonable action that will control the input of nutrients. I question whether this ordinance will do so. F. A'. Iachetta: I am confused as to who owns these facilities after the developer has legitimately finished developing. Also, how does-the service authority, whether it be~the Albemarle County Service Authority or the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, become responsible for monitoring or tak±ng whatever action is necessary, if there is found to be'a ~iolation after the developer is no longer involved. St. John: Whatever facilities that are needed are to be dedicated to public use and also the Albemarle County Service Authority. The answer to that is not difficult, The answer to ~our second question is. Iachetta: That is the answer to the second question. If it is d~dicated to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority or the Albemarle County Service Authority they automatically become liable for the maintenance. St. John: That is right. In perpetuity. They become responsible. I believe you also asked Iachetta: Does ~the Service Authority or either one of them in this case become legally responsible for doing the m~nitoring? St. John: They would want to m~nitor. In fact, I do not think they would have anybody else to monitor except possibly the health department. You have cooperation between the health department and the publiC works department of the City and the County Service Authority now.~ Any pollution or introduction of contamination into a public water supply is a problem to both the water authority and the health department. Iachetta: Assuming that we have established who is responsible for monitoring, when and how doe we detect it? St. John: That is up to them. You also asked another question which I cannot answer and I think it' should be addressed to the committee. If I understood correctly, we cannot assess how much we thinkthis will cost you. Iachetta: You mentioned that i.n effect inthe record. If the Servi~e Authority becomes responsible for operating the facility, then they become responsible .... St. John: They become responsible. No matter how much the bill is going to be whenthese owners get a bill from the~Albemarle Service Authori~ys I do not have the slightest idea .... Iaahetta: I do and that is what worries me. Basically, when and how would it be detected? Is it going to be a continuous monitoring operation or is someone going to go out hhere periodically and sample? How are you going to know that you have a ~iolation or that you have a contamination? There are two approaches to pollution cOntrol. One is prevention. This means you md~y the front end. other is abatement. We are talking about ~abatement here. It happens first then you do something about it, so my question really is how are you going to find out whether you have it? George Williams: The results-that Betz comes up with will r.e~eal and establish monitoring breakdown periodically .... · ~ ~ Iachetta: or what ly, at that point we have no realistic ~ollar value as to' what that might cost ~eeded after you discover what is occurring. Williams: Yes. I think it is correct to ssy that because you do not. know what you are searching for. And-I $~i~E ~'~ try to establish .... Iachetta: I~am warning you to be ~very careful with this ordinance.~ Rolf Benzinger: I would like to speak as a citizen and as a biologist~ All of you have heard that this ordinance is shot full of hope. It does not address the main p~oblem of nitrogen and phosphate pollution. It~also ~does not address the critical.area of-the watershedor one-half mile fr.om the reservoir; the Noormans Creeks the Ivy Creek or the Mechums Miver. It does not.address detection of poliution, prevention of pollution~or enforcement in any reasonable manner. Therefore, I think this prdinance.is bad. I also think the moratorium is scattered over too large Of an area. i would concentrate cna critical area within one-half mile of the reservoir. I think any large scale development should firs.t be surveyed by someone and then the followingrequirements should be placed;~ coffer dams, catchment basins, and a requirement for drilling wells somewhere between the development and the reservoir where monitoring of nitrogen and phosphate would take place. The water should be protected first, Then start grading and buildi~uses. In order to enforce that, a bond ~hould be placed in the' value of those corrective measures, in the value of the coffer dam, in the~value~of the catchement basins, in the value of the we&l~ that have to be drilled'to monitor. That might be a ~ reasonable type situation. Anyone in this room who figures that out in.dollars and c~nts will find that it is a very expensive solution to developing and not a very reasonable one~. Therefore,-let~me urge you to pass a limited moratorium, that will stand up in court and that would just cover the water- shed one-half mile of either side of the water courses. The citizens of this'area have ten million dollars or more invested in that little reservoir and we want to have either prevention or a'moratorium. This ordinance does not give effective prevention and guarantee the citizen that-he will not have to cough up~.~his money later. Frank Smith: I am currently involved with Peacock Hill. I have resisted ~$ying anything previously at these meetings because I have enjoyed listening to the very articulate comments on both sides. I~just want' the moratoriummto be released for the sake of~our clients. It is costing several thousand dollars ~ month for Peacock Hill as I am sure it is for many other people.~As an example, our Section 2 plat, with sixty units, is a casualty of the shot-gun provisions of this hastily conceived moratorium. We cannot move ahead with the plat. Mahy other people~ have plats or almost totally unrelated administrative matters coming before you that are t:abled or shel~ed. These relate to their finances and their livelihood and do not relate to putting pollution 'into the South Rivanna~River Reservoir. The whole issue has gotten out of hand. Most of the ordinances in. this ~ county are anti planning and discriminate against planned con~munities, multi-f-amily projects, sub- divisions and any other orderly process of land. development regardless of their density; high, low or medium; First, the soil erosion control ordinance which says that only a si~Ele~-family house is not subjected to this ordinance is capricious, arbitrary~ discriminatory-a~d~so~forth. A second example is the insistenc~ or.State road frontage for every residence in the county, The rural areas are being ruined by suburban sprawl because it is not feasibl'e for most developer~ to build'~off of a State road, Anoth exam~.~is the exemption of roads from this ordinance in question. The fact'that you cannot build a house on a ~5% slopes but you can build a road on a 15% slope. I commend the~ fact that the ordinance says roads should be built following the contours and tophgraph~J~hereverpOssible. Moving to the point in question tonights the ordinance, I do not hink I am intelligent enough to understand i~L~J~m~l~tely~ but I say that a 15% slope as an absolute criteria is totally unacceptable. Most of our sites at Peacock Hilt have slopes of over 15% on at. least part of the property. The minimization and control of storm water runoff is basically a sound engineering approach to erosion control. However, many sites make it impossible to provide~sediment basins. If you build on the crown of a hill or a ridge and your land terminates before you reach a rally, then it is probably impossible for you to build a sediment basin unless you do so much movement of earth ~hat you totally invalidate the whole nature of what you are trying to do with this ordinance. Additional treatment ~f runoff is~economically not~feasibl~. A six-months commencement o~ construction is much too restrictive. ~!t often takes longer than that to obtain financing and to let contracts prior to commencement of constrmction. The endless debate~over the technicalities of this ordinance is a-futile excercise and demonstrates the ~neffectiveness of monitoring and administering the ordinance. I. do not know the answer. The-gentlemen who spoke at the first meeting a~d said we already have-too many controls, restrictionss etc~ seemed out of step with every other person in this room. Perhaps he was the one guy who had it right. We are overooontro~led. We counteract our good measures of. planning, ~nd zoning and Rure intentions. I would like to see this ordinance thoroughly considered before any enactment. 296 9-a-75 At 9:55 P.M. the~Board roo~ a ten.minute recess. with discussion ~ the proposed ordinance. They reconvened at 10:05 P.M. and cOntinUed Wheeler: Anyone ~l~e to speak 'tonight? Wendall Wood: I would l±ke ~to clarify a point brOught up earl~ by Mr..:Henley. If you take an average width house of 36 feet indepth, it will ~a~uire ~ 22.4% slope from the~front~of the house~. to the back to have a walk-out basement. Pat Janssen: I have addressed most of my remarks to you'r~cently in a letter. I am more concerned with the water supply for the County and the City of Charlottesville than with Nhm~ yo.ur moratorium ~ has done to the building community around Albemarle County and the lake. ! goes without saying that the developers and everyone else want to ~have ~ good water supply. Twelve or 15 years ago we ha~d summers when there was not enough ~ater. Common sense dictates, that we keep that~and~not do anything that will destroy the existing water supply. That is one of the main reasons why~this c~mmit'tee came into being.~ I think every developer, and every farmer, is aware of what ~iltation does. The reservoir, which started filling in1962 or 1963, has o~ly a 10% at'this time~ So,. from What 'little-I know, siltation is not the big problem. The moratorium which has been imposed on the total watershed is stringent and has proven to be a detriment to the developer. I spent two hours this afternoon going over this ordinance with a man Who knows what he is talking about and I found that the big problem might be the point mf source in the county and it might nOtbe the farmer or the developer~in the county. That is what the 14 month study is supposed to tell us. I think we were fortunate to hear from two ~iologists tonight~, because I feel they know more about'the chemical pollution 8f~hhis reservoir. Last night, Mr. Wheeler, you said there w~ a lot of people speaking for their individual ~thing and there~were only 50 people speaking. Fortunately, there are not that' many tonight. You made a goo~ point. There are 45~000~ people in Albemarle CoUnt~ and this Boardhas to make a de~sion which is in the~ best interest of that 45,000. I know you will do that here. Bill Perkins: I only come before you because' I'feel:that ~f I stay moot, it may be interpreted that we agree that there may be legalgE~unds for propriety of the proposed ordinance you are considering. I have been in court this mo~ning opposing the County of Albemarle Belative ~to ~he so-called ordinanceY As far as this particular consideration is concerned, there is little justification for the ordinance. Especially, on the basis of the experts that have spoken tonight. As far as the orderly process of government is concerned, it is an extraordinary ordinance being passed on extraordinary grounds. I do not believe State enabling ~egislation~permits this type of ordinance. I think the ordinance has a great many shortcomings¥ It would seem to ~e appropriate, if this body is to consider matters of this sort, that you should proceed in the pr~er way and have an advertisement, a public hearing and further consideration. I also beliewe this Board may hav~ overreacted'to the situ~&on. I have grave doubts as to the propriety of the Cou~hy of Albemarle now coming int~o take action on matters that should have been taken care of at the time the City of Charlottesville dondemned and purchased the land for the reservoir. Ken Haviland: Citizens for Albemarle did not prepare a position tonight. This is as a private. citizen.' I do not feel the proposed ordinance is ~orkable. We do not have the standards~for controlling' run oDf, etc. We have consistently proposed that the areas around the reservoir be zoned conservation. I rePeat~the suggestion that ~ten~g be considered. In order to ~h t~is you might have to place a moratorium on some area, possibly one-half mile from the reservoir, and ~ consider~conservation zoning in the main water course coming into the reservoir. The main area prOposed for conservation.by E~Bl~h~g~Staff, and originally proposed that way by the Planning Commission, should be 'reconsidered. --' Robert Humphries: On page 4 of the guidelines concerning the question that Mr. Fisher raised earlier about additional treatment becoming necessary and talkin~babout the zoning administrator should require the' installation of such and such and it was pointed out that the buck should probably stop the the county engineer. The discussion did no~ resolve the question that during' the 14-~onthp~iod this sentence is essentially ineffective°because Wheeler: That is the way it is written. I was there. Humphris: On Page 3 talking about the sizing of the sedimer~tion basins,, it says the basin retention, time shall be a minimum of, one hour~ As I understand that, this means that the amount of water coming into one end of the-basin will essentially stay within that basin for one.hour before it passes on downstream. !fi'understand what the experts have said, this one hour retention time will basically allow the heavy clays, or gravel and~and, to settle,~out. It will not take out,the fine silt and phosphates and these will pass on through and downstream. Is that correct? Brown: We are not 'sure exactly where the phospates are .... Some phosphates will go ~er .... Humphris: ~ Will somebody speak on Nol 4? Just what does this mean? settling rat~ shall be a m~ximum'of 50D gallons per square foot per day. It says the' basin surface DeFalco: This settling time here is based widely on ... which is this number 500 gallons per ~a square foot per day. This can be translated actually to a velOcity through the basin. The velocity of the movement of water carrying these settling matters through the basin has to be slow enough to allow ~hese particles to settle within that basin. So actually that number, that 500, ~he larger it ~ think of the velocity as being swifter through what we still have ~to approach. What we call the scouring velocities where instead of settling in a quiescent zone, we start to pick up matter.soActually, we introduce it to suspension. So the parameter of significance in developing and designing a ~ettling basin is really an ~Flow. it is significance that is really the detention ti~e. Humphris: This 500 gallons per square foot per day is quite a large flow, DeFalco: It is a design parameter really. It does not have the concept of~it being a large flow. It really has no significance in reality. It is ~ design matter really. Humphris: I would like to share with you some of the talks I h~d with various directos of public works and directors of public drinking water systems, etc. Several weeks ago, I caIled around to several of these in the~State of Virginia ~ndMNorth Carolina to find out how they treated .their reservoir systems and their waterShedd. Of course, some of these are a little different ~han what we have. Lynchburg, for example, has their reserVoir up in the Blue Ridge Mountains. They allo~ only eight fishermen per day on thisreservoir. They have no development whatsoever around that. The City of Roanoke does likewise. The City of Ashville, North Carolina, has had no problems with their drinking water supply for over 5D years. They also are located somewhat in the mountains and aIlow no hunting, no fishing, no trespassing whatsoever within their entire watershed. 'In ~act, part of~ the Parkway goes through this watershed and they allow no stopping of cars to protect the reservoir. ' 29: p~nds or lakes, two of which they allow absolutel~ no development around and they have setbacks of from 1,500 to 2,500 feet. They try to maintain 2,500 feet if possible or a 1,000 fee~ minimum before any development is allowed. The upper two lakes have no development allowed. They allow mainly single-family residential development. I told him that at one of our meetings-,~it was mentioned that they had some high density development around there. He said they did have some. twelve units per acre allowed in a very small Section. I asked if thus was as large as ~00 acres and he said it was considerably smaller.. He said they have had~ve~y minor p~obiems ~hich w~re cured by simplY using/~opper sulphate technique, The one most closely related to ours would be the one in Occoquan. : I talked with one of the person~ nel at the .filtration. plant. One: of their problems is that the county, line runs down the middlemof the reservoir:, On the Fairfax County side, Z understand they have. complete control and allow no development' w±thin 1,000 feet or so. Most of the problem comes from the Prince William side where they had no ordinances whatsoever and development was .allo.wed.right up to the water body itself.. They have a tremendous ~edimenta.tion and erosion problem. From.what Mr. Conners said earlier, it ~oks like the effects of the ~utrophication were about three times what it was from the more or less farm lands of the rest of the bodies of water. Wheeler: Of the setback of about~l,500 feet, did the locality own the land? Humphris: Yes, they did. They were fortunate enough to have the foresight when they did this. Wheeler: Does anyone ~else want to speak or addanyShing additional? Martha Seldon: I want t.o make~.three points. You have been told in the past, by experts, that deterioration of the reservoir can be reversed. T~, I missed any discussion tonight concerning high density development. I cannot believe pollution control problems are unrelated to the intenai~y of development. Three, I wOuld like to-support ,remarks made by_Messrs. Kelly, Bennzinger and Smith. Put th~ control where the problem is and do n~ p~na~ize everyb.~dy ~else in the county._ Wheeler: If no one else has: anything additional to add, the public hearing is closed. Do you have some remarks to make,'Dr. Brow~? ~ Brown: The purpose of our study is to ~ook at_ nutrient trends. Z think some people are p~ejudiced to think that limitations are not a problem .... Let us not prejudice it until'we finish the study. As I mentioned earlier, phosphates stick to sediments., nitrates usually ... and most fresh waters have a problem with phosphates. .We cannot' say that sedimentation and nutrient 'enrichment~are twto separate problems~ You get,eutrophication from industrial ways, sanitary ways, agricultural 'and forest ways. There are lots of nutrients fn~the forest, so when development occurs there are a lot of nutrients going in. A good deal of-it.is going in without limitations. We are not ~t~g to abort or prejudice the study. The 15% slope grade is a guideline to the problem. Just a guideline. It may not be the best guideline and perhaps it should have a higher slope. Maybe we should:queStion the 15% slope especially in light of.the idea. of putting in catch:basins.2~ple have c2iticized the 15% ~slope~so I would ask them to come up with t-heir magic explanation of one-half mile. Why not one,fourth mile, one and one-half miles or five miles? If you will take a few weeks to go through bhle water~hed, you will flnd~:many dry streams. Yet, when it is raining, they are not dry streams. They are gullies and when it rains these fill up with nutrients and sediments. W~cannot say to just look at ~the .major tributaries up to one-half mile. At this time, we Just want to keep the status-quo on the reservoir. I agree that maybe the 15% slope ~hould be either'modified ..~. The i~deas of catch basins is somewhat impo~tant .... W~en it rains over and over again, eventually some of the sediments and nutrients do get into the reservoir. It might take.months, but it will get there. These are some of the things you should keep in mind. Wheeler: I want to make some.comments and take:a little poll. This is not for the Board. This is for my~person.al information. I hate to. go home two nights in a row confused. I know I w~nt home con- fused last night. Here is the reason. I saw speaker after speaker get up and Z know that they..were not supporting the same thing and I saw the same people clap each time. Either we did not hear the same thing; I know the pe6p~ said:different things.~ I-heard people_get up.and say the ordinance is too restrictive and people Clapped. I heard people get' up and say the ordinance is_ ~o~ restrictive enough, and the same people clapped. I'have been to a lot of.public hearings and I try to listen. After hearing everybody, I made a decision.. I always agree with what the people have to say. I think the Board members after hearing all this take into consideration'their-personal feelings about what is be~t for the ~ounty and-then make a decisiDn. I am going to do the same things,. Z am. nom..telling you that wh~n~I take this poll, that i~ is going to mean anything to mean.. Z Jus~ .~ant.~to go home tonight complele~y sane. All of you here tonight~tell me you_ are the average citizen1, so Z a~ going to. accept that, How many~0f you want this Board to continue the moratorium on the~.entire watershed?.. (Few) How many o~ you want to place the moratorium on a limited _section around~thereser~oir? (Few~)~-.'~H.ow many of you want the Board to pass the guidelines,~maybe with some revisions., ~hat we have before us tonight? (One) How many of you would like to see us pass these guidelines-for a portion of'-.the~ watershed? (Few) Okay, I still would like to ask something else. How many of_:you would like to see the Board do n~thing? Unidentified Lady: There is another choi~e~ Rezoning. Wheeler: We cannot rezone tonight. You. are.talking about .two, threme~, ~our, five, six months after public hearings and so forth. We cannot downzone tonight. We cannot legally do 'it.. Lady: You have-not asked how many are in favor of down-zoning. _ . Wheeler: I will be glad to ask the question. How many of you want to down-zone? (~most the entire audience). Okay, I am ready to act~. I have found out that they are as confused as I, so I am ready to act. What is the pleasure of the Board? St. John: I have a question. This ordinance is addressed to the watershed. My~ question is addressed to Mr. Connors of the Health Department. Mr. Connors, you remember when at the meeting when the committee was established, we asked you whether your letters of July 24 and your subsequent letters in Which you said it Was the position~of the Health Department that development not be allowed in the area of this watershed and those who received the letter were cOngused hy-what ~ou meant by the "area Of ~the wat'ershed~ excm~e .me, I-mean ?~area of. the~ r:ese~voir".?-~ This ordinance is addressed to the entire watershed .of that reservOir, but if I remember correctly, you :s2ated that the Health ~epartment's concern ~d not include deveIopment 'in the 'whola..watershed.:or,~he ~reservoir but only the land immediately around the reservoir which is still not an exact stand. Can you give us some more exact stand of ~wh~t~area you are talking about'that ought tm~be subject ~to this ordinance or guideline or down-zoning, whatever is done, or what area it should~include? You might.he more detailed in a statement of the Health Department's position. I am not asking y~ou. for the committee's position on this because these letters are from the Health Department. 298 Conner: I think you find that the letters we sent were in answer to the County Planning Commission's request about~ certain types of devetopment~that were proposed. I ~think the ones we co~ented on were directly on reservoir property, You heard someone mention tonight that various cities have various types or'zoning around their reservoirs. If you had it to do over again, we would recommend that you not allow any development on the watershed and the reservoir-. Now you have a problem with development around the waterhhed. I am somewhat familiar with the Occo~uan situation. I worked up there fjorefour years andI know about the situation on the Fairfax County side and the Prince William County side. Prince William County has recently adopted soil erosion control measures but we also have a lot of sewage treatment plant discharges up stream that are contributing to eutrophication. We have a very limited number of them on this watershed right now. You have two problems. You have soil erosion which can carry nutrients into the water. Also, if you had sewage discharges or proposed any major discharges, you would be talkin~f~about eutrophication of the reservoir with nitrogren and phospates with the possibility of creating more of an algae problem than in th~ plast. Th~he c~oser you get to that water supply intake the m~re concerned we~are with development on that reservoir. With development that far in, ~e are concerned about the possibility of contributing some pollution. We are mainly concerned that the closer you get to that intake the more problems we can have with our water~ supply.~ St. John: I understand that Mr. Conners. We appreciate your position, but there is one problem. As soon as the Board adopts anything, from this ordinance to down-zoning, they have to draw a line somewhere. Where does the Health Department recommend this line ~e drawn? If these guidelines were adopted tonight, how far from that reservoir should this apply? I do not think you can just arbirtrarily draw this line. They have to have recommendations from experts Who know where to draw this line. HoW many feet or yards from this reservoir should this line be drawn? If nobody can answer this question, then .... Co'nner: I do not 'think that I can give' you an answer t~at is going to apply zpecifically to that. We have had several figures mentioned - no building on slopes greater than 15% one-half mile distant. I wish I could'answer that question. St. John: After this is enacted, the very next day (let's assume hypothe~ivally)thin, developer of ~B~cock Hill, which is seven or eight miles from the nearest edge of this reserVoir,~i~ going to say.that the ~ffect of his development on this~reservoir is negative. If we go to court and say it is not negative and is directly related to this reservoir, theyw~t~l ask who said it is related and we will answer that the Health Department said so. Will we be right? These questions have to be answered somehwere along the line and they ought to be answered before this ordinance establishes its area, not est&hlish andarea and then find out later 'if the area is the ~b~ect area. Conner: Yes. reservoir. That is true, I would say that Peacock Hill represents less of a problem to the Bailey: I want~ ~o~ pose one question to Mr. Conner that may be in a form he can answer. Then we can be satisfied, Mr. Conner, is it safe to go a lesser distance than to the far reaches of the drainage basin in the exer~ime of'these proposed ~uidelines? Is it not a fact that anywhere wih~in the basin, ~~l~-~ may teach.to the reservoir itself? Conner: Pollution would eventm~y get there, yes. Bailey: Cmnner; Given~ime it~is going to be there. It is going tO get there, yes. St. John: Do you recommend that the guidelines be imposed on the entire watershed or do you recommend they be imposed only'on ~some lesser are~? Conner: I would recommend the entire watershed. Agnor: I just-want to say the committee considered at some length the ~etineation of an area less than the total watershed. There is no way to do it at-this point in time. We had to take the entire watershed'because of what Mr. Bailey said; ~ol~ution will eventually~arrive in that reservoir. St. John: E~e~Xua~assnme~.h~oh~ti~a~!y~ga~hat we were free to follow what~ you say your recommendation really is and that you would recommend that we go back and start all over again and you do not recommend/any development along the reservoir~ I am assuming then that at some- point this question of down-zoning might be taken up forgetting about the legal problems and the fact that we have to start all over again. Let us assume that it is possible and legally feasible and that the Board is going to fol~low you~o~commendation. Do you alsomean that you will recommend no development in the entire watershed or would you pick some lesser area? Your letter says "along the reservoirV iF you are talking about no development.. Do you understand what I am asking~ Immay not have made it very clear. Conner' Coui~ you clarify this? I am not e~actly sure. St. John: I asked yoU before if we enacted these guidelines what areas you would recommend and and you mentioned the entire watershed. Let us assume, hypOthetic&lly, that we are going by your letter and it says "this does not recommend development along this reservoir," Suppose instead of these guidelines, some attempt is going to be made to prohibit development along this reservOir. What area would that include? Would that include the e~tire reservoir or would that include some less~r area? - · ; Conner: !~have your letter ... states along the ~reservoir, yes. St. John: Your letter saya "the statement by this department does not ~ecommend development along this reservoir." I~m asking you now if by "along this reservoir" you mean the whole watershed or some lesser area? Conner: I think here again, we were more or less thinking about the development that-was proposed directly on the reservoir property. Here again, as has been pointed out, any pollution that is in the watershed ~ll eventually get to the reservoir. ~ To agree with the committe~ recommendation, as we said,wwe discussed 1,000 feet~ 1~500 feet, anything that slopes directly into~the reservoir proper and we could not come up with a solution. St. John: If this Board or ~ome other Board at.sometime dOes consider adopting~a measure which will prohibit development in accordance with 'your ~ecommendation along this reservoir, how many feet from the reservoir is that? 9-4-75 · going? If We adjourn and take. no action, I want to remind you that the moratorium go~s off. So.we are ~aced with one of three things. Either place the moratorium, take no action,or take some action along these guidelines. Fisher: When you took the straw vote, you delineated the alternatives Z thought were before this Board. I sat down'and thought about them this afternoon~. The questinn of down~zoning is an alternative that might ultimately be taken by this Board, not ~onight, which would~offer~the most protection bo the reservoir ultimately and is advocated by the Comprehensive Plan. I~ does have legal difficulties which co~t against it, would have a greater premanent loss to the property Owners and several members of the Board have already gone on record in their opposition to any down-zoning. I did not consider that had much chance for passage. Another proposal that was made was a 14'month moratorium on the entire Water- shed. It would not permit development during the study period but it does not permanently take away the rights of owners. It allows time for a-full reservoir study and good controls to be de~elopec but it does not provide permanent protection for the reser~Gir. It is probably not defensible without strong ~pport from the State Health Department. As drafted, this would prohibit any a~it~ons or remodeling of any ex~sting, commercial or industrial structure or any new commercial structure of any size anywhere in the watershed. ~he controls that ha~e beenproposed require a number~ of stretches of the imagination. We would~h~ve to imagine one; that the ordinance could be ~nforced. My experience in the past two years in trying to get soil erosion problems corrected is that~the ordinances have not worked~ The problem of controls offers a probability of public liability in either correcting the problem or suffering the damage to the reservoir. The control measure as drafted, I feel covers too large an area. This was stated by a number of peopte here tonight. It would require additional staff people for monitoring somewhere and it would be an affirmation of the existing zoning~around the ~eservoir because the adoption of measures to allow controlled high density development~would in effect affirm this government's desire for the continuation of the original high density zoning. It is, however, probably the least restrictive action this Board could take which might protect the reservoir. I now come back to what I proposed in July and what I think would meet the problems of today without permanently taking away owner's rights to develop. It would pertain only ~o the~.area which by steep Slopes and proximity to the reservoir, and zoning, creates the most~danger to,the reservoir and which affects the fewest property owners and which allows time for full reservoir study of good controls to be developed without experimenting with our water source. I think we should go ahead with-~'~ limited~morato~ium for the period of the study that has been contracted by theRivanna Authority. Let hhe control measures which come out of that study~determinewhat~is going to happen, I would again move Proposal~A: WHEREAS', the South Rivanna RiVer Reservoir is a~resourcessof~great value to'the_ people of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville; and - WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County~i~ concerned about the: continued viability of the said Reservoir; and WHEREAS, the Board has~been presented with substantial evidence that high density residential development adjacent to the' said'Reservoir is likely to result in_the diminution of the utility thereof and of its changes for continued viability; and WHEREAS, there is a substantial amount of high density residential zoning in the immediate drainage basin of the said E~servoir, which zoning was establizhed prior to the adoption of the County's Comprehensive Plan in 197! and_is in direct conflict hherewith; and WHEREAS, the Rivanna Sewer and Water Authority has proposed that a comprehensive study of the South Rivanna River ReserVoir be undertaken to determine the effacts of urban development".adJacent,'thereto, on the quality of:~.water, contained therein; NOW, THEREFORE, BE I~ ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that no building permit shall be issued for any development-in-the immediate drainage b.asin of the South Ri~anna River Reservoir~Until such ~ime~as the Rivanna~Sewer and / Water Authority shalt have:determined the effect of such development one, the said Reservoir. .For purposes of this ordinance, the term "immediate drainage basin of~the said Reservoir" shall~be deemed~to include all that portion~of~the Countybbordered~on~the. west~ and north by the--South'Riva~na'.River Reservoir; on the south by-State Route 63t, on She west by State Route-'743 and on the east by State Route 659. An emergency being found to exist, this ordimance shall take effect immediately. Nheeler: Mr. Humphrey, could I get you to quickly tell us what area that covers? Humphrey: This is bordered by the reservoir. This is the S.P.C.A. road, Routes 631, 743 and 659 which are not indicated on this map. : : .' - - Wheeler: Humphrey: -Wheeler: Nothing on th~ other side of the reserv$ir? ~ Just on one side of the reservoir? Fisher: Mr. Humphrey, I ask you to tell the Board whether there is any other land zoned R-2 or greater in the watershed. Humphrey: In this entire watershed, Crozet is zoned R-2. R~3 zoning exists at the intersection of 743 and 6~1 between Lamb's Road ~and 743 at its location here:. There are~other areas zoned for apartment development, R-3 and R-2, but those pieces are the only ones that are Vaaant at~:.the present time. The other two parcels I spoke of would be the Old Ivy Gardens apartments which is developed at the present, time'and also Georgetown Green townhouses which a~e developed and Fisher: Are not those areas the ones that are closest to the reservoir~ zoned for the highest ~esidential:~densit~in the~-entire water~hed:. Are not most on them:~on~ Steep:-slopes? Humphr~ey-: Yes, in this-~area here. The slopes, based on_ our computations, are 25% and development of'the property is over 15% in this par'ticular area. Wheeler: Do I hear a second to Mr. Fisher's motion~ 3.0,:0 9-4-75 Wheeler: I have one thing to clear up before we go any further. do you expect to vote on this motion? Mr. WOod and Mr. CarW±~e, Wood: We,~Mr. Carwile and myself, asked for a ruling from the Commonwealth's A~torney as to whether we have a conflict of interest on this matter. The ruling was addressed to the ~mt~re watershed and said we did not have a conflict of interest because of thejboard general application. I have not personally asked about a conflict of interest on the motion as presented. So there is no mistake about it or question about it, I own one-third of a corporation that owns a small tract of land around the watershed. We have owned it for a number of years. We have filed this with the Commonwealth's Attorney every year as prescribed by law. Ob~iously it more than $~,000 so it is a material financial interest on that one particular tract. Personally, I do nov think this is conflict of interest, but we have not had a ruling on what Mr. Fisher is asking. So it is all on the ~ab~e~aado~hove board, until I do get'a ruling, I am not going to particpate in this. (Left room). Wheeler: Okay. Mr. Carwile? Carwile: I agree with~-Mr. Wood;s advice. (Left room). ~-heeler: Okay, we can now proceed. St. John: Let me suggest~a title to this ordinance that has just been proposed by Mr. Fisher. "An ordinance temporarily to protect the quality of water in the South Rivanna River Reservoir." The purpose of this ordinance shall be temporarily to the South Rivanna River Reservoir from pollution and eutrophication. Wheeler: Is there further discussion on the motion? Thacker: There is no way I can support the moratorium after we have had a committee that has investigated the problem and indicated there is no need for a moratorium. We have had legal advi~e that there is no way a moratorium can be legally supported. Wheeler: I am not going to support the motion. prepared to say that you can defend us in court? Tell me the legal ramifications. Are you St. John: No. I am not prepared to say I can successfully defend it. I think that of the options available, this is probably the most difficult to defend~in the face of this committee's report. I think you are at the point where you have got to promptly take steps to remove the present zoning from the tract of land in question. One or the other - allow development with these guidelines or other guidelines, or without guidelines, or down-zone the property. It is very difficult, in the face of the committee's repp~;~ to prolong this moratorium. It is made more difficult to do this, in my judgment,by virtue of the proceedings already ha~ in ~ircuit Court of Albemarle County on this moratorium. In other words, I do not presume to anticipate what the Judge will do, but I have. I do not think I had any these proceedings and have not stated that some action of this nature was going to be taken. I did not state what the Board was going to do and yet everybody in the Courtroom seemed to anticipate that as a result of these hearings that some action was going to be taken by the Board to tell the land&wrier where he stood. Whee~er: Any further discussion: Call the ~o11. AYES: Messrs. Fisher and Henley. NAYS: Messrs. Thacker and Wheeler. ABSTAINING: Messrs. Carwile and Wood. Wheeler: The motion did not carry. ~oes .anyone want to present another motion: Wood: I think we need to get back to the true intent of our meetings ~over the last several weeks; ~hat is the p~otection of the reservoir. I think on numerous occasions the Board has indicated that they are committed to protecting the reservoir. That is our primary interest. It is obvious that the documents presented to us tonight are not going to do that. I would like to see us get back to something that is defensible in ~ourt and will protect the re~servoir. I understand Mr. St. John and his staff feel a five-mile moratorium can be defended in court. I would like to see us do something along those lines. It has been stated by the Health Department and othe~'memebers of the ~ommittee that the main concern is the closer you get to the reservoir the more likely there will be pollutants. The farther you get away, the less the intensity. Obviously, we cannot include the entire reservoir, so I would like to see us get to a point where we could do something along the five-mile limit. Wheeler: Are you ready to present a motion? Wood: I hesitate to do that. I would like to ask Mr. St'. John if that is defensible. St. John: How long is the moratorium and for what purpose? Wood: As I sai~ sometime ago, it is not my intent to ~e-empt the resm~ts of the study~authorized by the Rivann~ Water and Sewer Authority and supported by this Board and City Council and ~which is being paid for by the us~of the water from that reservoir. It would be my intent that this would be strictly for the 14 months or until the results of that study~are in. After that point, we have the results to tell us w~at to do. I understand that study will tell us the point sources and after that we will have some authora~ive source so we will know what we are Working with. I would think, Mr. St. John, it would be until the results of that study are in rather than drawing an arbitrary line or pi~king some road number, so the ordinance says five miles as we discussed earl~ and that sounds more reasonable than anything I have heard. St. John: The only difference is that you are extending the area a littler farther than Mr. Fisher's motion to include five miles. Wood: miles. I would prefer to say that we have reduced the area from the entire watershed down to five St. John: Still, for a period of 14 months, you have two laws in conflict with one another, You have the zoning law that says a person has the right to develop high density in the area covered by Mr. Fisher's motion. Then you have another law which you are enacting which says you cannot do that for 14 months. I..feel that in order to sustain a 14-month morator~um~you would have to set a prompt hearing right now and announce to all these land owners that you are going to have a hearing on an ordinance to rezone their property. 9-4-75 30J St. John: Yes, to rezone their Property so as not ~to allow high density. Wood: For 14 months? Henley: Well, I think ... St. John: You can rezone it back again if it is not necessary. I do not hhink ~hat for 14 months I can defend one law that says you cannot have d~velopment in this area and another law, a zoning law, ~hat says you have a right to do it. Wood: You are saying the ~ive mile limit is not defensible? St. John: It is a little more defensible because you have eliminated the ~iscriminatory factor, etc. I think it will be hard to defend tw~ laws that are in direct conflict. The zoning law says you can develop in this areaand~the mor.atorium law says you cannot. Wheeler: Could I interpret for a moment? I think you are sp~nning your .wheels when you talk .... I think when we came in here tonight, we came in to take some action to protect the reservoir. I was hoping that we were going to work with this committee. Evidently we have thrown that by the wayside and I do not believe we-are going to take any action tonight. I will entertain a motion for a few mor~aminutes, but I think we got off of the purpose for which we came in tonight. Evidently the one workable solution we have, no one wants~to support, not. even the average citizen. I think we are not going to have any solution. Henley: I am not so sure that was a workable solution. Wheeler: Evidently we have decided ~t is not a workable solution. Mr. Wood, if you have a motion, I will entertain it. Wood: I think we have got to do something to protect the reservoir while the study is being made and it is~just that simple. If we cannot find something that is defensible in court, it is hard for us to sit up here knowin, g we are going to have a court case when votin~ on something. I would Iike to see us find some method by which to protect the reservoir so we do not pre-empt the study. It does not make sense to authorize the expenditure of $150,000 for a study to tell us what is wrong with the reservoir k~owing it is going to take a certain period of tim~ to complete the study, and then before the study is completed to go a~ead and aggravate the problem. Wheeler: have it. Mr. Wood, you have2~the floor to present your solution. If you have~ a solution, let's Wood: I wanted the five mile deal. If that is not defensible, it i,s uselsss to do it. I wou,td say this. If any t~pe of moratorium is not going to be defensible, ~e~.~can probably go one of two ways. Wheeler: Mr. St. John did not say he would not ~efend it. St. John: I!did not say I would not defend it. I said it is difficult. Let ~e tell you what I think is defensible. I am reluctant to speak like this since it is your function to decide what to do, but let me tell you what I really think about this ordinance, ii think this thing will be a monst~~ to administer and difficult to enforce. I do not say it is impossible to administer or e~force. These gentlemen up here tell me it will work. You will not find any more quali.f~e~ people than that. We have to rely on them. Henley: How many of those people wi. ll be here tomorrow? St. John: They are here now and they are the best that you have to rely on. That is legally defensible. The problem witch this thing is not that is legally defensible, but i~ is difficult to administer. When you get to the enforcement and all that, it is going to be a headache. If we are not going to do this, then do nothing and the moratorium expires. In my judgement, if you enact any of these moratoriums, you have to set a hearing to rezone the property so the zoning is in accord with the moratorium. Wheeler: I think you have ~poken to it and I ~ay again, let us move in one direotion or the other. We came here tonight to look at the guidelines. If we do not want to acc~pt~he guidelines, then that is the pleasmre of the Board. It looks like those guidelines, or some modi~C~tion, may be the only solution we have. Wood: That is what I was getting ready to say a minute or two ago. We can go one of t~o ways. We can go with the moratorium and ask Mr. St. John to defend it, or maybe modify what has been presented to us tonight so it is acceptable and try to do the best we can with it. Wheeler: Do I hear a mo~ion? Henley: It sure amazes me that a group of educated men~, .and I guess most of us consider ourselves fairly intelligent, cannot s~t down and work out this problem. Wheeler: We do have something else on the agenda for tonight. I passed~it over last night. we should take care of that. We still have to appoint a Land Use Appeals Board of three people. I have the nominations for that? Maybe Could Fisher: I nominate Sam Paige. Henley: I nominate Dan Maupin. Wood: I nominate Harlan Manweiller. Carwile: I move that these three people be appointed to the Land Use Appeals Board for terms of two years each, said terms to expire on S~tember 1, 1977. Thacker: I will second the motion. AYES: NAYS: Messrs.. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Wheeler: i_[I will now requsst that this Board adjourn this meeting until 3:00 P.M. on Wednesday, September 10, 1975, i~ the Board Room of the County Office Building in order to have a workshop on the proposed zoning ordinance. Fisher: I do not think we have finished with the question of the reservoir. Wheeler: Okay. 3O2 9-4-75 Fisher: While I find it very difficult with this ordinance as it is written, if the Board elects to pass on this ordinance with these guidelines, amended as we talked about~ the question of the county engineer determining when additional ~treatment would become necessary and the modification that Mr. St. John suggested on Page 1, I think that perhaps this is the only measure left. I move the adoption of the ordinance and ~he guidelines, as amended, to take effect immediately as an emersency measure and pledge.my support to see that it is enforced. That is all I can do. I am not happy with the enforcement of our existing ordinances, but I think maybe this can be done. I so move. Wheeler: Do I hear a second? Wood: I will second Mr. Fisher's motion. Wheeler: Is there any discussion? I would like to state that I would like to support Mr. Fisher~s motion but there are two things in there I think we need to change. One is back here about the site plans, the six months. I think that should run in line with what we presantly have, 18 months. have heard so many comments about slopes, I do not want to prohibit in the entire watershed the building of homes in some of these areas such-as~ Peacock Hill, so I would like to get some change on that 15% slope and then I can support the motion. Is there any discussion? Thack~r~."<~ have a question. of Mr. Fisher's motion? Is the amendment to Section 17-6-3 of the zoning ordinance a portion Fisher: It was my understanding that they must both be adopted'. Whether they need be adopted by separate resolutions or not, it was my intent that this be adopted. Thacker: legislation. I was under the impression that the zoning ordinance could not be amended as emergency Fred Payne: You have to advertise an amendment to the zoning ordinance. I would suggest that if yo~wish to enact it, that you forward it to the Planning Commission for consideration. Fisher: Then the motion is only on the emergency section. of water in the South Rivanna River Reservoir.) (An ~rdinance to protect the quali~y Thacker: I would have to agree with Mr. ~heeler. I have no ~dea ~h~t that slope should be, but I am of the opinion that better than 50% of the County has 15% or greater slopes. I am not so sure that in this particular portion of the county the percentage is not higher than that. Wheeler: Could-I ask Mr. Smith if h~ would give us some guidance. Frank Smith: As gar as zoning is c~ncerned, I doa~ot think that is the critical criteria because you ~all for sedimenation basins that would leterally capture anything downstresm that erroded from any slope. The other thing is ~hat while anything you enact is difficul to administer, you have to rely on your engineering staff, your zoning staff, to make judgments. The quality of the soi~ls, the ground ~over, the type of foundations, all enter into what slope c~n be built on satisfactorily. Very steep slopes can be built on satisfactorily with very little damage by using piling of some sort or point support. Very flat sites can be destroyed totally by ~evelling, shaping, and really by building dams for sedimentation pon~s on mnacceptable sites, fi am not sure that the slope is the criteria as long as you have that other .... Wheeler: Would Mr. Bailey give us some guidance on that? Bailey: We have caucused. This is a compromise figure b~tween nothing and what we have suggested. We would suggest 25% as a pra~er limit but ~o~nat attempt to go beyond 25%, except to substitute 25% for the language here and the rest ~of the language is the same. This is p~~fdto be for a limited time only and it would give us some leeway. It can be changed in a permanent situation. Fisher: Doe~that limit include any of the land around the reservoir if you go to 25%? Bailey: Mr. Fisher, 25% may be on t~e face of it excessive close to the reservoir, but now in addition to the 25% slopes you have other restrictions by virtue of the comprehensive drainage systems that you are going to have to build in order to intercept the water and keep it from the reservoir. That also is a limiting factor. Wheeler: I think if you change that to 25% and leave out the ~six months'on site plans, I am ready to support it. Wood: Make it conforming to what we already have, 18 months? Wheeler: Yes. Carwile: The site plan aspects are not really in force now any way. it. Henley: I look at it as a temporary measure ~ecause I do not think we will be able to enforee I think it will be expensive. Maybe it is better than nothing. Wheeler: Let us get back and pass this ordinance. Do I hear a substitute motion? Fisher: I will amend my motion to 25%. Wheeler: Is there a second to the s~bstitu~e motion? Henley: I guess. I thought the 15% was incorrect. I did not like that. Wheeler: The-motion is now 25%. The six months has been eliminated and we will'go right along with our regular policy. Call the roll~ AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Wheeler; We need to follow this up with two things. This is an emergency ~mrdinance and we need to advertise this for a public h~g. It should probably be our second W~dnesday night in October. Thacker: I move that the ordinance be advertised for a public hearing on October 22, 1975, o, ~-~n p ~ 'i~ ~h~ Al~ma~e Count~ Courthouse. 9-4-75 9-10-75 (Afternoon) 30, AYES: NAYS: Vote was as fallows: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Wheeler: We need to refer this second portion to the Planning Commission. Carwile: I move adoption of the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, intends to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, under Section 17-6-3 to read as follows: 17-6-3. Approval of a ~ite development plan pursuant to this article shall expire t8 months after the date of approval unless actual construction shall have commenced and is thereafter prosecuted in good faith. AND, FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold public hearing on said proposal and report back to this Board at the earliest possible date. Wood: I will second Mr. Carwile's motion. Vote was as follows: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Henley: I would like to get a promise from you all that we do not pick this one to pieces like we picked the 14-day one to pieces. Wheeler: I am not promising anything. Can we have a motion to adjourn to Wednesday. Carwile: IZmove that we adjourn until Wednesday, S~p~ember 10, 1975, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Wood: Second. Vote was as ollo~s: RYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Chairman 9-10-75 (Afternoon) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 10, 1975 at 3:00 P.M. in the County Office Building Board Room. This meeting was adjourned from September 4, 1975. PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. ABSENT: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. T..M. Batchelor, Jrt, County Executive; Robert Sampson, Assistant to the County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; John Humphrey, County Planner; Robert Tucker, Assistant County Planner; Ray Jones, Director of Finance; Hartwell Clarke, Zoning Administrator; and David Carr, Chairman of the Planning Commission. Mr. Wheeler called the meeting to order at 3:25 P.M., and requested the Board to pass a resolu- tion instructing the Clerk to write a letter of thanks to the members of the Technical Committee, who drew up the Guidelines to protect the water supply of the South Rivanna River Reservoir. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Wood. Mr. Wheeler said he received a certified letter regarding the State Corporation Commission hearing scheduled for the Blanton Building in Richmond at 11:00 A.M. on September 18, 1975 of an application of public convenience and necessity for charter party groups made by E. Crawford Transit. Another letter from the State Corporation Commission, regarding a hearing scheduled for Septem- ber 23, 1975 for the Virginia Industrialized Building Unit Mobile Home Safety regulations, authorizing the Commission to establish fees to pay costs of implementing the safety laws. The proposed fee is $15.00. The hearing time is 9:30 A.M. in the Blanton Building in Richmond. Mr. Wheeler presented a letter to the Clerk from Mr. Bedford Moore, stating his Albemarle County property has been designated a historical landmark by the Virginia Him~~!~L~m~ma~Co~mission. This property being called "Shack Mountain". Another letter received was from Mrs. Opal David, stating her opinions as to the Board's actions on the proposed Zoning Ordinance.