|
Location, Zoning and
Current Land Use:
The property is located at
9671 Springs Road, which is at the corner of Opal Road and
Springs Road. It is in the Village of Fauquier Springs and
zoned Village (V). The site was most recently used as a
residence. A map of the parcel is shown below.
ZONING MAP
FLOODPLAIN MAP
Surrounding Zoning and
Current Land Use:
The parcel is surrounded by
properties zoned Village (V) and Rural Agricultural (RA).
Properties in the village are residential and commercial.
The Fauquier Springs Country Club is across Springs Road.
Site History:
The site contains a historic
building complex known as “Brown’s Merchant Mill,” which
features a rare surviving early twentieth century merchant
mill with a gas-powered system and a frame Victorian style
farmhouse that served as the miller’s house. Frank Y. Brown
and his daughter, Kate, ran the corn mill and general store
on this property through the first half of the 20th
century. The mill grindstones, belt, hopper, and wooden
casing (but not the gas motor) were still retained in the
mill building up until 2007. (If they are still in the
building, their retention on the historic site where they
were used should be encouraged.)
Conditions for any Special
Exceptions for this property should incentivize the
preservation of the existing historic buildings. The
applicant will be eligible to apply for state and federal
tax credits to recoup between 25-45% of the rehabilitation
costs, if Springs Valley is listed on the National
Register. Public hearings for consideration of the Springs
Valley National Register Historic District are tentatively
scheduled for May and June 2009.
The house on the property is
a 3-bedroom single family dwelling built in 1874. Up until
about the 1960’s, the property also contained a General
Store. The previous owner lived in the house until she had
to move into an assisted living facility. At that point the
property was put on the market. The first potential buyer
tied up the property for more than three years with multiple
contract extensions and a lawsuit. When a judge finally
dismissed the case, the applicants purchased the property in
2007.
Historically the residence
was served by an outhouse, and the inside untreated gray
water was discharged directly into the ground water or into
the stream behind the house. The previous owner was granted
the use of an indoor incinolet (incinerator toilet) by VDH
in order for her to have some type of indoor toilet in her
later years.
Comprehensive Plan/Land Use:
The Comprehensive Plan
locates this parcel in the Village of Fauquier Springs. The
village has a long history, much of which is centered around
the nearby country club, which was previously a health spa
and hotel (Fauquier White Sulphur Springs Resort). The
Comprehensive Plan notes that “The 1914 Map of Fauquier
County reveals a number of residences along Opal Road that
still remain today as defining historic features of the
Village of Fauquier Springs.” This would indicate that
preserving the structures (residence and shop) would
preserve an integral part of the local history of the area.
However, as with the house, repairs to the shop may require
additional approval for fill in the floodplain.
Special Exception Analysis:
The applicants have met the
requirements set forth in Section 5-2000, Category 20 Public
Utilities and submitted the appropriate application
materials for the Special Exception. The Zoning Ordinance
states that a Special Exception for a
private individual sewage
treatment system which discharges into an open ditch or
water shall be allowed only to replace an existing sewage
system which is presently serving an existing use. The
applicant has requested the discharge system to serve an
existing single family residence with a failing septic
system. That existing sewage system must have failed and
have been certified by the Virginia Department of Health to
pose a real or potential health threat and a discharging
sewage treatment system is the only alternative for the
repair.
According to VDH and based on the Authorized On-Site Soil
Evaluator (AOSE) and Professional Engineer (PE) evaluations,
along with previous application denials by VDH, an
alternative sewage discharging system appears to be the only
available option for on-site disposal. While the Health
Department had some concerns with this application, the
designing PE submitted the application under §32.1-163.6 of
the Code of Virginia (GMP 146, House Bill 1166).
Site
Suitability/Environment:
The site contains poor
conditions for septic development. The majority of the
property is within the FEMA 100-year floodplain. In 1992
and 2004 on-site systems for the site were evaluated. On
both occasions there was no acceptable area on the property
found for disposal. Thus, if there are no on-site options,
discharge or easement (off-site) are the only options.
Staff and Review Agency
Comments:
Planning
Although it is not part of
this application, staff notes that the driveway ingress
currently used is off-site and on an adjacent property and
possibly also on VDOT right-of-way. The driveway then goes
across the entire frontage (with no apparent turnaround
room) to egress in the intersection of Opal Road and Springs
Road. A new VDOT entrance evaluation (and subsequent
permit) is recommended so the applicants have a safe method
of ingress/egress to their property.
Zoning
Category 20 Special
Exception
1.
A site plan is
required for this use per Zoning Ordinance Section 3-320.7.
2.
The following
Zoning Ordinance standards are applicable:
a.
5-006 General
Standards;
b.
5-2001
Additional Submission Requirements (for Category 20
Uses);
c.
5-2002
Standards for All Category 20 Uses.
Zoning Staff defers to
Planning Staff the assessment of standard compliance.
It is clear that there is a
need at this location to remediate a failed septic system.
However, a determination must also be made to quantify the
intensity of the existing use. The existing use has been
determined to be the 3-bedroom house, as it was when
constructed in 1874. A residential use is appropriate in
this village location. Expansion of such a use could be
detrimental given environmental conditions.
Category 23 Special
Exception
-
The
application/justification identifies a special exception
being requested for structures associated with a septic
system to be installed in the FEMA 100-year floodplain.
However, if, now or in the future, there is to be
renovation of the existing house exceeding 50% or more
of the fair market value or if there is any expansion or
enlargement, then the requirements of Zoning Ordinance
Section 4-408 shall apply.
This information was
provided to the applicants in April 2008. They have chosen
to take the risk and proceed with the Category 20 and 23
Special Exceptions prior to investigating how Zoning
Ordinance Section 4-408 may affect their property.
-
The following Zoning
Ordinance standards are applicable:
a.
5-006 General
Standards.
b.
5-2301,
Standards for All Category 23 Uses.
The following findings are
required by the Board in order to grant this Special
Exception: That the granting will not result in (a)
unacceptable or prohibited increase in flood heights, (b)
additional threats to public safety; (c) extraordinary
public expense, (d) create nuisances, (e) cause fraud or
victimization of the public, or (f) conflict with local law
or ordinance. (Section 5-2301.6). The Board must also find
that the special exception will be “necessary to provide the
applicant with reasonable use of the parcel of land in
question, taken as a whole.” (Section 5-2301.7)
c.
4-406, Special
Exception Uses (in the Floodplain District).
d.
4-407, Use
Limitations in the Flood Plain District.
e.
4-408,
Existing Structures in a Floodway.
The applicants’ engineer
provided additional calculations and technical material to
the County engineering department for review. It was
determined that the on-site
treatment system shall be flood-proofed so that potential
points of inflow and infiltration, other that the discharge
point, into the system will be above the 100-year floodplain
elevation. This includes the tank seams, tank and treatment
unit inlets and outlets, tank and treatment unit access
ports and the ultraviolet disinfection unit inlets and
outlets. In addition, no fill or installation of structures
associated with this project will create an increase in
velocity or elevation on adjacent properties.
Special Exception
conditions have been drafted to this effect.
Technical Division
Engineering
The Engineering Division has
reviewed the plans for the above referenced project sealed
on December 4, 2008 by Jeffrey T. Hancock.
Conditions of Approval
1.
A land disturbing permit will be required prior to
construction if the total land disturbance exceeds 10,000
square feet.
2.
The on-site treatment system is to be flood-proofed
so that potential points of inflow and infiltration, other
than the discharge point, into the system will be above the
100-year floodplain elevation. This includes the tank seams,
tank and treatment unit inlets and outlets, tank and
treatment unit access ports and the ultraviolet disinfection
unit inlets and outlets.
3.
No fill or installation of structures associated with
this project will create an increase in velocity or
elevation on adjacent properties.
The three aforementioned
conditions have been added to the Special Exception
conditions.
Soils
Category #20, SPEX08-MA-017
Code Compliance
1.
The following
components must meet setback requirements that are found in
Chapter 17 of the County Code (Section 17-15 Table III).
Septic tanks must be located more than 100 feet from
impounded waters.
In the August 2008
submittal, the applicants’ engineer states that all tanks
will be 100 feet from impounded waters.
2.
County Code
Section 17-15c allows for the placement of a subsurface
disposal system on an adjacent property by easement in cases
where it is to repair an existing, malfunctioning system.
The decision of using a discharging system should only be
considered after all other alternatives have been shown not
to be possible (County Code Section 17-17, and VDH’s
Alternative Discharging Regulations). Provide evidence that
all other alternatives have been explored and why they are
not viable.
The applicants did pursue
off-site easements. According to the applicants, none of
the adjacent property owners was willing to allow an
off-site drainfield on their properties.
Findings
1.
Using the
Fauquier County Soil Survey, 98.7% (0.821 Ac.) of the site
is listed as map unit 3A which is frequently flooded, well
drained, very deep and is found in floodplains. It is rated
“NOT SUITED” for development using conventional septic tank
and drainfields due to the potential for flooding. This map
unit also may contain hydric soil inclusions.
Information for the
applicant.
2.
Based on the
design provided by the applicant, all of the components for
the discharging system will be in the 100-year floodplain.
Roughly 93% of the site is located within in the 100-year
floodplain. A small portion, about 0.058 acre in the
northern corner of the property is outside of the
floodplain. Due to the fact that the proposed system is
located in a flood prone area it should be considered as a
potential source of contamination for surface waters.
A Special Exception
condition requiring floodproofing of the system has been
drafted.
3.
The applicant
will need to apply to the Virginia Department of Health in
order to place the components of the system in the
floodplain (12VAC 5-640-240.6 “All portions of a discharging
system, except for the discharge pipe and the step type post
aeration, if required, shall be located above the 100 year
floodplain.”)
Information for the
applicant.
Recommendations
1.
This office
recommends the applicant explore the option of looking for a
suitable drainfield area on an adjoining property or any
other potential possibility. County Code Section 17-15c
allows for the placement of a subsurface disposal system on
an adjacent property by easement in cases where it is to
repair an existing, malfunctioning system. The decision of
using a discharging system should only be considered after
all other alternatives have been shown not to be possible
(County Code Section 17-17, and VDH’s Alternative
Discharging Regulations). In comments by Raymond P.
Freeland, P.E. on August 8, 2008 it states that “All other
alternatives have been explored and are not viable
options.” What options have been explored and why are they
not viable options?
The applicants did pursue
off-site easements. According to the applicants, none of
the adjacent property owners was willing to allow an
off-site drainfield on their properties.
Future Actions
Approvals from the Virginia
Department of Health (VDH) and Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ).
Information for the
applicant.
Conditions of Special
Exception Approval
1.
The following
components must meet setback requirements that are found in
Chapter 17 of the County Code (Section 17-15 Table III).
Septic tanks must be located more than 100 feet from
impounded waters.
A Special Exception
condition has been drafted to address this point.
2.
County Code
Section 17-15c allows for the placement of a subsurface
disposal system on an adjacent property by easement in cases
where it is to repair an existing, malfunctioning system.
The decision of using a discharging system should only be
considered after all other alternatives have been shown not
to be possible (County Code Section 17-17, and VDH’s
Alternative Discharging Regulations). Provide evidence that
all other alternatives have been explored and why they are
not viable.
See staff comments above.
3.
County
approval shall be contingent upon the applicant’s ability to
get all applicable state approvals.
This information is
important for the Board of Supervisors to consider. VDH and
DEQ will not formally evaluate a permit request without an
approved Special Exception. So although it is paramount
that the applicants meet state requirements, the Special
Exception approval is the first step in obtaining these
approvals for the applicants.
Category #23, SPEX08-MA-020
Code Compliance:
1.
County Code
Section 17-15c allows for the placement of a subsurface
disposal system on an adjacent property by easement in cases
where it is to repair an existing, malfunctioning system.
The decision of using a discharging system should only be
considered after all other alternatives have been shown not
to be possible (County Code Section 17-17, and VDH’s
Alternative Discharging Regulations). Provide evidence that
all other alternatives have been explored and why they are
not viable.
See staff comments above.
Findings
1.
Using the
Fauquier County Soil Survey, 98.7% (0.821 acre) of the site
is listed as map unit 3A which is frequently flooded, well
drained, very deep and is found in floodplains. It is rated
“NOT SUITED” for development using conventional septic tank
and drainfields due to the potential for flooding. This map
unit also may contain hydric soil inclusions.
Information for the
applicant.
2.
Based on the
design provided by the applicant, all of the components for
the discharging system will be in the 100-year floodplain.
Roughly 93% of the site is located within in the 100 year
floodplain. A small portion, about 0.058 acre in the
northern corner of the property is outside of the
floodplain. Due to the fact that the proposed system is
located in a flood prone area it should be considered as a
potential source of contamination for surface waters.
A Special Exception
condition requiring floodproofing of the system has been
drafted.
3.
The applicant
will need to apply to the Virginia Department of Health in
order to place the components of the system in the
floodplain (12VAC 5-640-240.6 “All portions of a discharging
system, except for the discharge pipe and the step type post
aeration, if required, shall be located above the 100-year
floodplain.”)
Information for the
applicant.
Recommendations
1.
This office
recommends the applicant explore the option of looking for a
suitable drainfield area on an adjoining property or any
other potential possibility. County Code Section 17-15c
allows for the placement of a subsurface disposal system on
an adjacent property by easement in cases where it is to
repair an existing, malfunctioning system. The decision of
using a discharging system should only be considered after
all other alternatives have been shown not to be possible
(County Code Section 17-17, and VDH’s Alternative
Discharging Regulations). In comments by Raymond P.
Freeland, P.E. on August 8, 2008 it states that “All other
alternatives have been explored and are not viable
options.” What options have been explored and why are they
not viable options?
See staff comments above.
Future Actions
Approvals from the Virginia
Department of Health (VDH) and Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ).
Conditions of Special
Exception Approval
1.
County Code
Section 17-15c allows for the placement of a subsurface
disposal system on an adjacent property by easement in cases
where it is to repair an existing, malfunctioning system.
The decision of using a discharging system should only be
considered after all other alternatives have been shown not
to be possible (County Code Section 17-17, and VDH’s
Alternative Discharging Regulations). Provide evidence that
all other alternatives have been explored and why they are
not viable.
See staff comments above.
2.
County
approval shall be contingent upon the applicant’s ability to
get all applicable state approvals.
See staff comments above.
VDOT
No Comment.
John Marshall Soil
and Water Conservation District
The Virginia Erosion and
Sediment Control Law excludes “septic tank lines or drainage
fields unless included in an overall plan for
land-disturbing activity relating to construction of the
building to be served by the septic tank system” as a
land-disturbing activity. Therefore, this site will not need
an erosion and sediment control plan. Silt fence will still
need to be installed downslope from any disturbance to
control sediment flow.
Virginia Department of Health
In accordance with 12VAC 5-615-10 et seq., the Virginia
Department of Health accepts private evaluations and designs
from Authorized Onsite Soil Evaluators (AOSEs) and from
professional engineers (PEs) in consultation with an AOSE.
Based on the AOSE and PE evaluations, along with previous
application denials by this department, an alternative
sewage discharging system appears to be the only available
option for on-site disposal. However, because nearly the
entire parcel is located within the 100-year floodplain, the
designing PE will have to submit the application under
§32.1-163.6 of the Code of Virginia (GMP 146, House
Bill 1166) since such installation is not permitted by the
Alternative Discharging Sewage Treatment Regulations.
Under HB 1166, it is at the discretion of the designing
engineer to determine that the proposal will protect the
public health and environment.
This office still has
concerns about safety measures during a flooding event.
Remote monitoring should be required, since alarms can
easily and immediately be turned off at the control panel
on- site. In the event of extreme weather, there may not be
electrical power to set in motion any alarms or automated
procedures and the availability and/or accessibility of pump
and haul may also be compromised.
A Special Exception
condition requiring floodproofing of the system has been
drafted.
When evaluating potential
environmental impacts one should first seek to avoid the
impact. If the impact cannot be avoided, it should be
minimized. If it cannot be minimized, the last effort is to
mitigate. The applicants feel they cannot avoid the
potential impact by acquiring an off-site disposal area.
However, their engineer has designed a floodproofed system
that should minimize or possibly remove the threat to the
environment by preventing the interface of untreated sewage
and surface water (creek).
Planning Commission Summary and Action of March 26,
2009:
The Planning Commission held
a public hearing on these Special Exception applications and
forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval, subject to
a series of development conditions. This item was early
advertised for the April Board of Supervisors’ meeting, per
Supervisor Schwartz.
The applicants have provided
copies of the downstream notification letters and off-site
easement request letters. Thus, they have met the
requirements set forth in Section 17-17 of the Fauquier
County Code and sent letters to downstream property owners
within one mile of the proposed discharge site. See
Attachment 4 for copies of the letters and negative
responses to the easement request.
Planning Commission Summary and Action of January 29,
2009:
The Planning Commission discussed this item at their work
session. A public hearing was held. The public hearing was
postponed until March 26, 2009 to allow time for the
applicant to address Planning Commission requests.
Per the request of the Planning Commission, the applicant
spoke to and also mailed certified letters to adjacent
property owners requesting an easement for an off-site
drainfield. None of the adjacent property owners has
indicated they would allow such an easement. See Attachment
4 for copies of the letters.
Summary and Recommendation:
The existing 3-bedroom farm
house and its property, including the old blacksmith shop,
carry much history for the area. These Special Exceptions
present the opportunity to have the house and mill restored
and once again become an active part of the fabric of the
community. Special Exception conditions have been drafted
to address the remediating of the failing septic system and
restoration of the house and historic mill.
Ultimately, it is not clear
if the applicants will be able to do what they envision with
the house. Even if they obtain Special Exception approval
for the septic system and its associated fill in the
floodplain, there may be other hurdles if improvements are
50% or more of the assessed tax value. These include the
federal regulations that require the first floor to be above
the BFE and floodproofing the foundation. The applicant
must obtain Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and
Virginia Department of Health (VDH) permit approval and may
also need to obtain the appropriate easement language for
that permit. The FEMA 100-year floodplain, environmental
health issues and historical significance of the site are
critical considerations and have been addressed in the
Special Exception conditions. |