CPPC 02-14-94 Meeting Agenda1
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Dcparlment of Planning and Dcvelopment
703 / 665-5651
Fax 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee
FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director'/-�
RE: Meeting Date and Agenda
DATE: February 9, 1994
There will be a meeting of the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee on February
14, 1994, at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room of the Old County Court House.
Please let me know if you are unable to attend.
AGENDA
1) Discussion of the Alternate Wastewater System Study Report.
This report was prepared following a lengthy and fairly detailed study of three Rural
Community Centers within the County. The report suggests methods which might
be employed to provide wastewater treatment to the three Community Centers which
were evaluated. The report raises a number of issues which would need to be
addressed prior to proceeding with any of the recommended alternatives. The issues
raised and how they are addressed will have a direct impact on the Comprehensive
Plan as well as the sewer and water service area.
A copy of the executive summary from the report is enclosed along with the summary
recommendations which came out of the Technical Advisory Committee which was
established to oversee the study, and an excerpt from the County's Comprehensive
Policy Plan discussing Rural Community Centers.
Z) Discussion of status of GIS efforts as they relate to Corridor Studies.
Staff will update the Committee on progress being made with the County's GIS.
1) Norlh LOLOOL111 Su -M P.O. Bm 001
Winchcsicr, VA 12001 Windics1cr, VA 22004
ALTERNATE WASTEWATER TREATMENT STUDY
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The final report from P.M. Brooks Associates amounts to a first step in solving the existing and
anticipated wastewater problems for the three study areas as well as other Rural Community
Centers, however, key policy questions/issues remain to be addressed.
The study has investigated and recommended the most likely alternatives for providing reliable,
long term, wastewater disposal for the areas. A more detailed investigation of the alternatives
will be necessary in order to determine which of the alternatives is in fact the most feasible.
The common denominator for all of the areas is the use of existing (or repaired/replaced where
necessary) septic tanks for the removal of solids, combined with small diameter lines (3 to 4
inches) to carry liquid waste to a central collection/ treatment system. The method of treatment
will vary depending on the particular circumstances of a given area.
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) feels that the next step in this process needs to be
that of addressing the outstanding policy decisions. The issues which need to be resolved are:
* Will the Round Hill area be permitted to tie into the existing sewer line lying just to the
east of Route 37? This will determine which of the alternatives suggested for this area
should be pursued.
* Will the Sanitation Authority accept the responsibility for operation and maintenance of
the proposed collection and treatment systems? If the Authority is unwilling or unable
to undertake this role then some other means of operating the proposed systems will need
to be developed.
* Will connection to a system (assuming ownership, maintenance, and design issues are
resolved) be mandatory? The feasibility and effectiveness of any of the proposed systems
will depend greatly on the participation of the residents/homeowners within the study
areas. (The TAC believes that some form of financial assistance to those households
unable to bare the cost of connecting to a centralized system will have to be part of
whatever program is ultimately developed.)
An issue somewhat outside the scope of this discussion, but one worth consideration, is whether
the County wants to entertain the possibility of running water lines to the Clearbrook/Brucetown
area at the same time as the proposed central collection system? There could be significant
economic benefits in coordinating these two efforts.
Once these policy issues have been addressed the "second phase" of this effort would involve
a more thorough investigation of the feasibility of alternatives. Field work to examine the sites
proposed for non -discharge systems (spray irrigation and/or constructed wetlands) would be
required, as well as efforts to determine the limits that would be imposed by regulatory agencies
on discharges into the various streams. Additional work would have to be done to determine
the feasibility of obtaining the easements that would be needed in order to implement any sort
of central collection system. A significant amount of work would be involved in the actual
detailed design of the collection and treatment systems.
q
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this project was to identify any alternative wastewater
treatment systems which may have potential for use in the rural communitv
centers of Frederick County. The Round Hill, Clearbrook and Brucetown rural
community centers were chosen to serve as models on which alternatives for other
rural community centers could be based. They were selected because there were
documented needs, and conditions in the communities contain examples of the
variety of soils, site characteristics, and types of sewage disposal systems common
to all the other rural community centers.
Alternative wastewater treatment systems are needed in these communities
to replace existing failing, inadequate, or aging septic systems before additional
health hazards are created. Conventional, large capacity sewage treatment
systems are not desired because of the expense in building large sewerage works
and the resultant need to encourage growth in order to reduce cost of providing
the service. Because the policies and goals of the Frederick County
Comprehensive Policy Plan are to support the existing rural community centers
without encouraging large-scale growth, the use of conventional systems is not
recommended except in cases where no other alternative exists.
Soil and site conditions are the main factors, in addition to planning
policies, influencing alternative wastewater treatment selection. Soil properties
are important because many of the alternative wastewater disposal options are
dependent upon soil to provide wastewater treatment or disposal or both. Site
characteristics, e.g., land availability, location of existing housing, stream water
1
quality and existing infrastructure, are important because of the restrictions they
place on land availability for required wastewater treatment.
Background information on soil types, condition of existing sewage disposal
systems, housing densities, and parcel location was provided by the Frederick
County Department of Planning and the Lord Fairfax Planning District
Commission. Mr. Robert Holmes, a consulting soil scientist familiar with the
soils in the study areas, provided additional soils investigations. Several
reconnaissances of the study areas were performed and the findings were reviewed
with the Technical Advisory Committee as the project progressed. The results of
this work were compiled to create a working background map over which
different wastewater alternatives could be overlain. This information is displayed
on the Physiography and Existing Features maps on pages 35 and 36.
Any wastewater alternative must be able to comply with existing state and
federal regulations in order to be feasible for use. Several land treatment
wastewater alternatives that appear technically adequate for use were not pursued
because of current regulatory limits on soil suitability. For this reason, the use
of experimental systems is limited to those cases where an existing failing septic
system must be repaired; no experimental community -wide wastewater treatment
alternatives are recommended in this report.
Unlike land treatment wastewater alternatives, which depend upon soil
conditions for use, discharging system selection is determined by water quality
standards. The array of wastewater treatment alternatives for use in discharging
systems is controlled by whatever treatment limits must be met. Approval to
4
discharge wastewater into state waters, and the degree of treatment required
before wastewater is discharged, is granted by the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ). The DEQ was contacted for guidance, but declined to provide
assistance without a permit application first being filed with them. Therefore,
expected discharging treatment limits were based on a permit recently issued to
the town of Boyce for a new wastewater treatment plant, based on the similarity
of the receiving stream to those in the study area and expected nutrient limits.
All of the above information was combined on overlays and is shown on the
Wastewater System Alternatives maps, pages 37 and 38. The specific alternatives
and recommended future actions are discussed in the following paragraphs.
A. Round Hill Rural Community Center - Summary Recommendations
1. Authorization to connect the high housing density areas of Round Hill
south of Rt. 50 and the commercial development both south and north
of Rt. 50 to the existing public sewer east of Route 37 should be
obtained. Residential tracts north of Rt. 50 could also be connected by
installing sewers along Rt. 654 and Rt. 50 to Abrams Creek.
Installation of those sewers may increase development pressure in this
area.
2. If a connection to the existing public sewer is not feasible, then an
application for a VPDES permit for a sewage treatment works (STW)
with a discharge into Abrams Creek should be made to Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) -Water Division. The STW would serve
the same area described in Item 1.
3
3. A detailed feasibility study of non -discharging sewage treatment systems
on several parcels of open lands in the north and south areas of the rural
community center should be done. These tracts may be able to provide
disposal options for up to a third of the existing population.
4. Small diameter sewers and effluent pumping systems, incorporating
either existing or new septic tanks, should be used in place of
conventional sewers. Provisions for septic tank inspection and pumping
as well as for septage disposal will be required.
5. Ownership of central STWs would be held by the Winchester -Frederick
Service Authority. Operation, maintenance, data collection and
reporting responsibilities for all related facilities, including sewer lines,
and pump stations, should be assumed by FCSA. Septic tank pumping
could be done by private contractors at the direction of FCSA.
6. Parcels not located within the densely populated areas of Round Hill
will be served by individual repair systems as required. Homes outside
of those areas are generally on larger lots which will allow the use of
experimental septic tank systems or single family home discharge units
to repair drainfield systems as they fail.
7. Estimated capital costs to provide sewage treatment to the Round Hill
Rural Community Center follow.
(a) If connected to existing public sewer: $1.4 million (1993).
(b) If new STW is constructed: $2.8 million (1993).
B. Clearbrook - Brucetown Rural Community Centers
Summary Recommendations
1. Several large tracts of land to the north and west of Clearbrook have
potential for use with non -discharging wastewater disposal systems. A
detailed soil feasibility study of the use of spray irrigation, in
conjunction with constructed wetlands, on the two tracts identified
within the rural community boundaries should be done. Such a system
could serve the relatively high density areas of Clearbrook (including
commercial and industrial sites).
2. The fairgrounds (south of Clearbrook on Rt. 11) could also be
connected to this system; this would require the installation of a pump
station and a force main along Rt. 11. This system may support some
limited development along Rt. 11 depending upon the size of the non -
discharging system described above.
I An application for a VPDES Permit for a STW to discharge sewage
into Slate Run should be made to DEQ. The STW will serve the high
housing density areas of Brucetown. The feasibility of increasing the
fishability of Turkey Run using wastewater effluent to increase stream
flows should be discussed with DEQ when this application is made.
4. A tract of land located to the northeast, outside of the Brucetown rural
community center boundaries, has the potential to serve half of the
housing units with a non -discharging system. A detailed feasibility
study on this tract should be done.
M
5, Small diameter sewers and effluent pumps are also recommended for
use with the same provisions and recommendations as stated in Item 4
for Round Hill.
6. Housing units located in the sparsely developed tracts between and
surrounding Clearbrook and Brucetown can be served by single home
discharging units if needed to repair failing septic systems. Easements
to discharge sites along existing swales and drainageways would be
required.
7. The Winchester -Frederick Service Authority and FCSA should assume
ownership and administration of any and all central wastewater disposal
systems in the Clearbrook-Brucetown Rural Communities under the
same conditions outlined in Item 5 for Round Hill.
8. A potential site for a septage treatment lagoon is located in the
Clearbrook area.
9. Estimated capital cost to provided sewage service to Clearbrook -
Brucetown Rural Community Centers is $1.9 - $2.5 million (1993).
M
Entrances to the community should be evaluated for needed improvements. Measures
aimed at increasing the appeal of the areas to both tourists and businesses need to be
developed and implemented
Regula— ons governing the sue, number and spacing of advertising and business signs
should be reviewed and improved.
Rural Community Centers
Rural community centers are relatively small centers of population and activity in the rural
areas of Frederick County. Following the adoption of the 1982 Plan, the Rural Community
Center Committee of the Frederick County Planning Commission was formed which
proceeded to define rural community centers and to study their characteristics. The
Committee held public meetings in 1984 and 1985 to solicit opinions on development
policies and developed some recommendations on policies for the rural community centers.
The following criteria were used to designate rural community centers:
1. Proximity to and access to collector or arterial routes.
2. Existing concentration of private commercial services within the center,
3. Existing concentration of public services within the center.
4. Access from concentrations of existing population.
5. Actual population growth in the area.
6. Access from concentrations of potential population (subdivided lots).
7. Proximity to other areas which could act as community centers.
8. Physical characteristics of land in the area.
9. Public perceptions.
10. Existing public facilities, churches, and civic clubs.
53
0 The potential rural community centers identified, included the following:
Gore
Reynolds Store
Gainesboro
Round Hill
Armel
Shawneeland/North Mountain
Star Tannery
Whitacre/Cross Junction
Clearbrook/Brucetown/Stephenson
Provisions should be made in County policies to recognize the rural centers and to
accommodate the differences between each center. Many of the centers are now zoned for
agriculture, which is not necessarily appropriate in relation to the functions of some of the
centers.
The Committee recommended that Armel, North Mountain/Shawneeland, and Reynolds
Store/Whitacre/Cross Junction be treated similarly as the surrounding areas. The
recommendations for all other community centers suggest that additional commercial
development will occur in the rural community centers. Only the recommendations for
Gore suggest encouraging increased amounts and densities of housing in relation to
surrounding rural areas.
The recommendations for all rural community centers promote improved public services.
The recommendations for the Round Hill Community Center place particular emphasis on
increased -road improvements and the provision of public sewer and water service. Water
and sewer issues are also important in the Clearbrook, Stephenson, and Brucetown areas.
A study designed to investigate and develop recommendations on possible methods of
treating wastewater in the Round Hill, Clearbrook and Brucetown areas has been
conducted. A report has been drafted and is expected to be finalized by October of 1993.
A Technical Advisory Committee will then submit the report with their summary
recommendations to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The County needs
to consider the recommendations of the report and investigate funding sources in order to
implement the most cost effective solution.
54
IL Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development
Because of recent development, there is a need to reconsider including Albin as a potential
rural community center.
_55
c
r
r
c
I
Table 12
Comparison of Rural Community Centers Facts and Figures
Frederick County, Virginia
1985
CATEGORY
Gainesboro
Round Hill
Gore
Clearbrook,
Stephenson,
Brucetown
Armel
HOUSING
Single Family
122
266
101
346
158
Mobile Homes
13
14
23
229126
Total
135
280
124
575
184
LOT SIZE
Average
13
2.75
7.5
4
6.25
Residential
2.5
1.25
2.25
125
2
POPULATION
(Estimated)
466
966
427
1,948
635
LAND USE
Residential
288
338
220
545
354
Commercial
5
36
8
52
3
Mixed
5
46
4
80
7
Industrial
30
19
12
411
0
Public/Semi-Public
631
22
9
981
6
Agriculture/
Open
Vacant/Wooded
381
808
352
284
386
549
1,414
217
608
473
Total
1,580
1,097
1,188
2,817
1,451
IL Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development
Because of recent development, there is a need to reconsider including Albin as a potential
rural community center.
_55
c
r
r
c
I
Issues:
There is a need to determine to what extent rural community centers will be the
primary location of commercial and service uses in the rural areas.
The extent to which additional commercial development should be allowed in each
rural community center needs to be determined.
There is a need to determine whether additional housing growth should be
encouraged in each center.
What density of housing development should be allowed in each center?
A method for providing public services to rural community centers needs to be
determined.
Rural Areas
In terms of land area, Frederick County, Virginia is predominantly rural in character. In
Frederick County, rural areas can be defined as all areas not within the designated Urban
Development Area of the Comprehensive Plan. In the County, the primary land uses in
rural areas are agriculture and forests. Rural areas show a population growth pattern
consisting of widely scattered, large lot residential development.
Frederick County contains 266,000 acres of land. Of this acreage, approximately 23,000 is
contained within the bounds of the Urban Development Area. The remaining 243,000 acres
is in the rural areas. Roughly 230,000 acres lie west of Interstate 81 and are intended to
remain rural into the indefinite future.
Many residents of Frederick County are attracted to the natural beauty and special lifestyle
found in rural portions of the County. Excessive or inappropriate development in these
areas can reduce their value and attractiveness. At the same time, the rural areas play an
important role in the County's economy through the income generated by agriculture.
Fruit production was the largest single category of agricultural production, in terms of dollar
value, in the County in 1982. Over one-half of the market value of agricultural production
in recent years has been fruit production. Most of the rest of the agricultural production
involved livestock.
In 1982, according to the United States Agricultural Census, there were 111,116 acres of
farmland in Frederick County. The estimates of farmland acreage show that the total
amount of farmland decreased steadily and significantly between 1950 and the early 1970's.
However, between 1974 and 1982, the acreage of farmland remained relatively constant at
about 120,000 acres. The estimated farmland acreage then fell between 1982 and 1987.
Most of the reduction in farmland acreage that occurred in the 1950's and 1960's was
56