1973-09-12233
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
was held on September 12, 1973, at 7:30 P.M. at Jack Jouett Jr. High School, Char-
lottesville, Virginia. Notice of this change of meeting place was published in the
Daily Progress along with advertisements for this date on August 22 and August 29, 1973.
Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwil~, Gerald E.. Fisher, J.T~. He~ley, 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 stating that this meeting had been
scheduled to hear a request from the City of Charlottesville on SP-281 to locate a
sanitary landfill on property containing approximately 50 acres. The property is
situated on the east side of Route 20 North approximately one-half mile off of
Route 250 east and is described as County Tax Map 62, Parcel 24, (part thereof),
Parcel 28, (part thereof), Parcel 27, (part thereof), and Parcel 26 (part thereof),
Riv~nna Magisterial District.
Mr. John Humphrey gave the staff report. He said the staff had found this
site to be lacking in many of the elements that qualify relating to land use planning.
They found the only advantage that the site might have to the City would be the
short hauling distance. The location is not compatible, relative to roads, present
and future land use, historic-aspects of the area, soils, topography and the ob-
jectives of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the Planning Commission
unanimously recommended denial of SP-281.
Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission did adopt a concensus relating to
this site and read the following communication:
If requested by the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission will be
glad to advise the Board on the rel~ative merits, from a planning point of
view, of such sanitary landfill sites as are under consideration or may
in the future be under consideration by the Board of Supervisors.
The Planning Commission recommends again to the Board of S~pervisors
that solid waste disposal be a joint community effort by both city
and county, and that determination of the most appropriate disposal
facility and responsibility for its operation be vested in a non-political
body such as the Rivanna Service Authority or a similar new authority.
Mr. Roger Wiley, City Attorney, and Mr. Guy Agnor, Director of Public Works
for the City of Charlottesville were present on behalf of the city.
Dr. H.G. Larew from E.O. Gooch and Associates who made test drillings on this
site for the City of Charlottesville presented his findings to the Board and he
ended by stating that they feel that the site is suitable as to soils and geology.
Mr. Harry Marshall, attorney representing Mr. George Cason, the owner of
the property said that this matter had been under consideration since last February
and under the terms of the contract Mr. Cason could not do anything else with the
property, and he asked that the Board make a speedy decision on this matter.
Mr. Forbes R. Reback spoke next. -He said he was representing the Stony Point
234
9-12-73
Association who are in opposition to the use of this site as a landfill. Mr.
Reback presented expert witnesses, H.G. Goodell, a geologist, Homer G. Smith, a
consulting forester, Dr. Michael J. Demetsky, a traffic expert, Dr. C. Sherman
Grove, an expert in solid waste disposal and Rosser H. Payne, Jr., planning con-
sultant. Ali spoke in opposition to the use of this site as a landfill. (All
reports presented by these experts are in the permanent file of the Board of Super-
visors).
Mr. Reback also presented a letter from Junius R. Fishburne, Jr., Executive
Director of the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission in which he stated it seemed
inappropriate and indeed tragic that such an incompatible activity as a landfill
operation should be placed adjacent to Franklin. Mr. Reback asked that the Board
review a report entitled, "Soil Study of a Portion of Cason Site for Sanitary Land-
fill Use," made by Soil Conservation Service and dated July 18, 1973. He said
he thought this report refuted testimon~F of Dr. Larew. He then presented two
additional petitions and said this would bring the number of signatures handed in
so far to approximately 660 and he felt that his witnesses had presented over-
whelming evidence that this site should be turned down as a landfill.
The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the public. The first
to speak was C. Ryland Moore. an adjacent property owner who stated that he was
opposed to the granting of this permit. He felt this would determine what
surrounding property will be used for in the future. He presented several' pictures
to the Board of a stream which runs through the property.
Mrs. Cynthia Ailing presented a petition in opposition signed by members of
the Sacagawea Garden Club.
Mr. Clinton E. Parker stated that he had expertise on water pollution abatement
and he presented facts disputing statements made by Dr. Larew. He felt that an
aggressive concerned public body should have more interest in the property than
a lease. He felt that when the lease expires there will be a need for controlling
the property to be sure it is put to better use than having it in the hands of
private developers or private property owners.
The next to speak was a Mrs. Helen Deane. She said she has lived on Stony
Point Rd. for ten. years and had seen the creek ~'hich Mr. Moore had mentioned
almost up to her house and she could not call it a peaceful stream.
Mr. J.T. Charlton said he lived in Oakhill Subdivision and he felt that the
Cason site was the best possible site this close to Charlottesville. He said
if this site is turned down, that the reasons would be used as precedents for
consideration for other possible landfill sites and if it is turned down because
other sites in closer
of proximity of homes,~developments should not ever be considered as landfill sites.
Miss Judith Connor spoke next. She said she agreed with the Planning
Commission that several sites should be considered at the same time and she felt
the Board should look beyond the information presented and determine the real issues
9-12-73
235
and alternatives.
Mr. Fredrick Hartt said he owned a historic structure and everyone knew that
Charlottesville and the surrounding area is one of the most historic and scenic areas
in the country. He said there will not be much incentive left for preservation of
Stony Point Road, if this site is chosen as a landfill.
Mr. J.K. Havil~nd said he had a petition from Citizens for Albemarle. They
requested tha~ any permit issued to the City of Charlottesville have a time limit
of three to five years; that an Environmental.Impact Study he made by independent
experts before any final approval is given on this site; and that a Commission be
appointed to study all available methods of solid waste disposal.
Mr. Wilmer Browning said he worked across from the Rotunda and he saw garbage
trucks pass there everyday and he asked if this were not one of the most historic
sites, in Albemarle County.
Mr. Wheeler said the Board had before them two petitions for landfill sites
and he asked the pleasure of the Board at this time.
Mr. Fisher said he had now sat through two landfill hearings and identical
reasons were presented in opposition to a landfill site by both sections of the
County. He said he had come to the conclusion that Albemarle County cannot contain
landfills for the entire population of both the City and the County scattered over
the County. He felt there must be an interim solution found while the City, the
County and representatives of the University of Virginia search for new techniques
in resource energy recovery and he has outlined a proposal for such a joint
committee, with instructions and a timetable for completion and he asked the Board
members to give this idea consideration.
Mr. Thacker said there had been information presented tonight, both written
and verbal, which he would like to analyze before making any decision.
Mr. Wood said the Board will make some sector of the County unhappy when the
final vote is taken and he has serious reservations abou~ a short term landfill
site. He felt the Board made a mistake five years ago when they entered into ne-
gotiations for the landfil~ site at Ivy for only five years. He said technology
is expensive and there are reports that a landfill is the most economical way to
dispose of garbage and he asked that the Board seriously consider a site for a time
span that is economically feasible for this Board and for the citizens of this
County. He said several people speaking tonight had implied that there is considera-
tion being given to the Willoughby site and he did not see how the Willoughby site
could ever come to the Board for a public hearing.
Mr. Wheeler said this'Board, City Council and the University must work toward
a solution for disposal of solid waste. He said that with two requests before the
Board he felt a date should be set for final action.
Mr. Wood said if neither the Massey or the Cason sites are determined to be
the correct sites, the Board and the City have an economical arrangement at the Ivy
9-12-73
23
Site a, nd this Board should consider granting a special use permit to the City
for use of the Ivy site.
Mr. Wheeler said it would be sometime in November before this Board could
consider making a decision on a special permit at the Ivy location. He preferred
that the Board make a decision on the two requests which have been heard and
within the next 10 days. He felt it was premature to consider the Ivy site until-
the vote had been taken.
Mr. Henley made a motion that this be placed on the agenda for the regular
Thursday meeting. Mr. Wood said 'he would not be available for a meeting on that
date. Mr. Wheeler said all the Board members should be present when this vote is
taken.
Mr. Thacker then offered motion to place both of these special permits
on the agenda for final action at 7:30 P.M. on September 26. Motion was seconded
by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Wheeler said it had been some time since the Board discussed the special
permit for the Massey site and he asked if there were any additional information
needed by the Board members before they made a decision. Mr. Fisher said he had
spoken to Mr. Humphrey because he realized that the soil analysis on the Massey
site was much less complete than the one performed on the Cason site. It was
based o~-~atrench method of operation where in actuality the permit application is
for an area method landfill. Mr. Humphrey said Soil Conservation Service will up-
.date their soil survey. Mr. Wheeler said Dr. Goodell had indicated that he would
make a soil survey on the Massey site if the Board so desired.
It was the concensus of the Board that questions concerning entrance
permits for both sites be referred to the Highway Department for their recommenda-
tion~.
Motion was offered-by. Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher to appoint Ruth
Miller as Zoning Administrator. Motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Thacker offered motion to adjourn this meeting until 2:00 P.M.
September 14, 1973, in the Board Room of the County Office Building.
Mr. Wood said he understood that there was a possibility that the Board would
reconsider approval given the Charlottesville Shopping World site plan and there
were interested persons present at this time. He said if it were not to be dis-
cussed at this meeting, he would assume that ended the matter.
Mr. Wheeler said if the Board discussed Charlottesville Shopping World he
would have to step aside, because he had a conflict of interest.
Mr. Thacker said it was not his intention, as the Daily Progress had stated
yesterday, to discuss this matter tonight. I~ had been his intention to discuss
on Friday,
9-12-73
237
possible reconsideration of this on Friday.
Mr. Carwile said if the Board did reconsider this matter he felt all interested
parties should have the opportunity to be present at that time.
Mr. Wood said he felt the question would be on reconsidering and not on the
reconsideration itself.
Mr. Fisher said it was his understanding that under the Rules of Procedure
the Board adopted last year that any action By the Board of Supervisors could not
be reconsidered unless the Board took action to reconsider at the same meeting
at which the decision was made.
Mr. St. John said the Board's rules do not allow reconsideration unless this is
done at the same meeting or an adjournment of that meeting.
Mr. Thacker asked Mr. St. John if this referred to a zoning matter and Mr.
St. John replied yes. Mr. Thacker then asked Mr. St. John if he considered this a
zoning matter.
Mr. St. John said if this was not a zoning matter he did not know what procedure
could have been followed to bring this site plan To the Board. It was treated as a
zoning matter in order to bring it before the Board and therefore it can-only be
reconsidered under the Board's rules of procedure at the same meeting at which the
vote was taken or at an adjournment'of that meeting.
'Mr. Carwile asked about a motion to suspend the rules. Mr. St. John said that
was a different matter. The rules may be suspended on any matter pending before
the Board, however, this matter is not pending before the Board until there is a
motion To reconsider and put it back before the Board. Mr. Carwile said that a
motion to reconsider the Charlottesville Shopping World site plan approval and to
suspend the rules would put it back beforelthe Board. Mr. St. John said that
was true if that was his interpretation, however, he felt with that interpretation
the rules had little meaning.
He said the rUles can be suspended at any time by a majority vote, but the
which is
rules state that this is only on any matter,pending and to him this excluded any
matter such as this which is not now pending before the Board.
Mr. Carwile said if a majority of the Board felt they had made a mistake
in a matter and the rules prevented them from correcting this mistake he felt
the rules do not serve the Board or the County any purpose. Mr. St. John said
if he felt the mistake were a grave one and did not want the rules to stand in
the way, then by a majority vote the rules could be suspended. Mr. Wood asked if
there was not in Roberts' Rules of Order a rule that said that if a matter is to
be reconsidered it has to come from the majority. Mr. Carwile said the motion
could not come from the minority, however, if Mr. Wood wanted to go by precedent,
he recalled the instance where Mr. Wood requested a reconsideration on a special
use permit for a mobile home which was considered at a time when Mr. Wood was not
present. He felt this situation was similar since Mr. Thacker was not present at
238
9-12-73
the meeting of August 23th. Mr. Wood said he felt he had pertinent information
on that mobile home which had not been presented. Mr. Thacker said there was
a question in his mind as to the legality of the action the Board took in this ~-~
matter and he hoped to discuss this with the County Attorney. '~
Mr. St. John said where the Board specifically has adopted rules of order,
these rules take precedent and these rules state that any member may move its
reconsideration and that motion would be voted on by the Board. Mr. Wood said
he felt that point was clarified but he did not feel the Board was being fair to ~
the public if they adjourned and did not settle this matter. Mr. Thacker said it
was not his intention to reconsider tonight. It was his intention to consider
the reconsideration and then place it before the public at sometime in the future
when parties on both sides could be present.
Mr. Carwile offered motion to suspend the rules and reconsider the site plan
for Charlottesville Shopping World. Mr. Wood said he could not support the motion.
Mr. Henley said he would not be against reconsidering if there .~ere anything new
To reconsider. Mr. Fisher said if there are legal questions involved,-he felt this
card coul a better judgment than a tour appellate i=~==~procedure.
He felt this was open to anyone aggrieved and the matter should be left at that.
Mr. Wood said he could not see where there could be any new evidence presented to
the Board. It had been thoroughly discussed and presented by experts to the ~
Planning Commission and to the Board of Supervisors. He said the Board was not ~
a quasi-judicial body, but policy makers and as such could no_t decide legal matters.
He felt the Board was presented sufficient information and had discussed it tho-
roughly and could find no reason to reconsider. Mr. Thacke~ said Mr. Wood might
be correct, however, he was not present at the time the vote was taken and this
wanting to
was his reason for^reconsider. He then ruled the motion dead for lack of a second.
Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood to adjourn this
meeting until September 19, 1973 at 7:30 P.M.. in the Courthouse. Motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Chairman