1973-04-12¥-12-73
An adjourned meeting of the Board of County Supervisors~of Albemarle County,
Virginia was held en April 12, 1973 at Red Hill School, said meeting being adjourned
from April 11, 1973o
Present: Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William
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 stated that the Board was here this
night to hear public comments an SP-20~ for the City of Charlottesville, however, the
Board would not take any official action~at this time.
Mr. Fisher gave a short report from the Landfill Committee stating that this
committee had been meeting for over two months and were considering other landfill
sites and hope to have a report ready for the Board of Supervisors and City COunCil
very soon.
This public hearing was ~dvertised in The Daily Progress on March 21 and
March 28, 1973:
SP-203. The City of Charlottesville has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
locate and operate a landfill sanitary solid waste disposal facility. The subject
land is located on the west side of Route 29 South, five miles south of Interstate 6~
interchange with Route 29. Property is described as County Tax Map 88, Parcel 26B,
containing 16~ acres in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner gave a review of the staff's report. He stated
that the Planning Commission and the staff agreed that the City, the County and the
University of Virginia should pursue a joint landfill use and when accomplished this
Should be placed under the control of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, however,
the Planning Commission had recommended denial of SP-203.
The staff's recommendations regarding any approval of this application were:
1. The site plan as submitted and made a part of the file be adhered to.
This site plan is dated July 31, 1973 and was prepared by the City
Engineering Department. And with th~ adde~oonditions:
a) The retainment of the existing pond area or a debris basin with
earthen berm being placed to the west and east to parallel the
activity area.
b) The roads on site be paved to prevent dust and mud.
c)
d)
There be no signs identifying the activity taking place.
During no time will bhe activity be visible from the north or
southbound lane of Route 29~
A permanent chain-link fence be placed around the boundaries
of the activity area.
f) The conclusions of the report of Metcalf & Eddy Engineers by their
letter of July 2~ 1972, addressed to the City Manager of Charlottesville,
Items I through 4~ Pages 1 through 3, be made a part of any approval~
g) All stated control measures found in the letter of July 28, 1972
from Metcalf & Eddy, Items 2, 3, ~, 7 and 8 be made a part of any
approval.
That the permit be granted for a 2 - ~ year period, renewable~at the end
of the selected period at the discretion of the Board. This is suggested
to give a second look into methods of sanitary landfills and also new
methods of joint operations as they may arise under new technolog~
4-12-73
24
3- That no disturbance of the natural cover for the landfill be beyond
the area of some 37 to 40 acres located centrally in the ~65 acres.
last
In light of this/recommendation~ Mr. Humphrey stated that he had received
information this date from Mr. Earl Brunger, Soil Conservationist, stating that 63%
of the land has severe limitations as a landfill s~lte. He stated that in keeping
with the objectives of the conservation area~ aryapproval should restrict any
operation from using the steep slopes as they now exist in that area. This would
result in a total of 37 acres that could be used. Mr.Humphrey stated that he had
reviewed the area several times and he feels the area is reasonably screened from
Route 29~however~ one point of-concern is possible pollution ~Dom streams nearby.
He did feel that proper'management could take care of this problem through silt
basins and treatment of water that may run off before it reaches these stremms.
Mr. Guy Agnor~ Director of Public Works for the City of ~arlottesville spoke
next. He stated that the City had been searching for a landfill Site since 1968
and after employment of Metcalf & Eddy for a study, the Massey tract had been
selected using the following guidelines: (1) accessibility by all weather roads
and adequate bridges; (2) soil conditions and the availability of cover material;
(3) topography of the land; (g) depth of the water table; (~) proximity of streams
and rivers; (6) visibility from adjacent properties; (7) development cost for
preparation of the site; (8) the degree of development on adjacent property;
(9) purchase price of property; and (10) distance from points of collection.
He also stated that the City administration is pledged to develop~ a sanitary
landfill that will negate the normal nuisances associated with the disposal of
solid waste.
At th~s timer the Chairman opened the floor for comments from the public.
Mr. Willis Carson stated that he objected to the City's plan fidding no
justification for the City to dispose of garbage in this'area and he felt that
this matter was brought about by lack of long range planning by the City administration.
Mr. Charles Haugh~ representing several landowners near the Massey site~
spoke in opposition. He stated that all arguments are based on advantages to the
City and he has not heard of any advantages to the County. He asked the Board to
consider the following: (I) this area is designated in the County master-plan as
a conservation area; (2) does the County need another garbage dump in the County~
(3) ~s it wise to establish a 20 to 30 year ~arbage dump; (4) the site selected by
the City fronts on a major north-south highway through the County; (~) if the City
established a Rump on this property~ it is no longer taxable and represents no
income to the County~ such as other joint ventures with the City on property __~
located in the County~ He named the Community College~ the Joint Jail and the
Vocational Technical Center. (6) The establishment of a dump on this property
would adversly ~affect three historic properties in the vicinity~ namely~ Anchorage
(year 17~0), Arrowhead (year 1800) and Moreland (year 1800). (7) Construction of
2-73
a new two-lane Route 29 South will begin in Julys1973 and this will further impede
traffic through this section of the County. (8) This land is located in a watershed
that flows to the North Fork of the Hardware River. (9) Irregardless of what experts
say this use of this property will result in noise~ dust and dirt, insects~ birds~
odor and rats.
Mr. Haugh also stated that the City had stated in three different annexation
suites against the County that they had better facilities for solid waste disposal
than the County. He felt that the Board should not consider this petition until the
City has withdrawn the annexation suite which is still pending. He felt that if this
suite goes to court any action by the Board would prejudice their case.
Mr. Edwin G. Leer Jr. stated that this area of the County is referred to as the
Switzerland of Albemarle County. The only open area has been bought by the City in
order to establish a landfill and he felt that 16~ acres is a large amount of land to
take from the limited open area. He stated that he lives ten miles from this proposed
landfill and is very concerned. He took a count of the cars on 29 South and counted
6~0 cars in two hours. With Route 29 being constructed to dual lan~ the traffic
count will be higher and very much higher in the summer. Mr. Lee stated that this
area has been subdued, financially~ but now that more people are moving into this
area land values are just moving up to match those in other areas of the County and
he felt that a landfill on this Site would again depress this area.
MB. John W. Williams spoke in opposition stating that a public dump should not
be located on any primary road. He stated that Route 29 South carries 5~220 cars
per day and when the dual lane road is completed this count will increase tremendously.
Mr. Williams sa~id that in 19~9 the County had built a dump adjacent to the City dump
since the City at that time refused to let the County use their dump. They gave
insufficient area as the reason for this refusal. He also stated that most land in
this area has been in the same families for generations and he thought this should
be considered.
Mrs. Betty McClanahan from Covesville spoke in opposition. She said that she
had a mental block where the Massey site is concerned as she did not feel any other
sites are being considered. ~he then presented to the Board~ petitions containing
~92 signatues, all expressing opposition.
Mr. M. Y. Sutherland spoke in opposition. He gave a short history for this
~ece of land and felt less productive soil~ should be used for a landfill. He also
felt that a landfill would be a blight since the adjacent property could not be used
county
for residential use and ~Eav~ the present/landfill site as an example.
Norma Deal spoke stating that she is a citizen of 29 South and a biologist.
She gave a lengthy report on water run-off as it relates to this property and gave
the Board several pictures taken after recent rains. She also stated that there is
inadequate site distance at the exit from this property and also stated that engineering
studies for the reconstruction of Route 29 South show that the road has been moved
4-t 2-73
westward and this will elevate the road 22 feet at the entrance to the proposed
landfill site and there will be no way to keep the landfill from being seen ~om
Route 29.
Jean Shannon from Covesville Spoke in opposition. She felt that a landfill
in this area would be a blight on the coHntryside.
Leroy Yancey~ President of the Red Hill ?.T.A., spoke in opposition.
Ann Marie Carter stated that she travels Route 29 going to and from work and
asked the Board to 8on~ der that the City could find another location.
Bob Dolan asked that the City find another loc~tion for their landfill.
Tony ~achetta'said that he supported Mr. Agnor in his original allegation
that a sanitary landfill should not be referred to as a dump. He offered free
engineering services for energy burning incinerator to produce steam and asked
that serious consideration be given to stop burying tons of coal every time
solid waste is buried.
Mr. Wheeler then called an end to the public hearing and complimented the
people present for their presentations. He then asked for comments from the
Board.
Mr. Wood stated that this was obviously a pressing problem. He stated that
he had asked that the landfill committee have an alternate site ready by this
date and none had been presented.
Mr. Fisher stated that the committee is investigating other sites but at
information on
this time has/only one site and they are trying for more than one.
Mr. Wheeler said that the Board's instructions to the committee were not
to hurriedly Dick another site and he recommended that a decision on this petition
be deferred until a full report is received' from the Landfill committee.
In light of this recommendation~ Mr. Henley offered motion to defer action
on this petition. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fishery Henley, Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Carwile to adjourn this meeting until 2:00 P.M.
on April 18~ I975, in the Board Room of the CQunty Office Building for discussion
of personnel matters. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fishery Henley~ Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Chairman