Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1974-07-30N
47 l Chairman An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 30, 1974, at 7:37 P.M. at Jack Jouett Jr. High School, Charlottes- vil!e, Virginia, said meeting being adjourned from July 25, 1974. 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 and County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order and called for a public hearing on the following matter which was advertised in the Daily Progress on July 10 and July 17, 1974: PURSUANT t.o a courv order issued by the Circuit Court of Albemarle County dated June 7, 1974, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will conduct a public hearing on July 30, 1974, commencing at 7:30 P.M. in Jack Jouett Middle School to consider the request of the City of Charlottesville under Special Permit 203 to locate a landfill operation on property containing 165 acres desff~ibed as County Tax Map 88, Parcel 26Bm Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Said property is further described as the "Massie Tract" located south of the C±ty of Charlottesville on Route 29 across from Gleco Mills. John Humphrey, County Planner: The Board has been supplied with some additional information from the staff. (Note: Marked Exhibit "A" and filed in permanent file of the Board of Supervisors.) In an eff'ort to relate this proposal to 11-13-3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.'~as it relates to the Board's consideration of a special use permit. In addition, the staff would like to present a reevaluation of the Massie site. This (referring to a map) is the project and property lines of the proposed Massie tract. The limits of the refuse area is outlined in red. The existing pond is located here. The existing home or structure is located here. These areas represenv soils taken Monday by representatives of the Vector Control will Board, which I/read in a few moments. The site plan also indicates ground water drain lines in generaI, but no specifics as far'as the standards of design, etc. With this ... information the staff attempted to use the previous soil studies done on the site to give you a more refined analysis as we saw it. The red line represents the limits proposed by the City as far as the area to be in the active area. Now, the darker areas represent those areas based upon the soil anaylses, are the areas having the most severe limitations for landfills of any type. ~The brown and yellow would be those with the slight limitations. Brown being slight and the yellow being moderate. The entire area is 100+ acres. In previous reports it was stated that around 100 acres where available for landfills. This is not a true statement in the opinion of the staff. In essence, there is roughly a total of 74 acres involved in the area encompassed by the activity. Within that 74 acres, 38 acres has severe limitations; 23 acres has moderate; and 13 acres has slight. This give a tota~ possible usage of 39 acres. As far as the staff's attempts to obtain water table information, Bob Foreman of Vector Control did visit this site with the staff, and made an evaluation. His evaluation has been supplied to the Board and the City. (Note: Marked Exhibit "B" and filed in permanent file of the Board of Supervisors.) We would note that those areas with the yellow markings 47 2 7-30-7~ (night) Chairman found to be indicate the water level was/about thre. e feet below ground level. That is mentioned in the report. In addition,-.we analyzed the area topographically. The red line indicates the area of the activity. Point"A"on the map indicates a slope of 30% within the activity area proposed by the City. The~ most extreme area indicated by the staff is 50% at "J" and "K". The staff feels that no disruption of this area should take place at all. These are extreme slopes and should remain in their natural state. Otherwise, '±t would have an ill effect on soil conditions in that they are highly errosive and would cause problems and slides. Mr. Foreman's summary of his visit to the site: "This writer feels that the Massie Site can be made into a good sanitary landfill providing all precautions are taken to protect surrounding areas as well as the areas to be filled. The most important basics of landfill operation, besides proper development, are the excavation of the fill area with drainage , plus proper compaction. Without these two basic factors, l~achate will develop and the cost of treating this problem will be great. The main fault that I find with the "Massie Site" is that it is not an ideal site, mainly because of the shallowness of the upland soils and the many springs that feed the colluvial drainage area on the west side of the site, which in turn make this area a very expens±ve undertaking. The colluvial areas are basically heavy clay and ~uring the wet and foul weather times developing and operating this site will be very difficult and expensive~ At this time Charlottesville has not presented the Solid Waste and Vector Control Board with either development plans, which I obtained from another source, or operation planS. Final approval and the issuance of a permit will not be made until site development plans, operation plans, cost of both, plus equipment and costs plus the source of monies involved and how they will be made available. The law also requi~res each locality to provide the board with a 20-year plan for the handling of its solid waste program. It is important for the protection of everyone involved, that no development of the area start until all plans are approved and the permit is issued. This will forestall any misunderstanding that could occur between the Bureau of Solid Waste, Albemarle County and the City of Charlo6tesville. In the planning of a landfill operation, reclamation plans are often omitted. This aspect of the operation is as important, in the eyes of the Citizens, as any other part of the entire plan. .If good planning, whether it be recreation, housing, or what, is used the people involved or touched by this project will have less reservations about the landfill operation as a whole." The staff can basically state that this general area for the landfill would have slight impact on the existing land use, however, based upon our evaluation of the technical date and the analysis we have been able to obtain ourselves on hydrology, topography, we feel additonal information needs to be supplied before final approval of any permit for this site. We feel there may be a problem of groundwater and the plans as submitted are insufficient to cope withtlhe~possible problem. We feel insufficient data has been submitted. Wood: Did you say what the actual soil depth is? Humphrey: In the soil reports is an indication. Also some studies done by the City. The problem we had in developing this with the County Engineer is that he has some conflicting reports on just how deep the soil is. In Volume I of your report, you have the soil analysis and other reports supplied to you previously. A report was obtained today ~of statements made by Mr. Goodell, also indicate approximate depths of soil in this area. Fisher: What is the recommendation of the Planning Staff as to the advisability of this site for a landfill? 473 ~l±g~t ~m~ot. ~o~e~er~ ~e feet t~e teo~i¢&l inform&tion needed for B~e Bo~r~ to make a decision is not readily available, and whether it will be presented tonight, I am not sure. The site plan, as you see it here, is very general in nature. We feel, as Vector Control states, that additional information on just how to prevent the highwater table found to be in the immediate area will be taken care of. We also feel this may not be in the best interest of the City in some cases relative to exyense. We recommend that the Board consider in great detail the technical aspects of this site and whether 39 acmes is sufficient to accommodate the City which we ~ly be eight to ten year, period. : The eight to ten years that you gave, is that ~based on only the use feel will o~ Wheele~ by the City Humphr based upon hearings on Wheele~ time? Fisher: y: Yes. This is a computation of the County Engineer this afternoon ~he 39 acres and the information supplied to the County in pre~ious this matter with information supplied by Metcalf and Eddy. : Do you gentlemen want to hear any comments from Mr. Foreman at this I think h~s full report should be entered into the record. The summary made generally has been read by Mr. Humphrey. I don't know that the full repbrt has been/available. How should we handle that? Wheeler: We can make the full report a part of the record if that is the desire of the Board. Hand to the Clerk. Fisher: Since it delivered only today, I feel the general public has no information as to the contents of this report. In some manner it should be entered into the permanent record. Wheeler: If there is going to be any question about it, Mr. Foreman is present and we can have him come up and make a prese~tion on it at this time. Bob Foreman: Basically, Mr. Humphrey~said in the summary of my report, summ~ng up the whole problem, the Bureau of Solid Waste and Vector Control and most engineers agree that you can ~terally move mountains if you have the money to do it. In the past they have proved this fallacy because of the degradation of our environment. I had.. attempted to make a soil study prior to this one, and because of various reasons it could not come about. The reason we use a backhoe to determine the workability is that when...you can pull the soil out with a backhoe...generally conventional equipment will do likewise. A pan or a front-end loader will not take ground that a backhoe won't take. Generally they will about equalize each other, so then we have to go to ripping. There is possibly two to 6hree to four feet of soi!s~,~in areas that a ripper will take care of on this site and the material brought out will be of various sizes and not necessarily good for final cover or any type of cover. In our study, we used the east side for two reasons. We knew the soils there were generally better and we found in nine test holes excavated by a backhoe the soil~was from seven to eight feet plus. Of the nine holes, four got down ?-30-74- (nig~at ] 474 Chairman to about four feet and we met resistance, capping and rock. This rock caps and waves throughout the total area. Where you might get ten foot at one area you may not get but four feet at another. This ruled out the trench type of sanitary land£~ll. This left us with the decision of using an area type landfill. This means the areas which are usable would be excavated, properly drained, and graded, and the solid waste would then be deposited in these ~reas. The depth is undetermined in the co!luvial areas. There is one big colluvial area and one small colluvial area coming down through this property. By colluvial area I mean drainage areas. Col!uvia! soils are soils that Have been deposited from the top, through erosion, into the lower portions of the land. The depth is not determined there. We did not try to dig to see how deep it was. I am assuming that it is plenty deep. This means, in any landfill operation, they would to excavate this entire area and drain it and this can be done and is being done all over the state. I want to remind you that this is a very expensive operation that requires many feet of draintile, condu±ts; to carry all these .... and permanent spring heads to a central drain area and then out underneath the fill. This has to be done prio~-:~to any filling operation. I don't need to go into any detail about the test holes except to tell you that in the uplands the soils are basically shallow and would preclude trench type methods but there is abundant soil material for cover as needed in the colluvial areas. The big problem is working these cotluvial areas. We tried to get across the big colluvial area to get over on-~the west side to make soil studies and we could not walk across the area. It is basically 15 to 20 feet wide. in places and it is fed by numerous and many springs. I made a soil study there five years ago, approximately, in the spring, and I counted nine operating spring heads from the pond up to the base of the mountain. Of coumse, alt of these will have to be tapped into the main conduit system and drained off underneath ing the area proposed for fill. I had no way of determin/ how many wet weather springs' are present. But, from discoloration oozing out from various areas, in these col!uvial areas, brownish, chocolate colored silt, I feel sure there are plenty of them. Each and every one of these will have to drained, as well. They will seep and ooze during wet times of the year and dry up during the dry times of the year. We have to protect this environment totally at all times. Thi~ is not a part-time job. This is a total commitment and we are speaking in the range of close to a million dollars. There are a lot of people who are going to question me on that. But, by-i~the time they buy the property, do the necessary development, buy a compactor, I don'-t know basically what other machinery they have, but we are talking about a real expensive operation. You can rest assured that if the City of Charlottesville is permitted by our Bureau, that they will have the necessary machinery on the spot and they will do the job properly and give all the safeguards that are necessary, that we know today, to the environment. Fisher: This one million dollars that you are estimating to be a cost, is that primarily for the drainage or does that include all the ~uipment and other facilities that you are talking about? 7-30-74 (~ight) ~man Foreman: Let's just basically start off with the acquisition of the property. A figure of over $150,000 and then we get into the conduit system of draining, especially this large co!luvial area, nobbdy~can say how much because you don't know until you start opening up. I dare any man who says he knows everything about Mother Nature's job of putting soil and r~ck together, to say he knows what's what. I have been working in, out, over and under soils for roughly 35 years and I won't even attempt to guess what Mother Nature has put down theraand I won't try any other way except digging in the~e and finding. Even then you make mistakes. You end up with many more problems after you excavate then you realized you had to start with. Then you have this, which could be anywhere from $300,000 to $500,000 for development. A compactor of the proper size is running anywhere from $85,000 to $100,000. They may have pans available. I know they have two large, 25-30 ton bulldozers. Facilities. A weighing station, talking from $50,000 to $65,000, if it's a proper facility. Sanitary facilities, a we'll, a facility for washing trucks off in foul weather so that the road will be not degraded~going back to Charlottesville. When you add all of these up you approach between three-quarters and a million dollars. That is my rough estimate. I would be tickled to death for the City's sake, to be wrong. I can't feel that I am. In the site plan and development, Fisher: One more question about your report. /Sou say that in reviewing the proposed development plan drawn up by~the Charlottesville Planning Department, I find no mention of erosion control. Is it your opin±on that erosion control measures will have to be taken in order to protect the drainage areas downstream? Foreman: This is a problem that most~itizens in t~a~ate of Virginia don't is realize/about thebecome a rea!ity.~as far as control is concerned. There is a ~new agency that will be formed and the approximate title is Rural and Urban Soil Conservation and I have a feeling that. my Bureau may be under this agency once it becomes a reality. In this law, each locality has to enact soi~ erosion control measures equal to or better than the State's requirements. The State Highway Department in~_. all road construction, has been observing this for the-t~st three or four years and doing a magnificient job of instant soil control. There is no reason why the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle, and I might say the County of Albemarle's nose is not completely clean either. They need to consider this thing too. Erosion control is a degradation, n~t only of the streams and r±~a'rs, but is a degradation of silt formations on farms and basically soil erosion and no control repels me. This is no excuse for not having it and it should be included in any plan. A. C. Epps, representing the City: I will be assisted by my assistant, Mr. Charles Midkiff and Mr. John Green of the City staff will help us with projection.~ and visual displays. I would like to recognize the Mayor, Mr. Charles Barbour, Mr. Van Yahres, a member of City Council, the City Manager, Mr. Cole Hendr~x, and also Mr. Guy Agnor ~who will be a w~tness in this case. Since 1972 when the City of 7-30-72 C~ight) 476 Ch.~irman suitable Charlottesville had exhausted every/location within its limits for a land site and 40~,000 inhabitants of the City to dispose of 12Q~000 cubic yards or 30,000 tons of refuse and this figure will increase at a compounded rate ~om 5% to 7~% and under the statutes of Virginia, the City is required to carry out the governmental function of maintaining satisfactory sanitary landfill facilities and solid waste disposal. In order to carry out this duty, Charlottesville conducted a survey of 21 potential sites and in July 1972, after negotations, obtained an option on the Massey site on U. S. 29 South, containing approximately 165 acres and the zoning on this site is A~t Agricultural and planning, conservation area. Ail of the property adjacent to this site is similarily zoned. Charlottesville entertained the services of professiohal engineering consultants and were in touch with ~ate officials for an evaluation of the site as a sanitary landfill site. The engineers and the State Water Control Board and the Bureau of Waste and Vector Control and the Department of Health concluded that Bhis~site had the technical qualifications from engineering and planning points for a proper sanitary landfill. Furthermore, the engineers retained by Charlottesville, determined that plans for a dec~ieration lane on the southbound area of 29 South wouZd allow adequate access and traffic flow.aAWe~-~know have the County Planner's report setting forth, as we understand it, that this is a satisfactory and compatible use and is acceptable site for a sanitary landfill operation, if the City wants to pay for it, and I assure you that the City does want to pay for a proper sanitary landf~l! and will, and our evidence will show that. Our witnesses will be, Mr. Rosser Payne, who you~.gentlemen will recall is the author!of the master plan of the County. He Will discuss the Comprehensive Plan and how this use fits into the Comprehensive Plan and evaluate this according to the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning. Dr. H. Grant Goodetl of the University of Virginia Department of Geo~o~yp~will discuss the geological formations and the acceptability of the soil and the drainage plans. He will dwell at length on the availab~lty of the soil and the impermeability of the subsurface ... and we will present him because he~-~now is in Sp~tzbargen, where it doesn,t get dark this time of year, but he will be presented by deposition which have already been filed and we will read those to you. Mr. John Podger of the firm of Metcalf and Eddy, the consulting engineers employed by the City, will describe the studies performed by Met6alf and Eddy, will demonstrate to you the studieS they have made on the~vailability of proper soil covering. He will do in depth, as far as you gentlemen want him to, to explain to you the erosion control plans for this area. It will be properly engineered, it will be effective and the erosion ~hB~e? should be, and will be,less after the present somewhat makeshift dam there which has a water£all, after that is removed and leveled, and the pond level is brought down and th~ water level is brought down, than is presently the case. The City will present approvals from the State Water Control Board and the Bureau of Solid WasteT~and Vector Control. In addition, the Resident Engineer of the Highway Department will examine the accessibility ~-B~-74(night) 4 7 7 Chairman the sight distance, and the traffic problems of which there are practically none on Route 29 South. Mr. Guy Agnor, Director of Public Works, will discuss the site plan and the plans of the City to deveiop~detailed plans as mentioned by Mr. Humphrey. Detailed plans must be developed and they should be subject to control of the County at all times. At the close of the hearing, we shall ask~athat the County grant the special use permit subject to such reasonable requirementS and conditions as the Board may determine. As the opening item in our presentation, we ask that we now show a brief movie on the method and basis of operation of a landfill site. (Note: 16 MM ~ound film "The Trouble With Trash~, edited~version, filed and made a permanent .part of the Board of Supervisors records.) Epps: We would now like to call upon Mr. Ros~er Payne, known to the members of the Board and the County Staff as author of the master plan of Albemarle County. Would you give us your name and address please? Payne: Rosser Payne, Member of American Institute of Planners, Planning Consultant, Visitor ~rofessor of Planning, University of Virginia, 59 Culpeper Street, Warrenton, ~kginia. Epps: Would you give us your professional and educational background: Payne: (Resume' marked "Exhibit C" and filed in the permanent record of the Board of Supervisors.) Epps: Did you and your associates prepare the ~lbemarle County Comprehensive Pla.n, 1970-2000, dated January, 19717 Yes, we ~d. Was this prepared pursuant to the planning directives of the Virginia Payne~ Epps.: State Code? Payne: Epps: Payne: It was. And~'what particular provisions are those? The purpose of planning in the State Code, Chapter 11, Article 4, Section 15.1-446, paragraphs 3 and 4~. which includes the designation of facilities including "waste dispos&l" Designation shall be general and based upon detailed studies for the general purpose of accomplishing a coordinated adjusted and harmonious development of the area, which will in accordance with present and probably future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity or general welfare of the inhabitants. The plan is to be implemented by the official map, a capital improvements plan, detailed projects ~f the capital improvements plan, a subdivision control ordinance and a zoning ordinance and map. It further has legal status under Section 15.1-456 where Planning Commission review is ~quired of all public sites before acqmisition b~ the p~blic and review of any public sites. Epps: What is the legal status of this Comprehensive Zoning plan for Albemarle since its adoption? Payne: In a thumbnail sketch, thereafter, no public street, park, right of way or public utitit~ or fac'il~ty shall be a~proved or constructed without the approval of 478 Chairman the Planning Commission. County. Beyond that it is a general guide for the future of the Epps' At the time of the adoption of the Plan, did the County already have a Zoning Ordinance in effect? Payne: Yes. The Zoning Ordinance was first adopted in the County, without the basis of a Comprehensive Plan, on April 17, ~969 and readopted on December 22, 1969. That section provides for landfills in the A-1 Agricultural zone with a special permit, Section 2-1-25(29). The proposed zoning ordinance which was drafted with the assistance staff of the myo~Zi and the Planning Commission some two years ago is now being considered which and reviewed by the Planning Commission and legal counsel in Albemarle County,/provides for landfills with a special permit in the proposed conservation, agricultural and planned unit development zone. That has no.t~:>been adopted. Epps: Would you~please describedwhatever legal tools follow and implement the comprehensive plan? Payne: The main implementation tool, of course, is the zmn~g;~ordinanae which is now in effect and being revised. The second tool is the subdivision ordinance which was adopted an October 21, 1971. The third, which is one of the mosv important, is the gite ~evelopment ~uide Handbook, including adoption of erosion and sediment control ordinances, which were also adopted undane.the County Development Handbook, I believe, in 1971. I was interested in one comment that was made by the soil analyst!~ith regard vo erosion control since the County does have a soil erosion control ordinance itself which has now been substantially increased in strength by adoption of a statewide erosion control law on July 1st of last year. Epps: What is the provision of the existing Zoning Ordinance as to sanitary landfill sites and is there a zoning classification under Section 2-1-257 Payne~ Yes. it is contained, as Mr. Humphrey pointed out earlier~, in Section 11-13-3 as special permits in the agricultural zone which establishes criteria for issuance of such permits by the Board of Su~visors. Epps: Would you tell us what the scope of the Comprehensive Plan is? Payne: Is is important to note, and t. he record must be cleared, the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan::is enunciated on Page 4 dealing with t~e economic balanee, comprehensive n~eds, public services and natural resouree preservation for the entire county~ There were 25 original landfill sites considered and only two, so far~;.~ have been presented for approval. Four were studied and rejected by the consulting engineers for the City. This is identified as one of the basis purposes of the study outlined on page 4. The next outline, on page ~0, is historic preservation which deals with the impact of any proposed use~ on. the preservation of historic sites in the Gounty. The identified sites that we had at that time were the D~dley and Moreland Sites approximately one mile away from the Massey site. There is a third site which is somewhat closer. I would point out that the State stat, ut.e~ if you have a h~storical preservation ordinance, gives you some additional control over architectural 4 7 9 use within~one~half mile of the site. The Massey site does not appear to be impacted by this problem. The next association is on pages 14 and 15 of the Chairman Comprehensive.Plan you adopted, dealing with general soil associations and points out that the Massey site is composed of Group 2 soils which are deep, well drained, with gentl~ sloping to steep colluvial, acid clay subsoil suitable for landfill,/moderate limitations to development.. The soils association 2 are limited for intensive residential use, since they are comprised of foothills and valley soils. The school locations in your Plan, Pages 21 and 22; little or no effect on schools orl~busses ae~tial on U. S. Route 29 since it now being constructed to a four-lane divided/highway in Virginia and is a major truck route. Red Hill School is 3.5 miles south. The 1970 Land Use Study on Page 29 identifies this area, and I have an aerial photograph I will explain that in a second, it shows the main corridor, for both the rail and 29 South, and Red Hill Quarry which is a major industry two miles to the south. By comparison, this sparsely settled area of the county is five miles south of the City. I can show you that on the aerial photograph at this time. ~Proceeded with an explanation of the map.) Epps: Mr. Payne, in addition to your aerial reconnaissance of the area, have you personally visited this site? Payne: Yes, I visited the site on two occ.asi~n~ November 2, 1973, and May 14, 1974. The day before I visited on May 14, 1974, there was an inch and one-half rainfall in this area. I viewed the site with the tenant who is on the site now, Mr. Bryant. I walked the loop road around the site, across the streams on the side and identified.the springheads which are largely at the foot of the mountain on the westerly portion of the site. I compared that with the engineering studies that were made, there were 16 test holes put in by Metcalf & Eddy. The spring heads were identified~as being west of the stream .at the foot of the mountain where they normally would be. That is where the stream is and they obviously feed that .pond. which be ied Three of those sites, according to the soil report Z will/testif/ to later, show 4~.~ water in three holes out of 16. Epps: Would you refer to that portion of the Zoning Ordinance, ll-13-3,which pertains to special permits and comment on the c~iteria set out there and apply them to the Massey site one by one? Payne: The section of special use permits is identified on Page 4~ of the Ordinance,Section l!-13-3,and the standards-.in granting the use are aL follows: "The use shall not tend to change the character ~d established pattern of ~ development in the area or community in which it wishes to looate." The Comprehensive Plan identified a landfill as an intermediate use. It will have a specific use for a period of years. This will be t~ue of any landfill in Albemarle County, wherever it is located. Following that use, which we described as interim, on Page 71 of the Comprehensive Plan, the use of this property would be utilized for some related use as was shown in the film and could be utilized in the County 7-30-74- 48 0 Chairman for police training centers, fire training centers, parks or other public uses a~ a similar site, therefore, this would not change the character of this area since it is an open use. It is permitted in the agricultural and conservation area., I would point out that the Comprehensive Plan as yell as the Zoning Ordinance identify landfills as permitted uses in agricu!gum~! and conservation zones and there is no residential zone as such within three or four miles of this site. We are talking about, I see Mr. Fisher looks surprised, I have looked at the zoning map and I do not know of any "R" zone anywhere around here, they are "A" zones and they are not residential ~ zones. "The use shall be in harmonyvwith uses p~rmitted by right under a zoning permit in the zoning district and shall not agfect adversely the use of neighbori~g~properties." There is no question that the use as defined in this ordinance complies with your existing zoning and your proposed zoning. I repeat., it is not popular, but it is a fact. If you read the ordinance, as it has been written, and as it is written now, it permits, with a special permit, this type of use in the "A" and "C" zones. Whatever is done on this or anyoother site, you will have to face. that fact. No one is going to support it. Therefore, I contend the use is in harmony with this ordinance just as it is written. "The location and height an buildings, the location, nature and height of ~at~s~and fences and the nature and extent of landscaping on the site shall be such as the use will not hinder or discourage appropriate development and use of land and adjacent/buildings or impair the value thereof." That is a rather broad charge, how- ~-~ open ever, there are no buildings involved. This is a use of/land and open areas; primarily, an agricultural use. The Gleco Milts~ structure has as much visual impact on this area as a landfill area would ~ver have. tn looking at it, the only thing that will be necessary here, is the proper control of ingress and egress to the site via the and intersection shown ~n ~e photo, and by proper screening. In your staff report,/the technical report,it is clearly shown that this site has excellent potential for screening because of the timber and slope of the land. In the next case, "The Board in granting a special permit may impose conditions such as; they may be imposed to abate or restrict noise, smoke, dust or other elemmnts that may effect surrounding properties." The testimony that will be_~given you tonight will show just exactly how that will be accomplished. I again repeat that you have the ordinanc-esomn the books to at~ow you to control that. "Establish setback, side, front and rear yard requirements necessary for orderly expansion and to prevent traffic congestion." Again, this is an ideal site from the ~] access point of view and will prove to be the best site that you have had in terms of for access presented to you yet. "Provide/adequate ~arkinga. and ingress and egress to public streets and roads." The photograph speaks for itself with two more lanes being added adjacent to the entrance to the site. "Provide adjoining property with a -~ ~ buffer or shield from view of the proposed use, if ~emed necessary." This site, when ~ you see the site plan explained by the engineer,ing consultants, will have the majority of the tract in screening.~ The largest portion of the tract will be left undisturbed. I would therefore content that the criteria set forth in your ordinance meets the criteria established in your Comprehensive Plan~ the existing ~oning Ordinance and in the proposed ordinance which you are now considering. Epps: Payne: for your. Chairman In summary, what would be your planning recommendation? The recommendations are based on, and I will cite these dates and times ..... review these aspects and base a judgment on the technical aspects of the site.[~;~The Metcalf and Eddy Engineering Report and Site Analysis dated July 26, 1972; the Virginia Department of Health Report signed by Mr. James on February 23, 1972, which was the site approval; the Virginia Water Control Board approval in the same letter, plus th'e September 19, 1973, letter advising of the removal of the pond and the piping of the springs which ~as accounted for in the engineer's study; the Metcalf .and Eddy 197I Site Evaluation Report, which was made available to the County, in which four specific sites, were studied and rejected, with the Massey site Engineering being chosen as number one; and the Metcalf and Eddy/Pit Boring Repe~ts-, which I referred to earlier. Now, the recommendations that I made after reviewing the staff and report,/all of the engineering geologic data, traffic data, made available to me, is that the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted as ageneral guide and the planning objectives, I think, should be carried to a logical conclusion. This is a planning suggestion. You adopted it in 1971. It was recommended that a committee prepare a landfill site, you have never received any public supportf~or any study like that, you have done the'studies, you are still here three years later, between the City and the County very close to 85,000 to 90,000 people and you are dealing with a trash disposal problem which you must face. I contend Zhat this site will allow you ~o face that. The City considered ~1 it's areas, they presented these, and I beIieve the Massey site should have been approved based on the technical reports submitted as a complement to your Comprehensive Plan. It is the best of those sites from the rating of the technical report. The Massey site either meets or exceeds all of the planning criteria as a landfill site. It should be approved as a facility for use by both jurisdictions. I believe, too, that the zoning history of this area indicates a recognition of some need to provide a non- residential related service to the general county; the quarry does that. It is located here because the rock is here and the railroad is here; it is logical. The wholesale, retail nursery adjacent in the A-I zone is a permissible use, but it is a traffic creator, the people come there. You just recently zoned an asphalt plant, I be!iewe in the early part of 1972 to M-2 within a couple miles of this site for the same reason.~Asphalt trucks are no ~ess desirable, or more desirable than~trash trucks. I went through the staff report quite carefully. It is quite obvious that Mr. James, of the Health Department, approved the site. It is quite obvious that the County Planning staff quite clearly stated that as a planning matter this is a good site. In my discussion with the staff on this and other sites, I found no disagreement with that. If you deal with the problem, and deal with it as you see fit, then I think you must consider one of the sites presented to you as a favorable site. As a planner, I have worked with this type of thing in other jurisdictions and I had the responsibility of locating many of them in Fairfax. This 7-30-7a 48 2 Chairman is the best site I have seen presented to you in Albemarle County. I would therefore recommend that you approve the Massey site. Epps: Do you have any additional testimony that you would like to present? Payne.:, No, I believe that ~overs it ail. I will try to answer any questions. Epps: You have, I believe, prepared a summary of your report and are prepared to file it at this time. rayne: Yes~ ! prepared copies of my statement, with page references and the items ~ited, for reference of the Board, and I would like to submit this. Epps: This includeS a resume' of Mr. Payne~s qualifications, plus his statement. (Note: Marked "Exhibit ~$~" amd filed with permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.) Fisher: In giving your testimony, you sp~ke of the residential areas. There is a difference between residential zoning in the County and residential development. I t~ink we must point out that there is residential development much closer than what you stated. Is that not so? rayne: Ther. e is no question. ! did not say that. ! said your Comprehensive Plan established areas for residential growth by use of the "R" zone. It also ~stablished the agricultural and conservation areas in which residences are permitted. The point I was trying to make was that one of your goals, your adopted goals was, that no ~and~is~ould be located in or adjacent to an "R" zone. That is the case here, there is no "R" zone ...... Fisher: Are you saying that an agricultural zone where residential uses are permitted by right, is not a residential zone? rayne: It is not basically a residential zone, it is a farming zone. Residences are permitted, of course. Fisher: Another question. You are talking...referring to various page numbers while you were talking...what document were you referring to? Payne~~ The page numbers in that report that you have, I prepared it in outline form so that you could take my comments which have the page numbers cited, and those are the page numbers of the adopted Comprehensive Plan which is now three years old. Fisher: You were referring to the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County? rayne: Yes, so you could take the document, read its statement, and then check the accuracy by looking at the~_',report. others you might be presenting, if they have an out- Wheeler: Mr. Epps:,. in the line, if we could have it ahea~ of time then we might be able to follow. Epps: We will be glad to do that. Sometimes people think that is a distraction, sometimes they think it is an aid. Wheeler: We have decided it might be an aid. Epps: At this time, we would like to present the testimony of Dr. Grant Goodell and as I have heretofore indicated, Dr. Goodell is out of town and by arrangement by notice to counsel to the County, we have taken his daposition and we will present that deposition at thi.s time. 483 Chairman Wheeler: Mr. Epps, if you intend to read this into the record, we have copies of this. Epps: That is correct sir. I intent that to be like the reports that you already have and you wanted to hear from the witness, although his reporv was already in the record we thought we would go through it to present it just like the witnesses whose reports were previously filed, but who did appear and give their reports verbally to you. Thacker- plus the fact that we do not have the opportunity to question this witness, Dr. Goodell. Epps: That is correct. Your counsel was given notice of the depositions. He had the opportunity to appear and examine in every way. Carwile: They were depositions connected with the court case and ~ Epps: No. In connection with this hearing, not in connection with the court case. We found out he was available for the court haa~ing, but we found he had to leave the country before this hearing, and then we gave notice to the Board and took the deposition. Fisher: He is not here for any cross-examinatimn. Epps: Before you decide on this, maybe we should point out that Dr. Goodell introduces by this certain photographs which he took on which he bases his testimony. We would like for those to be presented and he identifies them as what they area Certainly" we should present those...if you don't...certainty that much we should do because that is not in the record now and we have slides too. Unidentified man: Mr. Wheeler, can we hear his professional legal qualifications as well? Fisher: I would like to state that while I~ feel that Dr. Goodell has certain qualifications, he is representing both sides of the fence in the hearings that we have and that he is not here so we can amk'~'him questions to amplify on his statements. I do not think that this is regular. Epps: He is not representing both sides of~the fence here tonight. He has a definite opinion on this site. He has a definite opinion on the other site. These are expressed. We are not using him as both sides against the middle. He presented as a witness for the applicant for the Massey site. Wheel~.r: Gentlemen of the Board, you have a copy of the deposition from Mr. Goodell. Is it the pleasure of the Board that we have anything further on that? Carwile: I do nov desire to have it read into the record. Fisher: I do wot aither. Thacker: I do not either. Woodi No. Henley: No. St. John: Can I give you some further information on that? I don't question witnesses myself, unless a Board member asks me to question him here. I am not 7-30-74 484 Chairman questioning theaeL.w~tnesses so I did not appear to question Mr. Goodell. I would no~ have questioned him if he had been here'. I think the deposition should be admitted as far as the recorde:; It is under the Cou~t's ruling that we are having this. hearing in the first place. Whatever weight each members wants to a6~ord it, it is up to in light of the s~atement and the way it has been presented. each member himself/ I think that is the only way to handle it. Wheeler: As I Understand it Mr. St. John,it is the desire of the Board that it just be entered and nothing further be taken from that... St. John: That is completely up to the Chairman. If somebody offersdcomments on it, whether you want to include them if the don't add anything further to the r~port that is up to the Chair~;a; Wheeler: It will entered in the record. (Note: Marked "Exhibit D" and filed in the permanent file of the'Board of Supervisors.) Epps: M~y we go forth with the photographs and slides? Wheeler: I think it has been the decision that it will be entered in the record and that is the extent of it. Epps: May we deliver those at this point? Wheeler: Yes. F. F. !achetta: Mr. Wheeler, may I ask a question of Mr. St. John as attorney for the County? Wheeler: Yes. Iachetta: It seems to me that this matter is ... that involves the public health, safety and welfare, and if I am not mistaken, under registration laws, the man who testifies as an Expert shall be registered duly by that Board in the State of Virginia. In looking at Mr. Goodell's qualifications, he does not possess that regis~rat~on~ I would like vo enter a question as to whether he can legally testify as an expert. credentials I have the same/qualif~6ations otherwise as he has. St. John: My a~swer to that is, this document should be made available to the public as far as this entire record must be made available to the public. But, there is no requirement that everybody who comes here to speak at a public meating be an expert. As I said, each member can give any weight he chooses to this report from none on up to whatever weight you think is it worth~'~your consideration. I think if anybody here wants to speak against Mr. Goodel!'s qualif~aatio~, they have a right to do it. talking Iachetta: z~am./about his legal right to present himself as an expert~ not to present~.h~s opinion as a citizen. There is a difference-as far as Z am concerned, in in professional ethics involved andZthe expert testimony rule as I understand it. That is what I question. Is he going to offer this testimony as an expert'or is he offering it as a citizen of the City of Charlottesville or County of Albemarle. There is a distinct difference in my book. St. John: The Board should not exclude any offered testimony. It is not like the judge who has the power to say this is inadmissable and we will not even receive it into the record. You must receive into the record anything that is offered and 7-30-7~. 485 Chairman you may record it as absolute zero in your judgment if that is what it is worth. Epps;~' We would like, at this time, to present the 14 Goodell exhibits, being 14 photographs numbered one through 14 to be filed as exhibits with his deposition~ aaa identified therein. These blowups, these colored pictures are blownup from these 35 MM slides so they should .be together and they are number.ed alike so they should be kept together. (Note: Marked as part of Exhibit "D" and filed.) Fisher: I would li~e to state that this report was received by thaaC6unty Board of Supervisors this morning. It is 34 pages long. The maps which are supposed to be colored to shown various drainage areas in different col~r~are blank. They have been duplicated, I presume, by the County, but there was no way they could duplicate the colors. This kind of a 'report is late in arriving. The expert is not here to answer questions ! don't think it is a totally proper thing. Epps: We would like to call Mr. John Podger. Would you state your name, residence and occupation? Podger: My name is John Podger and I live at 320 Walnut Street, Wellesley, Massachusetts. I am '~ae Senior Vice-President of Metcalf and Eddy. I am a civil and sanitary engineer. I am registered in a number of states in the United States and a number of foreig~:.~countries. Epps: Would yop please state your educational background and your professional e~perience background? Podger: I graduated from the University of London in 1949. I have w~mked in the United States since 1953; ~ince 1954, with Metcalf and Eddy~on a variety of sanitary engineering p~o~cts including a large number of projects involving sanitary landfills and other solid ~aste management systems. Epps: Are you familiar with the Comprehensive Plan, 1970/2000, for Albemarle County, Virginia, prepared by Rosser Payne and Associates? Podger: Yes, I am familiar ~with this plan. This plan was carefully studied in connection with the activities we executed in behalf of the City. I note that the Comprehensive Plan deals 'speciFically with the question of sanitary landfills on page 7~ of that document~ It advocates a positive approach to sanitary landfills and I ~would also like to note that the plan was adopted in September 16, 1971, as noted on the fly leaf. The plan further advocates a policy of a number of sanitary landfills within the County and that these sanitary landfills should be at a one-way distance of about five miles or so from the area where the solid waste is generated. It further goes on to point out .that sanitary landf~tl sites should not be limited to regions which can be regarded as problem areas. By this it means that the use of an area.~of land as a sanitary landfill should be considered as a way of improving that area by putting, by returning to another use at the end of the time it is being used as a sanitary landf~ll. Also, it makes the point quite positively that sanitary landfillasare limited life facilities and they are future appropriate uses for land or parks, possibly reareation, that type of thing. Epps: Are you familiar with the County zoning law and the criteria for granting 486 cha'irman special use permits for the operation of sanitary landfills? Podger: Yes., I am. I reviewed the zoning regulations the month that the City made selections of sites for us to investigate with. these particular zoning regulations in~ mind. Epps: Will you tell us when and how Metcatf and EddY~'bama~_~o be directly concerned with the sanitary landfill problem in Albemarle County~and this community? Podger: The services of Metcatf and Eddy were engaged by the City to make an evaluation of four Sites which the City had selected. These sites consisted of the Cooke Mountain site, the Burn~y site on 641, the Airport Site and the Massey site. During the course of our investigations, the Cooke Mountain site was ~-~timinated of the land because the ownership/changed. We submitted a~ l~t~ .... report to the City on October 29, 1971, in which we recommended the Massey site be given further consideration as being the most desirable of the four sites li'~$ed. We then undertook a feasibility study /of the Massey site and submitted a second letter report on this on July 28, 1972. The purpose of the fmsibility study was to get a preliminary feel for the engineering problems i.nvolved there an~ to define the engineering approach for subsequent engineering activities. During the course of the feasibility study, we considered traffic considerations and access to the site which we felt to be good. We considered the aesthetic appearance of aasanitary landfill in the area and fomnd that the site is exceptionally well screened from public view. Undoubtedly it could be operated without the public traveling along Route 29 hav~ng any knoWledge that there is a site there. W~ made.an evaluation of the ~ater pollution problems which might be involved. We recognize there is a groundwater problem there and to a certain extent a surface water problem. We made a preliminary evaluation of these problems and find that they are in no way unusual and that they are a completely contr~lable situation from an engineering point of view. We took a look at the erosion situation. We recognize that this is a sensitive area and he~eaagain feel that although there is some problem here that this again can be controlled by operation through well proven engineering techniques. We prepared some preliminary cost estimates and we made a recommendation... I think this is very germaine in view of some of the other remarks we heard tonight... we made the recommendation that a ~urther detailed investigation be undertaken of the site which would in. clu~e a detailed plan of operation so that you gentlemen wou~d be able to satisfy yourselves Yhat the p~bt~ms that have been identified can be solved and you will have some assurance that the solutions, the ~etailed solutions, to these Problems would be proper and workable sotutia~s'~...~ This type of procedure is the normal sort of procedure that is followed in a si2uation like this particularly in regard to the question of water pollution control where the state water resources board would certainly require the review of a document of this sort befo~ they would follow through; Epps: Would you comment briefly on some of the various principles involved in good site planning and good site s~mtion of a sanitary ~ndfill? Podger. Yes. Let's deal withe the site selection f~rst. One of the things we 7-30_7~ ~ look for in selecting a site is traffic impact. 487 Chairman Will the traffic volume generated by City trucks going to the site form a significant p~portion of the total traffic a on the highway and will it ~ause traffic hazards? Is there/good access road? In this case we found it was excellent. The actual access to the site ~tself, getting off the main traffic aertery into the site, here~again we found the Massey situation very good. A~ther important feature in looking at sites is the soil capabilities ful and types. We are looking for soil to/fill two functions. One of these is aosuitable type of soil to act as a sealer.so you can create an area between the groundwater and the refuse itself. The other is suitable type of soil for cover material. We find that both types are available at the site and in adequate quantities for the entire life of the site. We take a look at the leachate problems. It is highly important to eliminate the leachate problem from the refuse because this is the source of contamination which we have tokprevent getting ~into the groundwater or surface waters. We looked at erosion control, we look at zoning, at site screening, we take a look ay the available of utilities, particularly water...and the general aesthetic impact. Epps: Would you turn now to site preparation and give us the principles of the site preparation? Podger: One of the main concerns when you start looking at the engineering development of a specific site is to avoid an environmental insult, this takes several forms, one of the ones that is of the most concern here is of course contamination of surface waters and ground waters. This can be achieved by ~eeping the refuse well separated from the gound water~with an environmental barrier. We think the State regulations are quite specific on the fact that there has to be an environmental barrier when you have a groundwater situation present. You have to make sure t~tyou do not get leachate in the surface water and suitable measures can be taken to avoid this happening. Y~ w~zl have to so prepare the site so that you generate an absolute minimum of .leachate. This can be done too. Traffic, erosion, these are all problems previously mentioned. Another important feature and this is something yet to be done~at the Massey site is a detailed plan on the site, of operation. This would indicate over a phased period of the life of the site where the cover material should come from, where the seeding material will come from, how seeding is to take place~where it is necessary, and'~should provide for a logical development of the site~in order to establish the ~a~at~th~ best use of .... the fact that there are adequate materials on the site in the first place, they are being used and secondly that these materials are being used in the best ~way and/in a manner that can prevent erosion both in the~actual fill areas and borrow areas and on the temporary stockpile areas. Operation plan will identify the needs and the actual location of all-weather roads. It will provide for utilities, particularly ... faci~lities water and fuel storage. Operational planning will also provide/for ground water monitoring, both prior to actual development of the site and there, we have done some preliminary groundwater monitoring already. After the site is in operation, 7-30-74 Chairman this is to determine not ont~ the elevation of the water table, but also to get' a ...6f what the present quality is, the groundwater is, so that can be compared with the quality of the groundwater once the s~e is in cperation. This would provide you gentl;emen, and other important authorities with nemessary information to show that the groundwater &nd the surface waters are nov being degraded by the operation of the site. Suitable provisions would be made on the site for a hot load area. This is merely a fire protection so tha~ an incoming truck, where a load has caught on fire, to make it possible to deposit the refuse from that truck into a suitabte£isolated area so the fire can be put out and thus limit the fire from spreading from other areas. A vehicle height maintenance garage would be required, a weighing scale, and a suitable/fencing around the site so there is only limited access to thoseapeople going to the site. Another thing which is extremely important during the development of the site is that some very early idea should be obtained as to the final use of the site once it is completed as a sanitary landfill so that grades, final g~ades can be designed and established it is going to before hand to make the final use compatible with whatever is designed. If~pas~re~and, recreational areas, or whatever. The operation plan would be used as a basis for approval by the enforcement authorities. Epps: Did you mention the point brought up before, the point of erosion factor? Podger: Yes,I did. This wou~d feature largely in the operational plan. There are various measures that would be proposed to control erosion. Would you tell us what your findings were when you reported in October 717 Epps: ?odger: three sites. This was the findings of the comparison of the four which went down to The Massey site was undoubtedly the most desirable of the three sites. We ~ound that it has a 21 year life and in spite of what has been said today, we feel that this is a safe estimate. We hear what has been said. We do not agree entirely with it. There is quite adequate acreage there to give this site an ad,ate life ... the life of the site can be extended well beyond 21 ~ears if need ~e. We. found there are ample cover materials. It is about a 4.4 mile haul distance from the nearest point of the City boundary. I~ i~'w~llisolated from view of Route 29. We see no unusual site development problems. There are problems there. There are problems on every site. In this particular case, problems of a nature which have been successfully solved in many other areas. We based these find~ng~ on not only visual inspections of th~ site, we undertook in July 1972, a series of 16 test borings in the previous connections. We have a detailed log of these borings and the ground- borings. water elevations that wereefound in six of these/ The others were found to be dry. to us by As a result of this and work that was done mnde~, subcontract/. Western Geophysical of the who did a seismic Survey site, we are certain thare is an adequate amount of cover material on the site for the, to guarantee suitable material for the life of the site. Epps: Quite a bit has been made about the expense©of the development of the site. Do you have any comment about the expense of this site and compared to other sites and this site ~y i6self? 7-30-74 489 Podger: No, except to say that we do not regard this as an unduly costly site. In fact, I think we found it in the normal range of costs. In our earlier report we did present, 1971 report, we did p. resent some costs. We don't see the Massey site will be a costly site. There is development work to be done in view of the other factors besides the the operation costs in relation to the available capactiy is not out of line. Epps: In connection with your studies have you made copies of certain sections you have taken of this land and the computer print outs on longevity and~other items and are they are available for filing with the Board at this time? Podger: Yes. What we did was in order to acclimate this site, we took a series of 16 or 18 cross sections at various points across the site for the information of the Board if they are so interested and we have some of our computations, cross sections on this... These were used in relation, established very preliminary ideas of what the final fill area and we used in relation to a computer program, which are these typical computer print-out sheets ~hich take account of allowances for cover material, separation of refuse, and various other types of steps and come out with a preliminary estimate of the availabilty of material and the life of the site. Epps: Would you from the standpoint...would you indicate from the standpoint of the existing zoning your evaluation of this site? That is the zoning as contrasted to the enginearing? Podger: We found the Massey site the best of all the three sites Considered from ather the viewpoint of existing zoning and c~Z~~ criteria. ~ _ Epps: Would you identify the two lettera~previousty referred to and we would like to offer them for the record at this time. Podger: These are two letters; One is dated October 29, 1971, the other one is dated July 28,1972. ~Note: Letter of October 29, t971,marked "Exhibit E" and Lette~-~o£ Jut~228, 1972, marked "Exhibit F", both filed in the permanent records of the Board.) Epps: You have already alluded to these letters and summarized the findings, is that correct? Will you discuss the engineering aapea~'saand p~oposa~o~h~a~ you plan for development of the Massey site? Podger: This is a very preliminary idea of how the site would be developed. There is concern of course to take care of the surface water runoff which would come off the high land all the way around here. This would be taken care of with a cutoff trench which would divert the surface water runoff either in this direction or down through here. We recognize that some groundwater problems particulary in this area here. Some of the test holes I previously alluded to did ~ndicate ground water in here and some off'the other investigations have shown this. There ~re!iminary are some other wet areas in through here. This blue dashed line gives aZ indication of how a groundwater trench system might work. It would of course be worked out in considerably greater detail than is shown here. The purpose of this would be to lower the groundwater e~evations to maintain a good separation between the 7-30-74 49 O- Chairman the fill groundwater and the.~O~tt:omof the fill~to prevent leachate from/getting into the ground- water. Again in further investigations the question would be addressed as to what to do with this particular pond. It may well be that in subsequent groundwater investigations~ if it prov~sto be desirable to lower the level of the pond here particular~ as this acts. as a hydraulic control in holding up the groundwater elevation, the pond would be lowered by doing some additional engineering here. Right now there is a very crude earth spillway and is considerable signs of erosion here. This would be taken care of also in the detailed site engineering planning. -It is an open question in our mind at the moment as to whether we would recommend t. hat this pond be retained. I am incl'in~d at this moment to think that it is desirable to do So'~ act as a backup facility so it would act as a sediment basin in the event we did get any colored water or erOsimn coming down into the area. However, other things that would done, plus the~e would be a decaleration lane put in here to get traffic safely off Route 29:, curving the access road so there would be no direct visual contact between the road and the fill areas. Platform scales, maintenance building, and all of the other facilities would be in the cluster area. A hot load dump areaw suitable screening of trees around the area here to prevent access...we think there is lit'tle doubt that this ~hole area can be screened off from the public, the nearest home is some 1~00 feet away and there is really followed no way of looking in on the site. In general, the-landfill procedure/would be what we call the area method and you saw.~an indication of that on the film. Epps: In connection with your engineering analysis, did you have occasion to get soil borings and technical reports from geophysical reports for the hydrology of the area? Podger: Yes, we did, We had our own hydrologyst visit the site and copies of © the borings are available showing ~h~re groundwater was encounvered on six sites. We also have, and will submit, copies of the preliminary seismic survey which was done by Geophysical, showing the availability of ~o~er:?.material and along with this is a preliminary water sampling of the groundwaters in the area~showing the existing quality of the waters. Epps: We would like to pass up for the record the copies of the test borings and copies of the.., from the Western Geophysical Engineers. (Note: Marked "Exhibit H" and filed in the ~ermanent file offthe Board of Supervisors). Will there be fire protection at the site? Epps: Podger: Yes. The fire protection will take two forms, one the hot load area ~.fhave previously alluded to in the event of ~ire occurring on any of the access trucks. The other thing~would suitable provision made for, in the unlikely event that any fire did occur in the work itself at ~he landfill. Here again, the pond might act as a a~u~f waterf~r that. Unidentified Lady: We've been through the fire prevention, couldn't we go~'~on to something el~se? Epps: From an engineering standpoint, did you examine the zoning ordinance against this tract of land, and what did you find? 49 1 Podger: Yes, we have looked at ordinance 11-13-3. There are several provisions there. Provision A that it be in harmony with existing use~for adjacent property~ most of the ~xisting are rural agricultural, pasture!and. We do find that Gleco Mills close by, Red Hill Quarry, industrial rail line, retail wholesale nursery, a car/bus.truck graveyard. Epps: In summary, and before we show your slides, are there any engineering problems that are not m~nageable in the use of this land for a sanitary l~ndfill site. Podger: No, I think in summary, I would say emphatically this is a very good site. It has some problems tQ,;it. I have never met a site yet that has no problems to it. The ~ype of problems are more or less routine problems. They are eminently solvable. It is undoubtedly one of the best sites that I have seen. Epps: We would like to. Wheeler: Before you get into that, the Board has a request. We have allowed you now more than one hour and a-half. We do have people here that I am concerned might have to go home. I ask you at this time to yield so that I might,give anyone who has to go home a change to speak. Epps: By all means. We have only mne more witness, but we yield readily. Wheeler: If anyone has to go home, I will give them a chance to speak at this particular time. Epps: We do so with pleasure. Wheeler: At this time, the Chair will give anyone who has to go home a chance to speak at this particular time. Who would like to be first? Richard Anderson of North Gardan: I notice the disparity between what Mr. Foreman has presented to us and what the City has presented to us. I wondered if the Board has recognized the presentation as a disparity? Wheeler: Yes. Anderson: are?~ Can they define to us what you believe the majority disparities Wheeler: I think that is an unreasonable request. I think this Board has the responsibility to listen to what is presented tonight and make a d.ecision. To rehash that I do not think is reasonable and I will rule that we will not. Anderson: May I ask another question? We are concerned, country people, with the ground water flow and what it will do to our agriculture and what it will do to our wells, particularly the more shallow wells. I don't believe that was touched on by the gentlemen. Wheeler: Do you have something to present? Anderson: No, sir. Wheeler: Well we do have people here with things to present. If you have information to present you will be recognized. If not, I will ask you to sit down. Anderson: Thank you, I only had questions. 7-30-74 492 Chairman Wheeler: Who would like to be next? Mrs. Richard Hinneman of Charlottesville: i would like to second the letter which was written by Mrs. Henderson HayWard to City Council in the Daily Progress last week, perhaps, the week before. Anyway, the point was that Charlottesville should get with it and should not have a landfill. We should not devote beautiful~space in Albemarle County to garbage dumping. We should be doing what all progessive cities of thi~ s~ze and larger are doing, the community should have a recycling, using the garbage for fuel, recycling the gtassi, and the metal. It is the mosv economical thing. It is ridiculous to say otherwise. It is the only thing for the future and we should get with it. Perhaps you remember Pete Seegar's song about 70 miles of clean blue water, 70 miles of foam on San Francisco bay ending up as a garbage dump. We don't want a garbage dump in Albemarle County. (APPLAUSE) or F. F. Iachetta: Are you still imposing the rule about having to go home?/ May I speak? (LAUGHTER) I have a Pi~H.D. in mechanical engineering. I have spent 20 years at the University of Virginia faculty in that aapacity. I am a 25 year resident in the County. I am a registered professional engineer in the State of Virginia. I also cansider myself an expert on incineration. I must congratulatooMr. Epps and the people from Metcalf and Eddy on an excellent presentatian. It is excellent if you consider that they only had one point of view to begin with, that there is no alternative to a landfill. Two years ago I made the same proposition I am about to make tonight. The movie that we saw is obsolete, two years more obsolete than when I s~w it two years ago. (APPLAUSE).. I think it is time as a citizen, and I am not speaking now as an expert, as a citizen to ask of my government, both the City and the County, since I have to work in the City area and I work in the County, to start disregarding the boundary line in favor of ssslutions that are more consistent with the needs of the people. As I said it was an excellent engineering presentation. I have no bias against landfills. There are many places where they are an excellent solution to this particular problem. We have not .studied an alternative solution int~i~community, and one which is ours by virtue of the fact that we already have a distrubition system which can use the energy. I recently did a more updated study, let me give you the numbers. If we take the County/University/City waste, it represents about 200 tons of solid wasterper day, 200 tons per day. If we process that waste, you will have approximately 100 tons of combustible material; equivalent to 54 tons of coal, 84 tons of coal every day. Two years ago when~_I proposed the same alternative, coal was selling, delivered to the University site for $18.03 a ton. Right now I am serving as acting director of that hea~ing plant and I can tell you that the resent contract called for $53.00 a ton. That adds up to over a $1,000,000 worth of coal that you gentlemen are proposing to bury. We will also have to operate a bullzoner, a spreader, a compactor, you will have to run trucks four miles, they all burn petroleum compoun~ the last time I looked. Our petroleum requirements in the country are increasing at a million gallons per year. A million barrels per year. If we are to meet our needs, we have to find a ... Bay 7-30-74 three every/years. I submit that is impossible. Chairman We are already going to be some 15 hillio~ in the hole for foreign aid for Arab oil. That is only for 6 million barrels per day. We are talking about meeting 14 million barrels a day by 1980. Noboby knows how we are going to unload it because we not building any places we can unload deep water tankers. I think it is time for the cities and the counties to stop the petty political arguments and let us put our heads together and I think there is know a receptive audience at the University as well, and let's find some way to use our waste some other way besides-burying it in the ground whether it be the Massey site or the other two sites we already have. What in the world do we need three landfills for in Albemarle County. I see no reason whatever to impose a further landfill in Albemarle County. It is unfortunate that the City geography does not permit them a landfill built inside their boundary, but they have access to the Ivy landfill. I see no reason to start another. (APPLAUSE) Wheeler: Now, does anyone Else have to go. I will recognize the lady. Mrs. Robert Barnett: I am not an expert on anything, but I f±nd it very hard to understand the purpose of this hearing, since all problems involved were expressed at our last meeting. If you are trying to take the tactics of wearing us down,~we are still in here fighting. Wheeler: Can I interrupt? So it will be clearly understood, this meeting is being carried out by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County under Court order. Under order of the Circuit Court Judge of Albemarle County. I think that is certainly clear that we do have to obey the laws in serving the':Court of this County, so that is the answer to why we are here tonight. I don't want to be here either. Now, proceed. Barnett: We don'~t want to be here either. As property owners direcvly affected by the decision of this landfill question, we of the Barnett families, wish to voice our objection to the use of the Massey site as a dumping ground for City garbage. Mr. Payne states that this is not a residential zone. But, as residents of five homes located directly across the road from this site, we look from our front entrances directly at this knoll and the mountains beyond and shud~e~oto;;~think of the sight, that's s-i-g-h-t, we may have to ~ace. This property has been in the Barnett families since Civil War days. Although our houses are not Pre-~ivil War constructed, and have no historical significance, we are pround of our homes located in this beautiful little valley and have worked hard to build our land as valuable tax assets to the County. It saddens us all to think of the devaluation of our properties if we allow a dump to overlook our homes. We all have children who want to preserve this land for their future. We realize that this reasoning on our part will probably be looked upon as a selfish one and not considered in the final decision of the Board of Supervisors. As was the case prior to our public hearing at Red Hill School, we were instrumental in obtaining far greater and more im~rtant information to our community as a whole against this site. I'll not dwell 494 C ha irman on the problems this site will create if used for a landfill. 7-30-74 You are all aw~r.e of these problems. Water pollution to surround properties is inevitable. Traffic problems will increase consid~erably. Low lying pockets of air and southwest winds will cause the odors and dust of such a dump to create environmental hazards. Huga rock formations are found on this prop~erty. Anyone who has been out 29 South through th~ roa~d construction area can see how deep these rocks extend undergrounds. These formations are found throughout this area. I could go on but there are others who wish to speak and will detail the aforesaid problems more thoroughly. I agree with Mr. Iachetta. Why dan!~t we be modern enough to go to incineration? My argument against expressed views that the landfill will be screened from the highway and hidden in the hollow, is how long do you think it would take after ~tons Of garbage are dumped daily on 39 acres of land before the landfill inches its way to the top of the knoll, being visible to all traveler, s on 29 South. Much time and effort has been spent by we and our neighbors since the beginning of this landfill, questions relayed to you the Board of Supervisors the problems this landfill creates. So, I wi~h to direct my Closing remarks to members of City Council and to the news media. The morning newscast after the Red Hill meeting reported that there had been no objection~voiced by those directly affected by this proposed landfill. W~e hope you are represented here tonight, and we want you to know that the Barnetts and all our close neighbors are Voicing our ob~jections and object very strDngly. We must not allow a ~umpv to be placed at the Massey site. T~a~k you. (APPLAUSE) ~.r©~ancey, President of the Cove~Garden Ruritan Club: I am a gravely concerned citizen of Albemarle. I find it harder to follow this lady than all of the experts that have spoken. First speaking as a repres~a~tative of the~.~ub, during our July meeting, many aspects of this dump were discussed. Needless to say, following d~scussion, the Club voted 100% to ask you to deny this request. Secondly, speaking as a concerned citizen, I know the City has had the site tested for dirt cover and came up with the right answer. Mr. Humphrey said they have conflicting reports on soil depth. Mr. Foreman says no one knows what Mother Nature has put there. I would like to enlighten you about surrounding prop~rvy of the dump site. We know the property directly across 29 more commonly ~knowm as the Red Hill Quarry Mountain is approximately nine miles long and at least 400 feet deep and is solid rock. Second, we know there is a road construction project going on, as Mrs. Barnett has said, directly by the site. The entrance to the dump site is solid rock. Third, the farm that borders the property on the southwest side, known as the Anchorage, has place after place after place that we cannot get a fence post in the ground because it is solid rock. Sometimes this runs for as much as a 100 yards in a s~lid line. Fourth, as I understand it, there are numerous springs on the site. Springs are made up of crevices ~ solid rock~and not dirt. Now that I have established the fact that all surrounding property is solid rock, I can't see how the City can operate a sanitary landfill with little or no dirt cover. But, I can very easily see how they can operate a City dump. Can they operate here for 21 years and not 7-3o-7~ have to haul dirt in~ which would mean more traffic in our area, or more likely, is it impossible. Would they have to blast for cover material; no need to say any more about blasting, it speaks for itself. Or maybe they would be permitted to do it. Gentlemen these are serious questions I would have to ask myself before I could vote in favor of the Massey site. Thank you. George Maverick I did own property there and did since 1930 on 29 South, I do not any longer own it. I am not an expert, I must say on this thing, that I have supervised up to 3,000 engineers and chemists in the Standard Oil Company, and I have had to do with making fills, but I've made some that I'm awfully ashamed of in the years, and I have also supervised the making of the Louisiana Story, which I think is considerably better than the film we saw tonight. It was a right good film in fact, I didn't have too much to do with that, I just went down with this delightful old man that made it~ but we have listened ~o a film here that quotes engineering and as a basis for all the information on land fill and it comes down to after showing America The Beautiful, it comes down to two land fills, one of them in Hamilton, Ohio, where they had a big quarry to fill in and they could improve it by filling in that dirt quarry; they then go down to Ft. Worth, Texas if anybody knows the land around Ft,. Worth as well as the land around here (I flew over it earlier this month~ I lived in Texas, Maverick's do come from Texas) and they have a great deal of s~froyas and creeks there improved by filling, and everYbody has brought out the fact that it is good that some things can be improved by a landfill and they should use two single examples - Hamilton and Ft. Worth. There are many other places I think they could use in Europe, our Friend from England didn't bring ~ any of the European things only the areas they filled around New York City with which they filled with trash to build up property making and ~uilding out into the harbor for new airport sites and soforth in Chicago. Those things are fine and noteworthy, but the film essentially said that when you have a place that is empty and can be,filled and improved and sold for something valuable then it's a good thing, and I warn you in ~onsidering expert engineers to what they say. That was the achieved essence of our film._ ~We had after that, I guess I'm not expert enough to keep my notes very welL, Mr. Payne as a consultant went through such a mass of data that it was very hard to hear it, much less understand it. But as a consulting engineer, you've got to prove your point, everybody knows that. We had Mr. Pmdger, from Medcalf & Eddy, I wish you'd told us some about your experience in England, where you probably had a~eat deal more experience, in Whelsley. I don~ know about places like that, but we got back to Ft.~ Worth, they have arroyas all around there to fill to great advantage, and Hamilton Ohio that had a place to fill to make more land to sell it as improved property. Mr. Podger had pointed out first of all, that you must choose a site to improve it. And he ends up his oration that we have to pick what we want to build on that site 21 years hense after we finish improving it. He does say that it will be quite expenseive and he gives his main vertues that it be well screened in these 21 years. 4 9 6 7-30-7 But there is a very bad water problem that can be controlled by engine-ers erosion can be controlled by engineers; and he recommends a further and more considerably detailed study to study these things to see what such controls will cost, ! would eertainly think that that~is advisable if we go i~to it. But if it takes a simple thing as what have been shown here tonight to get a site to improve, our Ft. Worth and Hamilton, and then go out and look at the Ivy landfill where you've got any God's quantity of empty space there to be filled and plenty of fill around it, waiting right there and working we~l,:~.it doesn't look as terrible as it did before all this stuff came out, but it could be made and improved easily, and it's there and avail~ble.t.;;~So it would seem to me that wa should remember that all of these plans were made several years ago, before the this energy crisis, before anything that is happening to us ;now, before.~osts have gone up. I think .~.~.. t thought he was talking a little crazy a year or so ago, when he said we could use this stuff properly to burn it, and it seemed to me that it was quite impractical at that time, he shows that it is now getting three times more practical, and I think that about a year ago you couldn't give away an old automobile, people are paying for them now. I believe it was only a few months ago, that you couldn't get rid of your newspapers, and you had to have the Army reserve come and pick them up from in back of our-apartment house, and they didn't come very often, now people are taking them because there is some value to ~hem. We are in an extremely rapidly changing time, on both the amount of energy we have, the amount of ~a~'h.~' we are going ~o have the savability --~ of parts of it so it would look like a time to just trus~ all these engineers, as I had to learn when I had so many to supervise. And scratch your head, and use what we have ,at Ivy. HALL: Mr. Speaker, they are wearing me down, but I'd like to speak later. Mr. Hu~h Napier, I live in Covesville, I'm a truck driver for the Charlottesville Oil Co., and I deliver over to the Ivy Landfill every week. I don't see how in the world you'atl ever~keep the mud and the nails and the boards off the road (29 South). I've learned to go over there and watch closely to dodge. If they take a bulldozer or land- road machine in the winter time and scrap that mud off that roadway. Now you have it where you'll keep it off 29, when it gets about this deep, and that is a serious thing when you consider people are coming through from the north to the south don't expect to run up on mud. That's about all I have to say. But I do go along with the incinerator that's what I think we should go and work for. Wheeler: I think we should take a two minute break, then allow the city to finish it's presentation. Epps: Mr. Podger wanted to complete his presentation by showing a series of slides of the site, you go through them and ~ust mention the word... Podger: 1) That is a view of the site showing the main highway there, you can see the pond, it is looking up in a northerly direction into the site just gives a general indication of a bowl there. 2) this again is a view of the site looking at it from an easterly point of view, shows the highway, the railroad tracks there, and the Greeco Mill 497 again showing some indication of the bowl shaped area of the site, and gives some indication of the fact that is is well screened now, very little in the way of residential population overlooking the area. 3) this is again looking in a northerly direction, up into the bowl, which would form the main area of the sanitary land fill 4) looking in a southerly direction, again the mills, the railroad lines, the highway tracks, and the isolated nature of the site. 5) the same thing again looking almost due south 6) this is !ooking~ from some distance from the south. That's the RedHil! Quarry there , the Massey site is in the top left hand corner 7) this is a view from the site itself, looking in at the southwesterly direction, you can see the clay-sandy soil and the part of the area that would be filled with cars - that would be one of the~;first areas to be filled there. 8) this is again a view looking at it from the ridge down onto the site with the highway in the background. 9) this is a view of the pond as it presently stands - there will need to be improvements there t0) erosion as presently occurs by over topping the pond; this obviously has to be taken care of. This also gives.some indication as to the depth of fall immediately down-stream from the pond. 1t) this is a small dump on the site itself this is not the was it will stand after the landfill operation. 12) again !ook~ng at it from the Greeco Mill (in the center) 13) the nursery area also a nearby... 14) a vehicle graveyard which is also nearby. 15) this indicates the present site from vhe highway you can see from this there is a ridge separaving the highway from the site so you cannot see the site. Now when the final has been done on the site as such that when the site is filled i~'~witl still not be possible to see in there. There is no intent of overtopping that bluff. There will be a screen of trees along that bluff. ~NGte: he backs~up projector to unknown slide) That is a nearby property where there is a vehicle graveyard, you can see a number of junk ~rvehicles all around there. This is on]~the site, it shows_~the sandy nature of the soil by the pond. Extended from the subsurface invemtigation, we have had some commenvs that this is probably solid rock we of course have a considerable amount of detailed information on the site and think we know the nature and extent of~the fill material. This is an area that would ba part of the fill-in area, and we have~'a good idea of the depth to bedrock besides the nature of the material there which is in the~.material submitted to you gentleman. Again a view of the site. The site looking towards the pond. The pond house, which is the only property on the site, ~ned by the City, again this is all a~ area which would be fillad and graded and leveled off. Again the upper reaches of the site. Again a a v~w looking north. That is the end of the slides. Wheeler: Thank you Mr. Podger. Mr. Warner -- person on the floor has question-- I would like to pursue the question that was raised about the graveyard that has a bearing on the decision this court has to make. Shown is a nearby property, pre- sumably at the influence of the Board that the area is so degraded that nothing else can be done it hurt it. And I think it should be cleared up as to whether or not this is an existing permanen~ situation or a temporary aberation done to clean~up the area. 7-3 0-7~. 4 Wheeler: Would you like the witness to address himself? (Person on the floor) I think it would be earier if you asked him for me, if it's not going to bother yau. Wheeler: Well, all we can say is that we went out there and took pictures and showed them to the Board, we don't know what it represents. They were taken just before the June hearing schedule in 1974. Just the month before last. (Person on the~oor) this is a site that the Board of Supervisors approved for the collection area for the cars to be stored .... Wheeler: I think we could get a diary entry of when these were taken if this would help you sir, but we haven~t been out to this area until this spring and that is when these were taken. (Person on the floor) this Board voted approval of that site to be used for a storage yard for junk cars to clean up Albemarle County. Wheel.er: Mr. Fisher, I think the Board unless they have some objection, I'm certain the people wilt testify that this information is correct. Do you have any qmestions of. this gentlemen; Mr. Henley, Mr. ~isher,~ ~Mr~T~ae~er ..... . . yes sir I do. Sir you referred to a detailed operation plan. Has any preliminary work been done on such a plan? - Podger: No it has not. The normal procedure in a situation like this is to get approval of the site. An analagy would be if you were building yourself a house you may have some preliminaries as to what you want before you buy yourself a site but you're not going into a detailed design until yQu have a site picked. We believe that suf- ficient information has been presented at this time to demonstate the feasibility of the site from the City's point of view, and from your point of view; and detailed oper- ating plans would be a subsequent stage of procedure after you have made your decision, assuming that you have made a favorable decision on this particular site. And then it would be used as a guide for operations, and it would also show you in detail the method of operation that would be followed. Up to this time there has been a general engineering done on the thing, a nonsizmic and geological work, in order to demonstmate that this is feasible work assignment. Thacker: Based on the information that you have gathered at this point, how long would you estimate that it would take to prepare such an operation plan. Podger: Oh, a matter of maybe five months. Wheeler: Mr. CarWile, Mr. Wood. Thank you Mr. Podger. Mr. Warner please. Robert G. Warner: resident engineer, Virginia Department of Highways,~ Charlottesville Virginia. METCALF: ville? Warner: years. Metcalf: conditions? Warner: Metcalf: Mr. Warner long have you been resident engineer for the City of Charlottes- I've been resident engineer for Albemarle County for a little over seven I take it then that you have a degree of familiarity with the local road I do ... Would you please express to the Board your findings with respect to Rt. 29 7-30-74 499 south at critical portions which involve access to the Massey Site. Warner: Well, as has been stated previously, this section of 29 is under con- struction and will ultimately be a four lane divided arterial facility and it is my opinion and the opinion of the department that it will provide a safe and efficient means of transportation for the volumes of traffic that will be an6icipated. It is the opinion of the department. Metcalf: Anticipated as a result of the proposed sanitary landfill? Warner: That is right, our route is designed to carry through truck traffic across the state, and this type of facility would certainly handle this type of traffic which would be generated by this type of landfill. Metcalf: Would this also include items such as site distance? Warner: It would, a check and review of the plan indicates that site distance as well as other safety features .are adequate at this location. Metcalf: Have you been authorized by the ~epartment of Highways to speak on their behalf in this instance. Warner: I have. Wheeler: Any questions to Mr. Warner, gentlemen? Mr. Fisher... Fisher: Mr. Warner, the question of ingress to the site by traffic heading south, has been spoken to by other people, with the question of a deceleration lane on the southbound lanes off the highway to get into the site. I'm not speaking of a problem there, but what about when those trucks come out and wish to go north? Will then not have to cross both southbound lanes and turn into both northbound lanes in order to come north? Warner: They will. They'll have to go through the crossover located at that particular spot Fisher: There will be a cr~ssover? .Warner: Yes, there will be a crossover to line up with the intersection of Rt. 745 going into Greeco Mill Fisher: And there will be a ramp leading to tha northbound lane~from that crossover? Warner: Yes, a storage area in that crossover in between the lanes. Fisher: Then you would normally build the crossover at that point as a part of the general upgrading of the highway or is that something that is being specially pre- pared in anticipation of the landfill site? Warner: No, it's being build because there is an existing secondary road there, and it would allow access to that road from either lane. This is the reason this par- ticular crossover is being built. I understand that, but they will have to cross then all the lanes of Fisher: traffic. Warner: Any traffic going north will have to cross the southbound lane, through a crossover to get into the northbound lane. 7-30-74 50 0 Mr. Wheeler: Mr.Henley, Mr. Thacker Thacker: One quick question, Mr. Chairman~ Mr. Warner, the new lane of 29 south that is now under construction, what is the elevation of that lane~ with respect to the hill on~-~he'eastern side of the proposed landfill site. Can you tell me approximately how far below that hill the roadway will be? Warner: I can't tell you, at the ingress and degress points it is about the same elevation as the existing - what will be the northbound lane · hacker: Does that continue .... Warner: and it -- all along it may rise a little bit to the north because the south- bound lane is elevated to north of this site and it comes back down to about the same grade elevatimn as the entrance point. Thacker: Warner: Wheeler: be the end of our case. Guy Agnor: I'll be very brief, I'm director of public works for the city. As you know, I've appeared before you before. I have only to distribute to you tonight a general operating procedure manual that was provided ~o the county planning staff last September, which covers ~ general terms the operation of any land fill applicable of course, to any site that perhaps would be available and approved for use by the City. Of course~ many points have already been discussed tonight; I think you have copies before you.o~It's not the detailed plan that Mr. Thacker was inquiring about, this is simply an upgraded procedure manual. I'll touch very briefly on some of the pertinent points. It a~dresses itself to the facilities, a vehicle wash pad, the maintenance and office building, the scales, water supply, electrical and communicatiQns utilities, the treatment of the spring, the proposed hours of operation, a list of the equipment that would be used-on the site, the procedures for daily cover, intermediate cover and final cover;a list of the number of personnel involved, and a statement on just general landfill management. In terms of the type of daily operation. I would just like to close by saying, that as you know, the city has a duty to establish a facility for its populous to use. By definition, and by law, as well as by design , a land center, landfill controller and regulated method as you know wastes disposal. It is now licensed and regulated by the Virginia Depart- merit of Health with the cooperation of the Water.'~Control Board. We have in our files, which I am certain that you have available to yau, the approval by the Bureau of Solid Wastes and Control Board of this site as a satisfactory landfill site subject to certain stipulations which have been addressed too tonight. I want to reiterate that the City's governing body and it's administration are determined to design and operate a sanitary landfill that will legate the nuisances that are normally associated with land disposal of solid wastes, and that will protect the envirmnment during its operation. Fisher: Is this operations procedure any different than the one we'received a So it would be elevated at the northern portion of this site. it would be some elevation. I don't know exactly what it would be definitely. We would like to close with Mr. Guy Agnor and his operation, and that would year or so ago? 7-30-7 50 Agnor: No sir. Wheeler: Mr. Agnor, we do not have any way of projecting these slides, but I would like to discuss these pictures. Are these pictures of the underlying granite taken at the site? Agnor: Yes sir, that is in the road construction area where they have done some grading work. Charlie Haugh: I'm a resident of Albemarle County and an attorney representing various land owners in the threatened area around the Massey Property. I exchanged pleasantry with Mr. Epps a little bit ago, but I forgot to ask him if he~is planming to spend the night here; I think we are. This is the second public hearing held on this application and as you may recall, I spoke in length against this application held on April 12, 1973 at the Red Hill School. Tonight I'm going to try to be brief, and I'm going to try not to repeat all that you heard before. One lady did ask why we were here, and Mr. Wheeler pointed out that we were under court order. That's just part of it, because this court order further provided that a public hearing would be held at the request of any party~ the city, requested this public hearing. Now, not going into detail, I would like to just remind you that without that first hearing at least 10 (ten) other people spoke in opposition to the granting of this application one you may remember was John W. Bil!ie Williams; he ~s~out o~ town tonight, but he hasn't changed his view. Anothe~ one is Mort Southerland, he was sick, he can't be here, he hasn't changed his viewL~ Just to give the highlight of some of the reasons given in that meeting in opposition; one was that the proposed site is located on Rt. 29 south, a major north south highway running through Albemarle County. You've heard a lot of talk about screening, you've heard it then, you hear it now; Gentlemen, no amount of scraening is going to discuise the garbage truck traff statistics stated at that meetin but no one has counted the priva consideration. Another reason g~ ~lot out noise and dust and no amount of screening will going to and from the dump. And we heard a lot of about the number of trucks and th~humber of trips, vehicles, and I would amk you to take that into _yen for opposition at that meeting was that the loca- tion of the dump on the Massey property would have an adverse effect on the historic nature of the area. You have in your file, (I think it was made a part of the record) a letter from J. I. Fishburne, J~. of the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission mentianing Morlin built around 1~30, and Anchorage built around 1750, and Arrowhead built around 1800. Now these are about in a line as you looked at them, but if you make a triangle with the proposed dump site it will be the apex. And there you have your triangle, ~hree historic was that the land value in the a~ in its use as a dump. Further an adverse effect on neighboring nothing that has been said here was that the Massay property is ~ldings and a dump. Another thing that we mentioned ea would be lowered by the granting of this application ated that the establishment of a dump there would have p~operty with possible danger from water~ol!ution ven tonight changed that. Another thing mentioned .esignated in the County Comprehensive Plan as being in a conservation area. Now you know it seemed rather strange to me That Mr. ~ayne acknowledged as the author of our master plan, has appeared here tonight as a paid expert for the City, and has tried to get around the requirements of our Master Plan by saying that he is trying to get the County to change the Master Plan, so that you can operate a dump in a conservation area. Now, another thing was questions as to suitability were unanswered. Mr. Humphrey mentioned that again tonight. Another reason was that the establishment of a dump on the Massey property would change the character and established pat~rn of development in the area. That it would discourage use and development of adjacent property. That because of the proposed use of the Massey property, corresponding dearease in area land values the tax base in the county would be reduced, and there would be a reduction in the amount of revenue available. And finally, the water from this property runs into the Hardware River after passing through several farms. I would also remind you (this is in the file) that at that time, the County Planning Commission and the County Planning Department recommended against the use of the Massey Property. I would also remind you that at that meeting, a petition signed by some 800 residents of the county was presented to you and offered as opposition to the establishment of a dump on the Massey property and that also should be in the file. Well, bringing us on up-to-date then on September 26, 1973, this Board, by vote of five to one, denied the City's application for a special use permit to establish a garbage dump on the Massey Property. Now, what has changed since our last meeting? With the exception of a couple high priced reports, furnished by the City, at the last minute, and this is at the last minute, everything remains the same. Now I hadn't planned on taking this much time, but while we're doing it, I want to critique some of the things you heard from these socalied ~xperts. Let us start with the brief mo~±e. The first thing that is said is "don't we care about our envirmnment"? I think that every person in this room apposed to this site feels deeply about our envirmnment. Then it said, there'must be no surface drainage. Everything that Mr. Foreman and everyone else has said shows that there is going to be a tremendous amaunt of surface drainage up there. Then it showed that they put it in heavily populated areas so that they could reclaim it for use later on. Well, this is not a heavily pop- ulated area. Then we went on to Mr. R. Payne and I wasninterested to note b~athe interchange by Mr. Epps and Mr. Payne that the Master Plan is nothing but a general gui~e. But, you know, when we fought this out in the circuit court of Albemarle county, the City's position was that this Master Plan ~as law and it had to be followed. Now they have changed their tune, I guess it doesn't suit them to follow this as law tonight. Here again he mentioned that he ~as going to change the Master Plan so a dump could be located in a conservation area then he made this statement. And i missed part of it "no one is going to support it" that means the establishment of a dump. Therefore, I conclude it would be harmoneous with present uses; I'm sure I heard that - I hope i didn't, but I'm sure I did. Then it said the majority of the tract will be screened. Well, you ask Mr. T. K. Wood if his p~perty which is a higher elevation than this on the south is going to be screened. I was glad to hear that Mr. Payne, that after two 7-30-74 compl'ete visits to the property concluded that it would not effect thr surrounding property adversely. Then Dr. Gode!l's deposition, during this Mr. Fisher raised a question as Dr. Gode!l was on both sides of the fence; well, I mention again, Mr. Payne is on both sides of the fence. Then we get to the man gentlemen, from Welsley, Massaahusetts Mr. Podger, who graduated from the University of London, so i~s not unusual that he is not familiar with the different political subdivisions referred to in the comprehensive plan or he would realize that all mention 6~land fills in the comprehensive plan and requirements therefore, refer to landfills for the use of the County and not the City. (see page 71, Sanitary Land Fill); he referred to this page, but didn't read this much "A positive approach should be taken in the establishment of a comprehensive system for sanitary land fills designed'to conven- iently serve (and here is what he left out) the populous of the county" He also referred to reports of 1972 and stated that more detailed plans were called for. That is what Mr. Humphrey said tonight, we still need those detailed plans and a vote hasn't been taken, and this is time to get them. Then he said some early ideas of future use should be attained at an early date. But gentlemen, I plead again, tonight is the time to. go and take the vote, not five months from now when he can get you these plans, but/tonight. Then he said the Massey site was the most favorable of the three sites. I don't know quite what to say about this, because I don't think it's proper to compare this site with the others, or any other two; so I'll only say that this is in disagreement with the County Planning staff reports. Then he said he does not regard this as an unduly expensive site. But at this time, according to,the gentle- men, he doesn't know what the plans are. And Mr. Foreman who conducted tests only a day or so ago, said otherwise, he said it is going to be most expensive, if you call a million dollars expensive and we do, most of us. Then he said service water,runoff would be taken care of with a trench. You know, you'll have been on this property and this statement indicates to me and it should to you that Mr. Podger has not seen this catch basin during a heavy downpour. You're not going to stop that water with the heavy rains that we've been having! Then we go on to the question of what should we do with the pond. Then he said later tests may indicate that the pond should be lowered. Well these tests are now, th~s is when you're going to vote, not sometime later. Then he says the whole area is going to be screened from view; here again Mr. T. K. Woods will tell you otherwise. Now at this point I made a nice star, I made a note that I stopped'taking notes at this tim~because it was apparent that Mr Podger was unaware of any detailed final plans and therefore is saying What could come to pass and not what will happen if you grant this permit. Now Mr. Humphrey has already indicated to you that because of the lack of a detailed plan he cannot try to minimize or say what the adverse effect will be on ajoining property. And I did add one thing about the slides, I was very impressed with the slides, and I think that if you look at those slides, it would indicate to anybody that this is beautiful country, and should nov be desicrated by a dump. Now we go on to Mr. Agnor, he didn't ?-30-74 say too much, he gave you a general operating procedure manual, which is applicable with any land fill. But, what I got from everything they said is that these experts have told us how a sanitary landfill should be operated but can go no further as detailed plans have not been formulated. That old saying, they are asking us to buy a pig in a poke. Now, after all this and all this money there are still two questions to be con- sidered by the Board. One is the suitability of the Massey property for~use as a garbage dump and second is the effect the garbage dump there would have on the adjoining pro- perty. As to suitability, the County staff says there their questions are still un- ~answered. This is what we had when we were at Red Hill~ 1973. And Mr. Foreman said it will cost in the neighborhood of $750,000 to a million d~llars to adjust this property because~Gf the water table ~el. They don't have any other plans. As to the effect of the garbage dump the~e would have on adjoining property, the County staff, as of this evening, and this report says that the potential effect cannot be decided because of inconclUsive facts presented by the city. Now what have they added tonight, no~h~ng, they do not h~ve final plans. If they don't have final plans, you don't know how they are going to operate, and you cannot tell what effect ~t will have on adjoining property. to your satisfaction Gentlemen of the Board, the burdon is on the Civy to prove/that the terms of our zoning ordinance will not be violated, by the establishment of a garbage dump on the Massey property; but they have not done this. Even though I believe their application was filed in November, 1971, now h~re it is, July, 1974 and even though they have spent thousands of dollars on experts, they still say what could happen, or what might happen, or ~hat has happened in Taxas or Ohio.; not what is going to Happen at Massey. And speaking of experts at this time, I would like to read and then present to ymu the following letter from real e~perts concerning effects on surrounding p~perties. The first letter I would read is dated.July 30, 1974, it is on the stationery of Polly P. McGa~ock, Realtor, addressed to the Board of Supervisors, City Council, Charlottesville, Virginia, Dear Sirs: Wheeler: May I object ta that - the depositions of Dr. Goodell and subject of notice were not allowed, it would seem to me that a~party statement from a local ex- pert who is not here is not to be allowed at this point. Hough: I thought they were allowed. I have a personal vital interest in the pro- perty of Albemarle Counvy Wheeler: do you have any comments on this - No. The Chair has ruled, and please proceed. Hough: I'll start again: July 30,1974 Board of Supervisors City Council Charlottesville, Virginia Dear Sirs: I have a pe~onal, vital interest in the proper development of Albemarle County and proper land use because I have made my home here since 1926 and have been in business twenty-six years. it is distressing to me to see the great controversy between the city and the county. Any place that has been sugg~Ded for the land-fill other than the present 7-30-7 county land-fill is going to devaluate the surrounding land. People do not want to buy within miles. As a consequence taxes in the county would be reduced and the overall picture of the area would be degraded. I have believed for some time that the new and modern method of building the type of plant that burns garbage and converts i~ into coal, steam or energy is the answer of the future for any town or city. It is very possible that the county and the city could combine this cost' as the present land-fill will not last for- ever. The amount of energy produced would be a great boom to the city and county. Even if a sma.il increase in taxes was necessary the first few years, it would be worth it in the long run because it affects everyone and not just a few. Let us be modern! I think that this type of improvement for our city and county would be worth far more at the present time than the astounding amount of money that the city is considering spending on the downtown mall that only benefits a small number of people, and even the merchants in that area are not one hundred per cent for it. The future growth of Charlottesville and Albemarle County will continue to increase with proper water, sewage and garbage disposal facilities. With improper ones we could have a mess, therefore, Z beg of you to consider this new and modern method of the future of disposing of garbage and not ruin the beautiful countryside of Albemarle. Sincerely, (Mrs.) Polly P. McGavock, Realtor Our next letter is: July 29, 1974 Mr. Gordon Wheeler, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 ~ear Mr. Wheeler: The proposed landfill on South U.S. 29 has caused me considerable cnneern because of the adverse effect this landfill will have, not only on the immediate area but also on the neighboring properties of some distance. For the past 30 years, I have handled almos~ exclusively all types of farm properties. From this experience I have learned that this section of Virginia attracts settlers from many states to seek their future homes in Albemarle because of its natural beauty and the many other pleasant advantages with which we are all familiar. This demand has created a constant rise in land values which has re- sulted in a sizeable income in the way of taxes to the County of Albemarle. Rather than for me as one individual s~ating my views as to how harmful the proposed landfill on South U.S. 29 would be to this area in property values, I think it is more fitting to point out the actual zoning conditions, which you, The Board of Supervisors, have been largely instrumental in helping to draft, to protect the landowners of the Gounty which you supervise for the good of all. Therefore I enclose a copy of the zoning ordinance and underscore in red the words which clearly state strong reasons why this landfill should not be placed on South U.S. 29. a) Change the character and established pattern of development of the area or community in which it wishes to locate. b) shall not affect adversely the use of neighboring property. I sincerely urge that you will abide by these conditions of the zoning ordinance, which was designed to protect bothl;the personal rights and property rights of the landowners of Albemarle County. Respectfully submitted, George H. Barkley I have these originals I would ask to presenv at this time. Now as you can tell from my presentation, we have a couple other people that are going to speak, we were not able to duplicate the expensive presentation of the City, but I'll guarantee you this that when their witnesses get into their cars to go to their homes in Welsley and Richmond all of us will be getting in our cars to go back to Albemarle County and I think we are very concerned and we are going to ask you again to deny this applica- tion. Thank you very much. C. S. Grove, Jr.: I have taught for many years. I am an engineering consultant and professional engineer registered in New York, with reciprocity in many other places. It is useless to tell you of my five college degrees, as most of you have heard af them at several other hearings. Now I have come both as a solid waste expert engineer, as well as a concerned citizen and taxpayer and resident in the county of Albemarle. Landfills -- land disposal is nothing new. The Cat family knew all about it before most of us were born. They are very careful to cover their waste up. Moses with his children of Israel insisted that they bury their awful during their ma~.ch or treck to Egypt. The thing that modern man has forgotten is the second part - c~ver it up! And so we had the City with a record at Avon Street Extended which still isn't covered up and perhaps I speak out of turn when I note that there is a letter in certain files that states that on July 18th, the City has much work to do~to re- habilitate Avon Street Extended as was promised a good many months ago. That is part of the burying and ~overing up. The earlier discussions and2decisions of the Planning Commission to recommend a denial of the Massay tract as a landfill site or a dump and the decision of the County Board of Supervisors to deny a special use permit to the City of Charlottesville, were wise. I think along about the same time if my historical information is correct, the County offered to form a joint authority with the City similar to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to opperate a sanitary land~ill. For some reason beyond my can, the City decided to go to court and sue for their own private landfill so it could be operated in the manner that they are accustomed to operate a landfill. A real sanitary Zandfill can be constructed on almost any ~!and mass, provided all Commonwealth and Federal regmlations are met provided the taxpayers are willing to meet the costs. For example, if taxpayers are willing to give up their recreation area of McIntire Tennis Courts., a sanitary landfill for the City of Charlottesville could be located there. It would be costly and somet~es I thing the hole should be filled up, but that is a personal observation, since I don't pla~ tennis. So you see, Z could go through and I do want to make point, a~ I believe the mayor is still here (or did he have to leave). It seems rather ironic that the ma~or of the city of Charlottesville just recently was appointed vice chairman of the mayor's commission for the bicentennial activities and he is asking that a historic area of Albemarle County on what is one of the few major highways that is not one of the neon lighted strip, be converted into a sanitary landfill overflowing with garbage from the City and from private construction o~erations and soforth. I would sort of hate to be in his shoes, while other mayors are beautifying their Cities for bicentenial activities, and they say what are you doing in Charlottesville - "well, we are moving our garbage out into a historic area". I really won't list all of the background reasoning, because we have gone over it before, we have gone over it up and down; I do want to say that there is a marked difference between interpretations of some of the letters and reports that I have read and the letters and reports - similarly read and interpreted by the learned council for the City of Charlottesville. I read them and it said it wasn't very well considered or planned. It will be c~st!y, as you have read, it would seem to me that gentlemen, that all the reasons, and disadvantages of the Massey tract have been hashed 7 -3 0-7 a ~Y 7 re-hashed,_.aver-hashed and. perhaps to a period of overkill. ! will mearly read you what I think is a reasonable engineering conclusion. Based upon all the discussions and all the conclusions on all the reports made available lacking any detailed plans which the City~ould present tonight and did not, it my opinion that as a professional engineer and. as a man with quite some years experience in solid waste disposal, collection, that utilization of the Massey Track as a sanitary landfill, is absol- utely unsound and not feasible the site selection is illconceived, poorly planned and presented without full consideration of the tremendous cost to the taxpayers Of the City of Charlottesville and to the surmounding communities. I thank you. T. K. Woods: Gentlemen of the Board, I'm T.K. Woods, born in A1]~emarle County I was born at Arrowhead, adjacent to the Massey Site. I am quite famLtiar with it, I never have understood why they picked that site and I think now may'~e I have the answer.IfSome of us from Albemarle had selected it, we wouldn't have one to high ground the Massey site was known and still is known to me as the Ores Orchard, which is the top. On. the east side of that proposed landfill, water runs i~ to the Moores' Creek, which finds it'.s way around Monticello Mountain into the Rivani~a. On the center portion of it, water runs into the Hardware River, which runs into the James River and on to Richmon~ To the City of the gentlemen who located this site seem to be proud of the fact that it is in an amphitheater and there is only one place for the water to go and that is out the end of the boot. The place is full of springs and there is no way in th~ world with catch basins and all sorts of things that they can control, a good ... coming down through that hallow, and that's what it is, a good old mountain hallow. The land at present is good. I thinM it was located probably because the owner had it in the land bank and hadn't used it for some time. It was an old orchard and can still be today used for that purpose or if someone has a mind to it can be used for a horse farm or a cattle farm. It's good property. Using this type of property for a land fill; putting trash on it, will not improve it you'll take it out of taxation and you will take it out of circulation for the rest of our lives and the rest of our children's lives, because these gentlemen talk about rehabilitating a piece of land to make recreation areas out of it or something of that sort and plant trees all through that after it's given over from the 'dump, I don't think a tree would be standing in 10 years because they would all blow over - there's no subsoil. Nothing to hold any vegetation except surface vegatation. That's about all we'd have. The screening of the property is not direct. I don't think you can screen the property to the sou~h from the high elevation of the property that is owned by my sisters there. The summary that I would like to draw_from this is that this is high ground, it's in an amphitheater it has one way drainage that is full of springs it's good farm land; the landfill would not improve but destroy the Subsoil it has considerable possibility of water contamination for the farms and there are six of them below this landfill and on to the Hardware River. It would certainly devalue the advacent property. Now last year, over three hundred strong at Red Hill, asked you to deny this landfill for the 7-30-74 Massey Site and we again ask you the same thing, we hope you will deny it. Thank you gentlemen. Mrs. John Wolf: Is Mr. Payne here? Well, he sa~d there was no historical value out there, and that astounded me. I think all of you gentlemen on the council and the supervisor received a letter from me telling you the history of Albemarle County and that part of Albemarle County. There is one thing that hasn't been mentioned that is historical it's an old Indian Trail, and Arrowhead (why is it called Arrowhead) because there are Indian artifacts all through that part. If you put a dump there they would be covered over. Sometimes some people are particularly interested in those things, they'll go out there and find a nice indian mound and all kinds of things. Please don't cover it up with trash. Please. Now I thank some of you gentlemen, you wrote.me wrote me real nice letters, thank you. Susan Scott: I'm Susan Scott, and I'm here as a citizen and as a member of the Albemarle Garden Club. Our Club urgently requests your consideration of a unique opportunity for cooperation for solid waste authority sponsored by the County, City and University.. Incineration and recycling of viable possibilities for use of valuable resources and a possible~inc0me. The problem we are facing together presents us with the last chance for twenty years at least to choose a productive solution. Once we take on an old fashioned landfill, with all the expenses involved,_ we will have all missed a genuine opportunity. Norma Diehl: Mrs. Diehl said £or two years, with limited resources, the citizens have been fighting an ill-conceived zoning request by the City o£ Charlottes- ville. They are weary, but will continue to protect the land, the citizens, and the resources o£ Albemarle County as long as necessary. I£ this becomes a second Green Springs, so be it. She called the Board's attention to several corrections and comments in the latest sta££~report, particularly the summary page. Since the citizens received no report of this nature £rom the City, this is the only document they had to look at. On the summary page, under general characteristics, #5 states that the proposed land use of this site and its surroundings is rural, agricultural. Mrs. Diehl said i£ the proposed Zonin~ Ordinance is checked for proposed land use, this is rural, conservation. ~he impact on historical facilities, #8 is misleading. Both locations, ~nder consideration have historical sites adjacent to the properties. Yet, at the Cason site, the impact is described as extreme, and at the Masse¥ site as little. This appears to a subjective judgment. They also take exception to the designation of pollution potential as moderate. They feel a more serious designation would be proper. Also, the nearest home is listed as 1400 feet from the site. This is essentially correct, but mention should be made of the large business, complete with a wel~ serving many employees, directly across the road from the proposed site. On page 1 one more historical site should be included. Dudley Place is located approximately 7-30'74 1.5 miles from the site within the limits prescribed in the Cason study. It is also designated as an historical site in the Comprehensive Plan. She said one gets the impression from the City report and the County report that few homes are found in the area. To the contrary, at least 18 homes and two businesses are located in a narrow valley adjacent to Route 29. Many of these homes are within 2500 feet of the proposed fill area and all are threatened by well and spring pollution i£ the landfill is located here. Mrs. Diehl said in the 22 months since the City submitted the first report on the Massey site, many of the facts contained therein have been proven incorrect. She asked how these new reports could be any more correct than the first. The fact that the reports were kept from the public shows that the City has its own doubts about the validity of their study. The fact that the two leading witnesses employed by the City are also witnesses who testified against another site last year makes her suspicious. The fact that the author of the Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, who last year defended his plan, now seeks to violate a conservation area and scenic vista of that same plan makes her suspicious. The fact that the City's only report on the hydrology of the site comes not from an official source such as the State Water Control Board, but from a hired consultant outside of his particular field, also makes her suspicious. At the last hearing, a citizens report was presented to each Board member. That report is just as valid today as in April 1973. In contrast to the City's report, each and every fact presented in that study, is still pertinent and true. Her reservations, criticisms and findings have since been verified by the County's staff report and other experts. Mrs. Diehl said some of the most important objections are: a landfill at this site will not only degrade the immediate area, but effectively block desirable southern'Albemarle County development for the next 20 years; a landfill is described in appraiser's handbooks as having a nuisance value that is a negative value on an area. Odors and dust are also sited as negative value factors. If a landfill is established in an area where a development pattern has been involved, growth will be less affected than in an area that has not recognized its growth potential. This area of the County is important historically, the citizens and the staff have already mentioned the sites to the site. There other homes o£ adjacent Massey are important historical value up and down 29 South. The road itself, the old S,~inole Trail, is famed and presently being considered as a Virginia scenic highway. The Comprehensive Plan requests protection for such areas and also lists the Massey site as a scenic vista. The property in question is in the midst of the area recorded conservation in the Comprehensive Plan and in the new Zoning Ordinance. The County's staff report states the importance of this area and urges its protection. Conservation areas are for maintaining open spaces, scenic areas, and land that contains watersheds. 5'1 0 7-30-74 The Massey site is all of these. Water pollution from a landfill here will occur. The staff report points, out the problems here as we. have for many months. Contrary to Mr. Goodell's report, the watershed is larger than 165 acres. Contrary to his report, numerous springs exists over most of the property. The groundwater of the area cannot be considered isolated from the adjacent areas due to major north-.south faulting in the Dudley Mountain Range and resultant east-wes~ fractures radiating from 'that major fault zone. Contrary to Mr. Goodell's reports, surface drainage would be a critical factor on this site. For almost two years, we have called for a State Water Control Board study on this site. For almost two years, the City has not provided such a report. Mrs. Diehl asked where are the answers the citizens need to know on such things as' a complete drainage system with pond plan. The present plans only have one pond. One of the few communications from the State Water Control Board suggests that one pond will not do, two are needed; one for collection and one for aeration. There is no .location of the groundwater table and no groundwater table mapping for the entire area. There is no historical high ground water level cited. The general movement of the ground water and the aquifer flow in the area is not cited. The topography of the site to determine potential flooding conditions has not been studied. The stream flow records have not been studied. The location and marking of all springs and seepage areas has not been done. The protection of the riparian rights of adjacent property owners has not been done. The study of underlying rock formations and fractures that affect subsurface water movement needs to be done. The likelihood of surface water pollution and subsurface water pollution needs to be studied. The number of nearby wells, springs and their pollution possibilities need to be studied. There are eight wells in the valley immediately adjacent to the area that are less than 100 feet deep. There are also four families in close proximity that get their water from springs. The importance of the watershed to the agricultural economics of the area has not been studied. All of these questions and more are routinely asked in a hydrological study of a landfill site. The City has yet to furnish any official answers to these questions. An intolerably and dangerous intersection would be created a~ this site. It would endanger every County and out-of-state resident who uses this road even with a deceleration lane or with a traffic light, the minimum safety f.eatures needed. Traffic flow would be impeded to a critical degree for a major four-lane highway. The City has not provided a site plan. There has been no report until today. There is no official hydrological study of the area. There are no official reports of the State Water Control Board. Mrs. Diehl said if a citizen of the County had come before the Board so prepared to defend his request, he would have been turned down long ago. Since it has been established that the City's request should be treated as a normal procedure, she asked the Board to spare the citizens more months of anxiety and doubt, and ~eny t~ deny the City's requsst. In the last two years,.~'[~i~echnologies for waste disposa have been refined and are now available. To esta'blish another landfill at this point in time is to compound the follies of the past. If it falls to the County to drag the City of Charlottesville into the 20th Century, then the citizens will support the Board all the way. She urged the Board to maintain the wisdom and integrity of their past action and once again refuse this special permit request. Richard Carter: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'm an attorney and also represent some of the surrounding and adjacent landowners. Mrs. Diehl is certainly a hard act to follow~ she i~s very articulate. The first time I saw her I thought this lady has really done her homework, and she did it again tonight. I just want ~o take a few minutes, I don'~t think there are too many ~ames on that list after mine. I would like to take about two or three minutes to talk about the-~taw~~. First of all it se.ems to me that I saw a suit in the Clerks office in the Circuit Cou~t of Albemarle County where .~!~he City of Charlottesville is suing P. K. Massey to obtain this property. Something ncerning whether th was valid, the City says the-~~ is valid, Mr. Massey says he's not going to give the property. There is very little in the file. The most for judgment and grounds for defence but in essence it said - the City said - we've got an agreement, we want the property and Mr. Massey said no! Maybe Mr. Epps can clear it up, I don't know, but if they don~ have standing, then they shouldn't be up here. And I'm certain.they probably have standing; it was never mentioned to Judge Berry, it was never mentioned since. I feel that they probably do, but they certainly should clear it up. From what is in the file at the Clerk's office, it doesn't look good. Now also the Staff Report. The Staff report tonight speaks to the t~w, and I want ~o tell you and go over briefly the summary. The Summary and feasibility of the Massey site to be used in the capacity of a sanitary landfill remains in doubt. The inade~ quacies of physical studies and technical site plans presently available provide sufficient reason to question the feasibility of the propo,sed sanitary landfill. Without adequate information, the assessment and impact of the proposed land use with reference to it's "it's compatibility with existing land uses, effect on further development and impact on surrounding land values is inconclusive" (quote from the Zaning Ordin~ance) The stafffhas asked these questions. The staff has asked how the Massey site fit in with regards to compatibility with existing land uses, effect for further development impact on surrounding land values, these are the questions the staff wants answers to. Now who tonight has given answere? I maintain the opponents to this application have given the answers. Let me specifically refer to the letters and the files from Calib Stowe, George Barkley and Polly P. McG~oak, all long term residents and businessmen and women-in .this area. Twenty-six years from Mrs. McGavock, you read Mr. Barkley's letter you'll see he's been in the business for thirty years; Calib Stowe is now a in the re~l estate business, was a builder here. They know ~and values, they know the impact on surrounding land, they know the compatibility of land uses, they know the effect on further developmen5 and these are the people that know'~they buy and sell property in Albemarle County every day. But, who doesn't know - well, bring in people from Boston, brin~ in people from Warrenton to testify, they have never bought or sold a piece of land in Albemarle County. They are just the ideal witne:s~s you would wan5 57! 2 in a condemnation case. Testifying about land values, when they don't know anything about land ~alues. Then they try to address themselves to the law, they try to answer these questions. Gentlemen, they can't answer the questions. I ask Mr. Paymm, he tried to answer these questions and he ended up saying something and I have this written down and assume it is correct; he said there is always an objection, but they have asphault trucks, why not have trash trucks. Now that doesn't answer the questions. That doesn't fulfill the law. One other thing I'd like to raise is why should the staff have any questions. If this application were filed in 1971 and it is now 1974 why does Mr. Humphrey have to have any questions. The burdon's not on the County, the burdon is not on the opponents to answer these questions, the burdon is on the pro-ponents. They didn't answer the questions, in fact, it has come to my attention that the City has spent a lot of money, (this is obvious it has been brought to eve~ybod~s attention tonight) a lot of money on experts and testimony, but yet, when the Health Department asked them to cover the Avon dump they said we don't have any money. Well, they have the money to hire experts for this landfill but they don't have the money to coverup the dump at Avon Street. Also, they don't have the money to finance answers to these questions because they don't have the answers. Now, Mr.Humphrey of the Planning Depart- ment has to go to the City and say look, here is what we need. Here is our report, we will present this report, you give the answers. Do you have the answers, yes we have the answers. Where are they, well, they could be in Boston, or Warrenton, or Richmond, I'm not sure where they are, but if you'll come over at 10:00 on the day of the hearing we'll give you the answers. It's 10:00 the day of the hearing for a $1,000,000 landfill and they are going to tell the ~ounty what they need to know. So at 10:00 they go over and what do they get - a deposition from Mr. Godell - alright, so he's subject to suspect. But anyway, he got his depositions. I was going to into these depositions, but I'm not even going to bother going into them because I was late, and quite frankly they are ob- surd. One thing I want to read to you, they are asking about a report. He incorporates a report in here "The Massey TracE". If you got this report, I ask Mr. Humphrey this morning, do you have the report? No I don't have the report. They tell me it's in Boston, it's coming up at 10:00. I asked the Planning staff all week - I need a report. We don't have it, the City's going to get it to us. I don't blame the County planning staff, they can't make the reports, they didn't file the application. First time you've under oath, Mr. Godell was asked "do you have it with you, and ever seem the report would you read that report into the record" "yes". This was prepared for the City in the spring of this year. They have had it since the spring! They give it to the County at 10:00 the morning we have the public hearing. Mr. Chairman and Board, I think the City is subject to much suspect, I don't trust them, and I'll tell you why I don't trust them. The City, in this, like they do everything else, they push, they don't p~ll together. Now if you read Mr. Humphrey's report from cover to cover like I have, and you study it, you will see the thrust of this report is for the City and the County to pull together, not push, pull together. And I submit to you that the City is still pushing. And I respectfully request of you to deny the application. Thank you very much. Jane Haywood: I'm Jane Haywood, and I live on 29 South. I just want to say your Board of Supervisors, don't let the City ride "roughshod" over you. Why can't you make the City use that Ivy Tract Landfill property. Get hold of some of those trucks that I've heard from sanitary engineers make them pay for them. You say you can get these trucks that compress the solid wastes, so you don't have to bother the Ivy Citizens with as much trucks going back and forth. Let the City do this. -Bob Foreman: I had a dream going on five or six years now, and I woke up one morning about two years ago, and it was a reality. Sewer and water. The County and the City finally got together. I'm still having part of that draam, and i'm still waking up with a nightmare. Why is it not possible for the City and County to- gether and forget this film, it's nice but it's way out of date, and come together with some new methods of transfer station and salvaging like Dr. Iachetta idea. It appauls me to burn up good paper, because I've got a feeling in five years, we're going to need a whole lot of it, but I feel, now I'm talking as la~ citizens now, and a resident of Albemarle County, and I picked this place, because it is beautiful the City of Charlottesville, is beautiful and we have to realize that the City of Charlottesville has to have a place to put their garbage. So my appeal is let us stop the bickering, the arguing and the spending of money in the courts the terrific fees involved in hiring experts (I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, they are experts). Why don't we get together and really solve this problem. Put up what we need in a joint effort we have a landfill in Ivy that is probably one of the best spots in the City for a landfill, but it's nov being run as good as it should be. We all grant that. Mr. Medcalf said the Massey site was one of t~ best he has seen in the state every month and maybe more, I inspect probably thirty sites in the state of Virginia and that would certainly come at the very bottom as a use site for landfill. I won't appeal to you, I want us to get together. I've been trying this thing for along time to get people together. I talked with Mr. Wheeler, the Mayor. If we are going to get the Board of Supervisors and the City Council together and solve this problem, and they have to have it solved, there is no doubt about it, and there is no doubt in my mind that they can run a landfill at the Massey Site and do a good jab of it if they are forced to do it, which they will be, the State will see that they do it. But this is not the object of our whole dilemma. Our whole d~lemma is to solve this problem desecrating the least amount of property as possible. If we can get together and put the Supervisors the Council in a room and lock the door, they'll come out with a real good answer and that is the only way we're going to get it probably. Epps: I would like to have about two minutes of final comment. I will try to clear up principally what I think are some misunderstandings. First off on the question of t~detailed plans. There has been a lot of sympathy extended to the City because of the cost involved in developing this site. There is some cost involved, but I point to you that these detailed plans would be extremely costly and if we cannot go forward, would be completely wasteful. Now, the method of dealing with this has been criticized because the detailed plans and specs have not been submitted. The Zoning Ordinance gives the County the power to put this condition in the granting of a use permit and it shoul6 be in there .That the plan, the detailed plan and specs come for- ward and are approved by you. A secmnd misunderstanding that I should like to clear up and that is Mr. Hough and one other person alluded to the proposition that Mr. Payne was apparently advocating a deviation from the Master Plan in the Zoning Ordinance. This is far from the case. Zoning for this place, the Massey Tract is entirely con- sisten~ with' the County Zoning Ordinanceand the Master Plan, no deviation, no change, I don~t know how that misunderstanding got abroad. Now, there was some indication made about inaccuracies, I assure that every statement the City has made has been as accurate as we can make it sometimes people make statements that turn out to be not so good, for example, I know the last time Mrs. Diehl spoke you said that the site dis- tance there at the Massey tract was inadequate on Rt. 29. Well, if i've ever seen a place that has good site distance, there may be some ground water problems, but if I've ever seem a place that has good site distance, its' right there. I should like to inform this body that we are informed by the State Authorities that Mr. Foreman is not the official spokesman for that agency and that the approvals which we have given to you are the approvals of those agencies. Now, many if not most of the opposition which you have heard which for the most part be app!~cable to every sanitary landfill site you might try to locate in Albemarle County, I know you gentlemen know that, and I just want to remind you of it. Finally I would like to review the existing land use and remind you that Greeco Mills is there, the railroad is right there the RedHill plant Quarry is there the asphault/is there commercial nursery is there and as little a time ago as eight weeks ago, when the pictures were taken~, this automobile bus and truck graveyard was there. I'd like to tell you that we have given you the hydrology through Mr. Podger and ~taff and study, we have shown you the soils available, we have shown you the underground ceiling of the .... we've shown you some excellent access. In fact the testimony has been that the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance has been met in every respect and the -- every engineering objection and Zoning Objection that has been raised has been answered and every engineering point is solvable. Mr. Podger has indicated that. Detailed plans will be available and should be conditioned if granted the permit. We ask you to grant the permit. Thank you. Foreman: As a consultant with the Bureau of Solid Wastes it is my job to inves- tigate, evaluate, make soil stmdies and recommend. Mr.Epps has made a few calls to my office and mentioned the fact that I was in fact getting in his way and would like me to stop. This has happened, and I'm not sure it's Mr. Epps' that did the calling, but somebody did. They have a site evaluation plan from Bill James which which one part says this will be subject to a soil study, and I want Mr. Epps to realize that this is part of it. He does not have Carte Blanche to operate a landfill. Wheeler: I would like to enter into the record a letter received from Mr. Caleb Stowe, expressing his agreement with our past adtion, and expressing that we deny this petition, a telegram from Colonel and Mrs. Douglass asking for denial, and a letter from David J. Kalergis asking for denial, and I'm placing these into the record: July 18, 1974 To Mr. Gordon Wheeler, Chairman This is to express my agreement with past action by our Board of Supervisors relating to the City of Charlottesville's use of the Massie tHact for a land fill. Gordon, if an extensive effort has not already been done, we will be glad to help in any way to find an alternative. In the meantime, it is my position that the City of Charlottesville will ultimately grow to the South of present limits and the Massie tract has poten- tial for better use than as a land fill. Yours very truly, Caleb N. Stowe sit e. July 29, 1974 To: Chairman Albemarle Board of Supervisors Environmental aesthetic historical catastrophe to place landfill at Massie Irrevocable action protested. Signed: Colonel and Mrs. John Jay Douglass, Timothy and Molly Douglass July 29, 1974 Open letter to the County Board of Supervisors: As a concerned resident of Albemarle County, I feel I must speak out on the issue of the location of the City Landfill, in particular, the possibility of the use of the Massey site. Ail the evidence of Which I am aware points to the total unsuitability of this site for a safe and sanitary landfill operation. In particular, the hazard of water pollution, the removal of valuable land from the tax base, the destruction of a scenic vista, and the creation of an unsightly hazard on one of Char!ottesville's most important highways compels me to urge you to see that the Massey site is not approved for use as a landfill. The present state of technology in solid waste disposal through incineration presents an attractive alternative which ~ould provide a source of valuable energy. Mr. Jefferson's penchant for innovative technology to improve the quality of life in his time is a well known historical fact. Should we, his heirs to this beau- tiful county, be satisfied with less than the best available methods and tech- nologies. Should we not follow his initiative in using technology, not to destroy, but to create a better quality of life for all the counties residents? Sincerely yours, David G. Katergis At the close of the public hearing, Mr. Wheeler announced that he would call for a decision on this special permit tonight. He said that the Board has received, over the last two years, numerous letters from the public, staff reports and information from consultants. He asked that the Board make a decision on this application on the facts, not considering other landfill sites and not comparing this with other landfill sites. The Chair recognized Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher said in response to the number of citizens who have made requests that the County/City/University get together to formUlate a better way of solving the solid waste problems, he had on September 26, 1973, given this Board a three page outline of a way to accomplish this. This memo outlined the membership of a study commission, a charge to that commission, the work they should do, and when they were to make reports. They were To study energy recovery such as the incinerator which has been discussed, to study resource recovery such as paper, aluminium, cans, etc. or whatever could be recovered. The Board of Supervisors, by concensus, asked the Chairman ~o speak with the Mayor about setting up such a commission. The reports the Board has received are that the City is not interested in doing this until they have a landfill to operate. Then they will worry about the future. Mr. Fisher said he gave this only as background so the citizens of the County and City will realize that this Board was serious about trying to take such a step, put up one-half of the funds required for such a study and was looking to the future £or something that would be better than what is being done now. The City has never taken the Board up on this offer. In preparation for the hearing tonight, many hours of discussion have taken place, tons of paper (which alone have contributed to the land~ill problem) have been generated by the reports and documentation presented by the City, the County staff and by the citizens. A large amount of mail and a vast number of phone calls have been received. Mr. Fisher said there are a number of things that can be discussed as the findings of this Board. Some will say that the costs and the problems incurred with the development of a proper drainage system for the handling of water should not be of concern to this Board because that would be a matter for the applicant to handle under conditions that this Board would set out. .However, this Board must be concerned if these problemS are of such a significant nature and significan~ costs that there is a serious question as to whether they can be properly built and taken care of and maintained. That is one thing. The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan speaks of this area as being in a conservation dfstrict. Mr. Fisher said he' does not feel a landfill belongs in a conservation district. The overriding findings are the Zoning Ordinance itself~, Section 11-13-3 which says: "the use shall not tend to change the character and established pattern of development of the area or co~nunity in which it wishes to locate and lhe use shall be in harmony with the uses permitted by right under the zoning permit in the zoning district and shall not affect adversely the use of neighborhing'property." The evidence submitted tonight did not convince Mr. Fisher that this use would not be in total violation of these two sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The other information from people who are knowledgeable about property values, from residents of the area who are concerned about property values and land uses led Mr. Fisher To feel that this proposed use would be in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance. For these reasons, Mr. Fisher offered motion to deny application for SP-203. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker. Mr. Tha~ker said the Board was bombarded this evening with testimony from experts on both sides. The Board must make a judgment as to which~experts they believe to be presenting the facts as they represent the Massey site. Looking at the most recent staff report, which was submitted to the Board on July 23, 1974, the Planning Staff states (and this was read into the record earlier) that there is sufficient reason to question ~he feasibility of the proposed sanitary landfill. 3 7-30-74 5i 7 Mr. Thacker also questioned whether or not it is proper to place a landfill on such a site. The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, which has been referred to many times this evening, states: "careful consideration must be given to subsoil capabil- ities and drainage conditions." It goes further to state that: "low areas such as ravines, swamps and borrow pits may be suitable. But, fill sites should not be limited to problem areas since landfills can be used to create improved sites and shape the landscape." Mr. Thacker said _.considering the numerous photographs and slides which have been presented to the Board this evening, he can see no way to improve this site. He said it is a beautiful site in a beautiful part of the County. In his opinion, a landfill would be detrimental. For these reasons, he seconded Mr. Fisher's motion. Mr. Carw~le basically agreed with the reasons stated by Mr. Fisher and Mr. Thacker. He added that the costs of the operation of the landfill, both operating and initial capital costs which would be borne by the City, even if of some magnitude would not be a factor in his supporting the motion. He said lack of cooperation by the City with respect to any joint facility would not be a factor in the support of Mr. Fisher's motion. Mr. Carwile said he would support the motion primarily because the City has not presented a sufficient case to show that the sanitary landfill, operated in a proper fashion, would not change the character of the area and would be in harmony with exi~ting.~ses and.not adversly affect The neighboring properties. Sufficient information has not been presented to the Board about the subsoil and subsurface water conditions to satisfy him that the Massey site can be used for a ~anitary landfill. He said the comments Mrs. Diehl made tonight and the deficiencies she pointed out in the presentation made by the City are things which concern him. Without that information, Mr. Carwi!e said he was not prepared to support a sanitary landfill at the Massey site. Mr. Wood said he would support the motion. Mr. Henley said the Board would hear almost the same arguments .on any site in the County. He would not support the motion. If the Board votes to go to Ivy. it will cost .one-half million dollars or more to fix the road, to buy the property, and to buy the equipment to go into a joint operation. He expressed his thoughts last year that the road cannot be fixed. There are over three miles to upgrade. Last year the Board was .told it would cost $400,000 to do the work. Now, he is sure it could be as high a.s $600,000 or more. The Board was told that if the State upgraded the road it would be four and one-half years before is could be done. If the County provides~he money, it would be two or more years. At the Massey site there is a good road leading to it and fairly good natural screening. Mr. Henley said he does not feel it would cost the County a penny to go there. For these reasons, he supports the Massey site. 7-30-74 Mr. Wheeler said he had a few brief comments that might come as a shock to the Board and the citizens. When this motion was presented in September 1973, he supported the-motion. He shared Mr. Henley's views about costs. ~t this time, he would honestly say, and he said Mr. Maverick had probably hit on it, the experts have thrown him into doubt tonight~, and he is in so much doubt that he will support the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: Mr. Henley. Motion was then offered by Mr. Carwile to adjourn this meeting until 7:30 P.M. on July 31, 1974, at Jack Jouett Jr. High. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Chairman