Planning: February 5, 2008

February 5, 2008

NELSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTINUED MEETING MINUTES
WORK SESSION
February 5, 2008

Present: Chair Philippa Proulx, Commissioners Linda Russell, Michael Harman, Michael Tapager, Emily Hunt, and Supervisor Tommy Bruguiere

Guests: Steve Thomas, AOSE, and Tom Eick of Virginia Department of Health

Staff Present: Planning Director Fred Boger and Secretary Betty Fortune

Call to Order: Chair Proulx called the continued meeting/work session to order at 7:30 P. M. in the Board of Supervisors meeting room of the County Courthouse.

Purpose of Work Session: To consider possible amendments to Subdivision Ordinance Section 4-4-D, Individual Septic Systems, as requested by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors.

Discussion:
Mr. Boger explained that the Subdivision Ordinance requires soils work to be done on each lot in a subdivision. In addition, the ordinance requires that parcels of a division with existing septic systems must have 100% reserve drainfield, even if the septic system has already been approved for 50% reserve. (Mr. Boger supplied to the Commissioners copies of related information from Augusta, Albemarle, and Amherst Counties.) The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2121 states: A requirement (i) for the furnishing of a preliminary opinion from the applicable health official regarding the suitability of a subdivision for installation of subsurface sewage disposal systems where such method of sewage disposal is to be utilized in the development of a subdivision and (ii) that all buildings constructed on lots resulting from subdivision of a larger tract that abuts or adjoins a public water or sewer system or main shall be connected to that public water or sewer system or main subject to the provisions of ξ 15.2-2121.

Mr. Boger said the alternative is to remove the septic requirements from the Subdivision Ordinance and require the soils work and 100% reserve drainfield when the building site has been determined.

Mr. Steve Thomas, AOSE with Health Department certification for soils as well as soil scientist for the State of Virginia who prepared the soils maps for Nelson County, said that removal of soils work requirements for large lots could be problematic, but realizes that a final building site may not have been determined at the time the property is divided. Successful preliminary soils does not guarantee that the soil will perc.

Chair Proulx asked if some areas of the County have soils less conducive to percolation than others.. Mr. Thomas said the topography and geology of the land would determine the success rate for percolation. There are areas which are more complex such as the Glades, Rt. 722, Red Apple Orchard, etc. and percolation test should be done before property is sold. The better soils in the county are from Findlay Mountain in Shipman west to the foot of the mountains in Nellysford. The Piney River area is unique in soil content.

Commissioner Russell asked Mr. Thomas for an overview of what is involved in the soils work process, i.e. coordination with Health Department, cost to the homeowner/developer, etc. Mr. Thomas said that feasibility/preliminary studies are made to determine whether soils are likely to perc. The cost would be variable, depending on size of lots, complexity of the study, etc. Mr. Eick said that each drainfield requires 5 holes if reserve and drainfield are contiguous. If not, additional holes must be drilled for testing the reserve drainfield area. For all subdivisions, a plat and documentation is sent to the Planning Department who reviews and passes the information to the Health Department for review. Notification of approval or denial is submitted to the owner and Planning Department.

Mr. Thomas said the preliminary soils work is not sent to the Health Department because it does not result in enough information to be definitive. It does aid the developer in arranging lots. The surveyor flags markers in relation to property lines. The AOSE then prepares final documentation of the actual drainfields for submission to the Health Department.

Supervisor Bruguiere said that all platted subdivisions should have drainfield sites. His objection is to the requirement of increasing existing reserve drainfields to 100% and having to perc for sites on all parcels.

Ms. Proulx asked Mr. Thomas for his opinion on requiring 100% reserve drainfield on a 2-acre lot with existing approved septic system. Mr. Thomas said he didn’t think the property owner should have to provide something that is not needed; however, there is the potential for failure of an existing system and a 2-acre lot may not provide enough space in which to relocate the drainfield. The failure rate of septic systems varies, depending on location and maintenance.

Commissioner Harman stated that the Commission is given the task of proposing a common language for the ordinance that will cover most septic requirement situations. The exceptions will be dealt with on an as-needed basis.

Mr. Boger suggested that since the existing ordinance has new regulations with respect to the maximum number of divisions, then any lot less than 20 acres should have a percolation test.

Supervisor Bruguiere suggested that a division of 3 or more lots should have soils work done and that he would like to leave the existing septic systems alone rather than requiring that they be increased to 100% reserve drainfield. If the owner is cutting off more less than 5 acres, a perc test should be required.

Chair Proulx summarized her understanding of the discussion thus far: (1) New divisions with existing systems would not be required to increase the reserve drainfield to 100%; (2) 2-20 acre divisions without existing systems would require soils work on each lot; and (3) 20+ acre residue lots would be exempt from soils work requirements.

Mr. Thomas said that the dilemma was not with platted subdivisions which always need soils work. The difficulty arises when, for example, a landowner has 4 acres to be divided into 2 2-acre parcels with one having an existing septic system. In this case, the new 2 acres would require soils work, with a 100% drainfield reserve.

Commissioner Tapager suggested that any proposed amendments be reviewed by a land use attorney.

Conclusion: Based on tonight’s discussion, Mr. Boger was asked to draft a proposed amendment and distribute it within a week to the Planning Commission, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Eick, soliciting their input and have the draft reviewed by an attorney. This item will be added to the February 27 Planning Commission agenda.

Ms. Proulx thanked Mr. Thomas and Mr. Eick for attending the work session.

Adjournment

At 9:10 o’clock P. M., Commissioner Tapager made a motion to adjourn the work session. Motion passed 6-0.

Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting: February 27, 2008

Respectfully submitted,

Betty Fortune
Planning Secretary