Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 30, 2005 Work Session 092 The Frederick County Board of Supervisors held a W orksession with the members of the Rural Areas Ad Hoc Committee on Tuesday, August 30, 2005, at 12:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Bill M. Ewing; Gene E. Fisher; Gina A. Forrester; Lynda J. Tyler, and Barbara E. Van Osten. ABSENT Vice Chairman Gary W. Dove CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. He turned the meeting over to Mr. Bob Carpenter, representing the Rural Areas Ad Hoc Committee. Mr. Carpenter thanked the Board for the opportunity to meet and discuss these issues. He stated that the focus ofthe meeting would be alternative waste disposal systems. He stated that the Ad Hoc Committee does not endorse the idea of more development in the rural areas; however, they recognize that a certain amount will occur. The Committee's aim has been to permit large landowners to retain some oftheir development rights. With regard to thc alternate waste disposal system, the maintenance must be under the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Mr. Carpenter then introduccd the guest speakers for the meeting: Eldon James, President of Eldon James & Associates, Susan Rowland, Principal ofSR Consulting, Inc., and John Warwick, civil engineer with ARCADIS. Mr. James stated that the presentation would focus on an actual case study in Caroline County and how these alternative waste disposal systems were used. Ms. Rowland stated that Virginia is beginning to embrace these alternative systems, but they are not yet understood. The alternative systems affect the way we look at land use and development. She then reviewed the case study ofthe Town of Dawn, V A as an example of how these alternative systems were used. The presenters advised that these systems are well-proven in other states. The treatment is Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Worksession with Rural Areas Ad Hoe Committee on 08/30/05 093 completed before the liquid enters the drain field. Discharge permitting is not required as they operate under an agreement between the County and the Virginia Department of Health. Under the alternative systems, soil is not part of the trcatment process. Monitoring of these systems can be done over the Internet or via radio communication. These systems can serve from two to 200+ houses. The alternative waste systems allow more flexibility in loeal land use decisions, reduce development pressure on land with the best soils, reduce conflict between development and agriculture pressures, and provides a long-term treatment option for the county. Mr. Warwick concluded the presentation by reviewing photographs of an alternative waste disposal system project along the eastern shore. Supervisor Forrester asked about the life expectancy of these alternative systems. Mr. Warwick responded thatthe life expectancy ofthe pumps was seven to nine years, motor life was 10 years, and other pumps seven to nine years. Mr. James stated that the eost to homeowners for an individual system was roughly $8,000- $12,000. Supervisor Forrester asked if the discharge from this type of system had to meet the same standards as other discharge systems. Mr. Warwick responded that the requirements were significantly less than a standard septic system. He went on to say that this type of system opens the door for reuse, irrigation, etc. because these systems do not count towards the County's nutrient loading limits. Supervisor Tyler stated that this type of system offered an opportunity for the County to talk about ways to give the farmer flexibility to farm his land. She asked if this type of system could handle commercial uses along with residential or is its focus primarily residential. Mr. Warwick responded that this type ofsystcm could handle anything. Mr. James stated that these systems would focus the Board to look at things differently. Supervisor Tyler asked if the above ground mechanical structures could be camouflaged. Mr. Warwick responded yes. Supervisor Ewing asked about the treatment process for this type of system. Mr. Warwick responded that it involved a combination of processes that have been used for years, but compacted into a small system. These included a fixed film acrobic treatment and a Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Worksession with Rural Areas Ad Hoc Committee on 08/30/05 094 sludge process. Supervisor Fisher stated that he would like to get more information on the technical aspects of this system because "nothing is that good". He went on to say that these systems would allow the County to develop bad soil areas while protecting valuable agricultural lands. Mr. Warwick responded that permeability studies of the soils in the area would have to be done prior to installation and construction in order to prevent ponding of the discharge. Supervisor Van Osten asked where these systems were being used for the purposes of opening new land for development. Mr. James responded that if Caroline County could "get their arms" around this issue now then they would not be faced with many of the problems occurring in other areas. Mr. Warwick stated that in West Virginia there were several companies building these units for developers. He went on to say that he could provide the Board with a list of communities in Virginia and other states if needed. Chairman Shickle asked what part of these alternative systems was new. Mr. James responded that the Health Department wilI now allow them. Mr. Warwick advised that an existing septic tank could be retrofitted with this equipment for $2,500 to $3,000. Chairman Shickle asked the name of the treatment process used in these systems. Mr. Warwick responded Fixed Activated Sludge Treatment (FAST). Chairman Shickle asked where the sludge went after treatment. Mr. Warwick responded a centralized treatment facility. Chairman Shickle asked what happened in the event a locality did not have one. Mr. Warwick responded the locality would have to find one. Chairman Shickle asked about possible inflow and infiltration in this type of system. Mr. Warwick responded that nothing could leak in, but there was a possibility for material to leak out of the system. Ifthere is a leak, then the system would eventually back up into the house. Chairman Shickle asked if any engineer could design this type of system. Mr. Warwick responded yes. He stated that there are many approved systems in Virginia and the State also has a list of approved systems of different sizes. Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Worksession with Rural Areas Ad Hoc Committee on 08/30/05 095 Ms. Rowland advised that the system in Dawn, VA was not operated under a Health Department permit, but rather a memorandum of understanding with the Health Department which allows this system to function. The group concluded their presentation and turned the meeting over to Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter thanked the Board again for the opportunity to meet and discuss this issue. He stated that the Ad Hoc Committee set out to: I. Try to give farmers an opportunity to preserve as much open space as they choose to preserve. 2. Address water quality issues. Water quality was the paramount issuc for today' s discussion. He stated that the alternative systems discussed provide an excellent way to deal with water quality concerns. Mr. Carpenter went on to say that he and the Committee felt the Board was over 90% of the way to achieving a plan for the Rural Areas. He then reviewed a proposed action plan that the Committee would like to see the Board implement to bring this process to a conclusion: Change the title of the third option to Conservation Rezoning. Change minimum lot size to 1 acre under the Rural Prescrvation option. Provide as "optional" the use of community health systems lmder the Rural Preservation Option. Mandate that all new "community health systems" be under the oversight of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Support the bonus density described in the third option as Conservation Rezoning. Establish a minimum lot size of one-half acre under the Conservation Rezoning option. Submit the Rural Areas proposal with the above recommendations for public hearing no later than October 2005, with final approval by the Board no later than November 2005. He concluded by again thanking the Board for the opportunity to meet and discuss these issues. Chairman Shickle thanked the Committee and presenters for the luncheon and discussion. There being no further business, the work session was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. . \LSLQ ~ Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors J~/!:F Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Worksession with Rural Areas Ad Hoe Committee on 08/30/05 196 Minutes Prepared By: Qii f '\~fl1 JayE. Ti s Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minnte Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Worksessiou with Rural Areas Ad Hoe Committee on 08/30/05