Loading...
1973-09-28 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was held at 3:00 P.M. on September 28, 1973 in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, said meeting being adjourned from September 26, 1973. Rresent: 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. Officer present: County Attorney. ~ The first item under discussion was reconsideration ~f a vote.previously taken on SP'281 for the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Thacker said there had been a question as to whether or not the Board could reconsider and he asked Mr. St. John his opinion. Mr. St. John said he had conducted further research on this matter and it was his firm opinion that the Board can and did properly vote to reconsider this matter on which they tied at the meeting of September 26. Mr. Thacker asked Mr. St. John what position the Board was in at this point; if they had to reconsider the motion which was on the floor Wednesday evening. Mr. St. John said the motion was before the Board in the exact same status as it was before the Board voted and it is not necessary to make that motion again. Mr. Thacker asked if a substitute motion could be made. Mr. St. John said that anything that could have been done immediately after the motion was made and seconded could be done at this time. Mr. Thacker then offered a substitute motion to approve SP-281 by the City of Charlottesville subject to the following recommendations and he asked that Mr. St. John check these conditions later to see if they were appropriate: (1) That the term of the special permit shall be for a five year period with a provision however that the Albemarle Board of COunty Supervisors may, at its discretion, extend the special permit for an additional five years. (2) That the County shall have the option of using the landfill facility. Should the County elect to use the facility it hereby agrees to pay the City on a unit basis based on the actual cost of capital expenditures plus the actual cost of the operation of the facility. (3) The City shall be required to obtain all necessary and required certificates, permits a~nd licenses required for the operation of a sanitary landfill as are, or may be, required by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and/or the United States of America or the agents of these governments. Furthermore, the City shall maintain any and all certificates, permits and licenses current and comply with all State andi~Qnn~oordinances. (4) Complaints of county citizens about the operation of the sanitary landfill shall be directed'in writing to the County Engineer who at his discretion may file a written notification with the City's Director of Public Works, with copies to all members of the governing bodies. In the event that such complaints are not resolved, to the .~ satisfaction of the county engineer within 30 days of each such notification, it shall be the resRonsibility of the county engineer to bring such complaints to the Board of Supervisors for review of the landfill operation. (.5) In the further event that the review of the landfill operation by the Board of Supervisors shows the City has not fully complied with rec- 9-28-73 (6) ommendations of the Bureau of Solid Waste and Vector Control, or the Albemarle-Charlottesville Health Department or the Albemarle County Engineer or any further conditions of this special permit or other public agencies having jurisdiction in the matter, the Board of Supervisors may take such action as it sees fit to insure compliance, including, if necessary, the temporary or permanent revocation of the special permit. The City/County/University of Virginia Resource Recovery Study Commission shall be formed within two months of the date of final approval of the special permit by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council, with instructions as follows: (a) (b) Investigate on a preliminary basis the various forms of resource recovery and energy recovery which might be available to the~" community within five years. A preliminary report expected within one year should itemize these techniques and indicate the two or three most promising techniques which would b~~y investigated in the next phase. ~ Investigate fully the two or three most promising recovery teChniques specifically detailing these aspects of the problem: (i) Cost'of implementation, land, transportation, buildings, employee training, disposition of residues, etc; (2) Anticipated revenues and losses; (3) Amortized net costs; (4) Environmental impact including any existing or proposed state or federal standards which might stop the recovery operation and make it too expensive to operate. (5) Collection and transportation methods required. A final report on this phase expected within one year after completion of the prelim±nary report should indicate the commission~ choice of technique$;a step by step procedure to accomplish this chosen technique for the community and a recommendation as tO formation of a regional body to implement and operate the recovery system. (c) The membership of the resource recovery study commission shall consist of twelve persons appointed as follows: Univer'sity of Virginia, two members; the City of Charlottesville, five members, three of whom are private citizens; the County of Albemarle, five members, three of whom are private citizens. (7) (8) (d) It is anticipated that some cost will be required for this investigation. The Commission will be requeSted to prepare it's own budget~ staff requirements- application,%.~h~h if approved by the City/County, will be apportioned on a 50-50 basis between the City and County. __Vanir i ia The City will join with the County in requesting that the/Dep~r~ment of Highways perform a study of Route 250 from the Charlottesville City Limits to the intersection of Route 20 and Route 20 from its intersection with Route 250 to the landfill site, with special emphasis on the, . '.- . intersection of Rout6s 250 and Route 20 with respect to widening~i~~er- and the installation of a traffic signal. The City and County will join together with whatever steps are necessary to implement the improvements indiCated by such a study. The City will be required to submit a proposed grading plan indicating~/. the entrance road and all other grading to take place on the site plus plans and profiles for a trench landfill method which must be approved by the Area Conservationist, the County .Planner and the Board of Super- visors before any work takes place on the site. (9) No blasting of any sort will be allowed on the site. (10) The access road from Route 20 to the waste disposal area will be located as far as is practicably possible from the southern most property line of the Cason property. 289 (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) A restoration plan will be submitted to the County for review and approval prior to any activity on this site relative to disposal of waste. The City shall on a monthly basis monitor all wells within one-half mile of the site. Water from these wells is to be analyzed by an in- dependent testing laboratory and verified by the State Health Department and presented to the County Engineer for his review as well as to the individual owners of these wells. Should these analyzes indicate contamination might be injurious to health the City shall take whatever steps at it's expense are necessary to remove contamination or otherwise provide safe drinking water for those citizens. The hours of operation of the landfill facility shall be established by the City so that no traffic to the site takes place from 7:30 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. or from 3:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M., Mondays through Fridays. The City shall furnish to the County a performance bond to insure compliance with the provisions of this speciaI permit. This per- formance bond is to be in the amount of $12,500 per acre, but in no case less than $250,000 in total. The City shall file with the performance bond an agreement properly executed by the City and the landowner granting the County of Albemarle the right of access to perform all necessary rehabilitation of the property in the event of forfeiture of the performance bond. When portions of the bonded property are completely rehabilitated in complete accordance with the most recently approved restoration plan for the entire area at that location and such restoration is certified by the Soil Conser- vation Service, the performance bond as based on a per acre basis protecting the restored acreage shall be returned to the applicant. This bond shall also be used if the City fails to correct problems that may occur and for the cleanup of such ~ings as slides, fires, etc. The performance bond shall be effective for a period of the life of the special permit plus one ye~ar. The City will establish a monitouing system to check on any leachate production in this landfill operation similar to the systems that are established in the County's landfill operations as per the re- quest of the State agencies involved in landfill operations. Monthly reports are to be submitted to the County Engineer for his review as well as all concerned state and federal agencies. The access road shall be constructed in such a manner as to be dust proof and to the standards required by the Virginia Department of Highways. The entrance to the site shall be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and shall include adequate acceleration and deceleration lanes and proper provision shall be provided to insure the safety of vehicles traveling south on Route 20. This landfill facility shall be operated in accordance with sub- mittal delivered to the Albemarle County Planning Office on Sep- tember 10, 1973 entitled "Operating Procedure - Sanitary Landfill Operations - City of Charlottesville" and dated September 7, 1973 and signed by Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., with the provision however that more restrictive procedures contained in other conditions of this special permit shall apply. Mr. Fisher gave 'second to the substitute motion. Mr. Wood said he could not support the substitute motion although in many respects he agreed with all of the conditions except the first one. He felt these conditions are no different from the points argued on Wednesday night concerning the differences between short term or long term. Since Wednesday night he had reviewed the information which he had before him and also talked to many people. He felt the Board was not doing justice to the City in requiring that they have capital outlays of between $450,000-$460,000 for site improvements and then require them to amortize this over a short period. He said this would make the cost of operating a landfill very expensive to the City. He also saw no justification to the citizens of 290 that area for such a short term arrangement for a landfill and no reason to justify his supporting the substitute motion. Mr. Thacker said he was concerned about expense to the City but he did not be a part of the approval or denial of the special permit. He think that should said with five year approval and a provision that the Board may extend for an additional five years would give the city the life of ten years expected on this landfill site. Mr. Wheeler said this landfill site was predicted to have only a ten-year life City. To state that there could be joint usage at this site when the life for the is not there, is wrong. He said the Board denied the location that could have given a long life. Mr. Wheeler said when the Ivy site was discussed Wednesday night he was not in favor because he felt the Board had a better solution, however, now the only location left that has a 25 or 30 year life for the City and the County is the landfill at Ivy. He said this would cost the City and the County money; no matter what kind of program is found for recycling there will still need to be a landfill. He said not only is the Board going to a site that has a limited life but no engineer could be found who would compare the Cason site with the Ivy site and he could not support the motion. Mr. Carwile said he also would not support the motion. He felt, in the interest of the City and the County, that the Board should look at the landfill problem as a community problem and any landfill should be operated on a regional basis. To approve the landfill site now before the Board would dictate that there be no regional landfill operation in the near future. Since the existing landfill at Ivy has a very long life, compared to the usage under discussion, it is not in the best interest of the community or the county to locate another landfill at the site under consideration. Mr. Henley said he felt it was a poor approach to add all of these conditions to the special permit for the city without discussing these with them before the motion was made. Mr..Thacker said he could not agree with Mr. Wheeler in all his statements. He did not think the Cason site was ideal. He felt with the conditions given, it has a useful life and it depends on which reports you believe.- He believed the reports that support. He said, in view of the discussion of the Board he wished to withdraw the motion. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. St. John what position the Board was in now. Mr. St. John said you are back to the motion to deny SP-281. Vote was taken at this point and the motion to deny carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker, (Mr. Thacker prefaced his vote by stating that he would support but he could not say that he was convinced that Ivy is the answer). Wheeler and Wood. 9-28-73 291 NAYS: Mr. Fisher. Mr. Wheeler said the Board had not settled the landfill issue and he asked if they wished to take further action today. Mr. Carwile said he would like to recommend that this Board consider and in turn have the Clerk pass on a copy of the resolution to the City and request that they take similar action, also a copy to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority asking that they consent to such action, t~at the articles and powers of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority be amended be to included as a permitted power the operation of sanitary landfills and solid waste disposal. Mr. Fisher said although an aUthority may be the best way he was not sure that he wanted to support the giving up of all rights by the governing bodies. He asked if that is what this motion implied. Mr. Carwile said the Rivanna Authority would still have to obtain special permits and these would come before this Board for approval. Mr. Fisher asked if he had any indication that the City of Charlottesville is interested in such an arrangement. Mr. Carwile replied no. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any indication that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is interested in such an arrangement. Mr. Carwile said he had discussed this with members of the authority in the past bu~ not in the last several weeks. He said this would not only requi~e the concurrence of this body but also the Board of the Authority. Mr. Wood asked Mr. St. John what the Board needed to do if they wanted to proceed with a joint operation at Ivy. Mr. St. John said the City zs using Iyy .without a special use permit and the rights of the Board of Supervisors and the City to do this without a special permit is under litigation. This is the only .question ,which is under litigation. If the City wishes to apply for a special use permit to use the Ivy landfill, the Board would then hold hearings on that question. If the Board wants to take the position that a special permit is,not necessary and if the City is satisfied to continue using Ivy while a body is designated to study this landfill question further, then the Board can go ahead and do that subject to the court's ruling on whether or not it is legal for them to do this. If the Court rules against the County then that will shut off use by the City for the Ivy landfill-until such time as a sPecial use permit can be granted after hearings for the use at Ivy. He said before he could form any opinion or advise the Board, Mr. Wiley should speak. Mr. Wiley said under the terms of the County Zoning Ordinance the City could not apply for a special use permit at Ivy. That application would have to be made by the County. Mr. Wood said that was the reason he asked the question. The City has no vested interest. He asked if the Board has the power to grant the 9-28-73 2 9.2 City a special use permit and if so does the Board apply for the permit on behalf of the City. Mr. St. John said the Board can have a contractural relationship with the City for the use of the Ivy landfill and this gives them the necessary interest as a sub-lessee of the Ivy landfill, or a sub-lessee in part interest. Mr. Wheeler said we have before the Board a motion of Mr. Carwile's that we relate to the city a desire to discuss with them the idea of placing the handling of solid waste under a regional authority. Mr. Wood then gave second to the motion. Mr. Thacker felt this was the proper way to handle this question, however, he did not feel this was the problem at the moment. Mr. Fisher asked if this were only a resolution of intent to pursue the concept. He said this was discussed last year but there had been no information received since that time and he was not prepared to take a final vote. Mr. Carwile said while working on the formation of the Rivanna Authority, the County had requested that the Articles of Incorporation include power as to solid waste disposal. The reply from the City, at that time, was negative. He said his motion was not to adopt a resolution of intent, which is the initial formal step, but only to request that the City, the County and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority meet to further pursue this idea. Mr. Fisher said he felt at a disadvantage and could not support final action without further information. Mr. Carwile said this would not be final action. Mr. Wheeler said he had talked to Mayor Fife, and he had expressed his willingness to meet with the Chairman, or a committee so there could be some resolution of this problem as~ soon as possible. Mr. St. John said the litigation on the Ivy landfill use by the City has been continued until the first Monday in December. The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals has decided that the City cannot use the site without a special use permit and the court has enjoined the enforcement of their ruling. If the court lifts that injunction, any continued use of the Ivy landfill by the City after that is unlawful. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board were prepared to vote today for the use of Ivy. Mr. Wheeler said he was prepared to vote. He said Ivy was not his firct choice but the Board had eliminated his first choice° .~r. ~Thacker said he felt this Board had eliminated everybody's first choice and he was not prepared to vote for any extended usage of Ivy by the City until there is some resolution as to the condition of Route 637. Mr. Wheeler said when he voted to allow use of Ivy he is also committed to improving the road. Mr. Fisher said that would probably take three or four years. 9-28-73 293 Mr. Wood said the Board had exhausted the two options that were open at the public hearings and he felt the Board is committed to allowing use at Ivy.- Mr. Wheeler called for vote on Mr. Carwile's motion and it carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Wheeler asked if the Board wanted to state their intention today. Mr. Fisher asked the County Attorney what would happen if the Board of Supervisors stated its intention on a special permit for which application had not been received. Mr. St. John Said he did not feel this would be a good policy since the matter is under litigation and not before the Board. Mr. Carwile asked if the Board could by resolution today authorize County staff to apply for such a special permit. Mr. St. John said yes. Mr. Carwile offered motion that the Board authorize the County staff to apply for a special use permit for use of the City of Charlottesville at the Ivy landfill site under it's existing contract which it has entered into with the County and such extensions of that contract as this Board may grant. Mr. St. John said he felt the City must at least unite in that application. Mr. Carwile said he was thinking of it in terms that the City's rights are subordinate to the County's rights in this matter. Mr. Wheeler felt the Board should explore the possibilities of the first resolu- tion. Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board had succeeded in building lengthy litigation into any further discussion of this matter since three members of the Board had publicly committed themselves to supporting such action before any application has been made. Mr. Wheeler said when the Board acts it becomes the responsibility of the entire Board and unfortunately the Board is at the point where they have to go forward and do the best they can. Mr. Wiley said it was his understanding that City Council felt the application for the special permit should be made, however he did not have the authority to commit them. Mr. Carwile's motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Wood.offered motion to appoint a resource recovery study commission as outlined by Mr. Fisher. Mr. Wheeler said he would support the motion but the Mayor had asked that the Board wait a few days before taking this action and he asked that Mr. Wood withhold his motion until there had been a meeting with the Mayor. He said he expected to call a special meeting of the Board next week. Motion was withdrawn. After a short recess the Board continued with discussion of the land use tax ordinance. 294 Mr. Wheeler said the staff would star~ taking applications under the Land Use Tax Ordinance on October 1, 1973. It may be some time before an announcement is made as to whether or nOt the Virginia Supreme Court will grant a rehearing on their recent decision on the reassessment case. The staff has recommended that the effec- date of this ordinance be deferred until July 1, 1974, since the payment of refunds, if the decision is upheld, would put the county in a financial position which is not good. However, he said it was not his intention to delay implementation of the ordinance for more than one year and he called on the Board members for comments. Mr. Thacker concurred with the Chairman. He said he had no intention of extending the effective date of an ordinance beyond one year, but, reluctantly, in the best interest of the county and all the citizens of the county, he would extend it that far. Mr. Fisher said he had taken the position for the last two years that he would support a tax increase only if the Board voted in a valid land use ordinance. He said that if a $9.42 tax rate, predicted by the staff, is needed to recover monies lost through payment of refunds which may be ordered in the reassessment case, and if the land use tax is taken away at the same time, this might eliminate ~ certain amount of the agricultural business in the county in one year. Mr. Ray Jones said this estimate was for comparative purposes only and if there are refunds, the county would be in a better financial position if the Board post- poned the effective date of the ordinance. Mr. Wheeler said if the Board has to use the type of tax increase that Mr. Jones has indicated, it will not hurt just a few people, but all will suffer until this matter is straightened out. Mr. Henley asked what tax base would be used for the December 5th tickets. Mr. Wheeler said Mr. St. John has advised the Board that the tax base cannot be changed after July 1. He said the assessments are on the books and the tax tickets will have to go out unless the court orders the Board to do something dif- ferent. Mr. Henley said most of the landowners that he has talked to are willing to postpone the effective date of the ordinance for one year if it is going to put the county in a financial bind, but, they would like to start the process in some way rather than waiting until September of next year and starting the process at that time. Mr. Carwile concurred with Mr. Thacker and the Chairman and asked Mr. St. John the appropriate procedure. Mr. St. John said the Board would have to amend the effective date of the it be ordinance and he.felt that if ~s to/amended it should be amended promptly before file applications and submit their filing fees. He said there is a question people in his mind as to when the applicant receives a vested right to the effective date as it is now. The Attorney General has said that they do not receive a vested right until an assessment is made on the basis of a land use tax, however, Mr. St. John was not sure that is correct. He felt the county might get into litigation on that question. Mr. Jones said he had recommended the effective date be changed to July 1 since this would put the effective date beyond the budget year and the Board would then have an established tax base and tax rate for 1974. Mr. John Smart was present. He stated that the soil maps in the Soil Conservation Office are private, not public materials. He said farmers can use these maps, however, Soil Conservation Service is not permitted to give out infor- mation on individual farms. He said if the Board would furnish Mr. Anderson a clerk and a room in which to work, this girl could use the maps to help advise the farmer if his land meets the requirements for land use taxation. She would not, however, be able to accept the filing fee. Mr. Smart said if this work was started after the first of the year, this would give almOst the complete year in which to take applications and there would be no rush at the end of the year. He felt the farmers would be willing to go along with this. But he did say that the farmers feel that if the effective date is delayed until July, it will be delayed again and they will never have this tax relief. Mr. Smart asked the Board to furnish Mr. Anderson a clerk, whether or not they decide to delay the effective date of the land use ordinance. Mr. Wheeler felt if a farmer could obtain from Soil Conservation the number of acres he has in each classification, there would be no reason for futher checking this first ~ear. He said the Board has received from the State Department of Taxation figures set forth for land use taxation and if Mr. Anderson could help work out the acreage, this would hold down the cost of implementation. He said if the effective date is changed to either January 1 or February 1 this would give an entire year in which to work and would spread the workload. Mr. Henley felt the county should begin taking applications in January. Mr. C~ the Land Us public hea~ the County Mr. H~ evaluation would not k values are Mr. W~ that they Mr. S~ evaluation values rec6 rwile offered motion to advertise for a public hearing an amendment of e Tax Ordinance delaying the effective date until January 15, 1974. This ing to be held on October 18, 1973 at 11:00 A.M. in the Board Room of Office Building. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. gh Simms said he did not think the State Land Evaluation Committee's range would be received until September or October of 1974. The County ~e able to apply any factor for land use taxation until after those received. ~eler-felt the Board should write telling them the situation and ask urnish the 1975 values as soon as possible. .art said the Board has a right to make a decision on this since their range is just a guideline. He said the Board could declare that the ived will be the 1975 values since this tax relief is being delayed for 9-28-73 296 one year. Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. None. Mr. Wood. The next item under discussion was a request for a building permit from Mrs. C. A. Ballard, Lot 5, Emerson Drive, West Leigh Subdivision. Mr. Jones said Mrs. Ballard had applied for a building permit after the moratorium was imposed on building permits in West Leigh. She has stated that it will be at least seven months before completion of the house and she has agreed that if .the house is finished by June 1, 1974, to pay the extra rate for water. Mr. Jones recommended that the building permit be issued with the following conditions: 1 - No occupancy permit be issued prior to June 1, 1974. 2 - No water connection be made prior to June 1, 1974. 3 - Applicant to pay the standard connection fee of $400 plus $150 escrow for water hauling for the months~ of June and July, 1974. 4 - The contractor ms to provide all water for construction purposes from a source other than the West Leigh system. Mr. Thacker asked if July 1 was a realistic date for completion of the Still- house line. Mr. Jones said at this time it is. Mr. Thacker asked if there were a delay if $150 escrow would be sufficient to cover the cost of hauling water. Mr. Jones said it would be sufficient for the months of June and July. Mr. Wheeler said he felt it would be more reasonable to have escrow for the months of June, July and August making the escrow $225, or at a rate of $10 per thousand gallons. Mr. Thacker offered motion to issue the building permit with conditions 1, 2 and 4 as stated and changing condition %3 to read: Applicant to pay the standard connection fee of $400 plus $225 escrow, @ $10 per thousand gallons for water hauling for the months of June, July and August, 1974. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. Upon motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Thacker, Mr. Donald G. Heyne, was appointed as a member of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's Health Planning Steering Committee. Motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. None. Mr. Wood. 9-28-73 297 Claims against the County in the amount of $1,583,036.81 were presented, examined and allowed and certified to the Director of Finance for payment and charged against the following funds: General Fund General Operating Fund School Operating Fund School Construction-Capital Outlay Fund General-Capital Outlay Fund Cafeteria Fund Textbook Rental Fund Town of Scottsville-Local Sales Tax (1%) Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account $ 134.50 265,947.18 948,309.25 276,613.79 60,539.00 11,735.98 17,259.03 192.42 2,305.66 Total $1,583,036.81 Mr. Wheeler said depending on the meeting that he has with the Mayor on Monday, there is a possibility that there Will be a special meeting called next week. Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned.