10SN0181
March 16, 2010 CPC
May 18, 2010 CPC
June 15, 2010 CPC
July 20, 2010 CPC
August 25, 2010 BS
STAFF’S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
10SN0181
Shoosmith Bros., Inc.
c/o Fletcher Kelly
Dale Magisterial District
West line of Iron Bridge Road
REQUEST: Amendment of conditional use (Case 97SN0206) to permit landfilling and quarrying
operations within the same area, concurrently; receipt of out-of-state waste; and to
permit amendment of a covenant relative to landfill height.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The request site is part of the existing landfill and quarry operation which was
granted under previous land use requests. The landfill and quarry will continue to
operate, however the applicant is requesting relief to some of the requirements under
which the uses currently operate. Specifically, the applicant requests deletion of
Proffered Condition 7 of Case 97SN0206, which prohibits solid waste disposal in
the quarry pit until quarrying activities have ceased, and deletion of Proffered
Condition 17, which prohibits acceptance of waste collected from outside of the
Commonwealth of Virginia. In addition, the applicant requests amendments to
Proffered Condition 3, relative to the design and material of a required landscape
berm, and to a covenant, to increase the maximum height of a section of the landfill
by 100 feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND DENIAL.
AYES: Messrs. Hassen, Bass, Gulley and Waller.
NAY: Dr. Brown.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval for the following reasons:
A. The proposed amendments should have no greater impact on the area than the
approved uses as currently conditioned.
B. Existing county ordinances together with the requirements of the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Virginia Department of Mines,
Minerals, and Energy (DMME) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), as well as conditions of zoning approval (relative to siting, design,
construction, operation and closure of solid waste management facilities and
quarry facilities) further ensure that these operations are conducted in a manner
that is compatible with area development and that the operations do not have an
adverse impact on public health and safety or the environment.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY
PROFFER CONDITIONS. CONDITIONS NOTED “STAFF” ARE RECOMMENDED
SOLELY BY STAFF.)
PROFFERED CONDITION
Shoosmith Bros., Inc (the “Owner”) in this zoning case, pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the
Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for itself
and its successors or assigns, proffers that the development of the property known as
Chesterfield County Tax Identification Number part of 772-653-5418 (the “Landfill Property”)
under consideration will be developed according to the following conditions if, and only if, the
request for revisions to the conditional use permit (CU) is granted. In the event the request is
denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by the Owner, the proffers shall immediately
be null and void and of no further force or effect.
(STAFF) Upon siting approval by the County and the Part A permit by the Virginia
Department of Environmental quality (“DEQ”), and prior to any disposal of solid
waste in the quarry pit, a landscape berm constructed with a low-permeability
clay liner, geomembrane, or wall, shall be established between the quarry and
Swift Creek, with an elevation of one (1) foot above the elevation of a 500-year
flood. The exact location, type of low-permeable material, and landscape
treatment of this berm shall be approved by the Chesterfield Environmental
Engineering Department (“CDEE”) and Chesterfield Planning Department. (EE
and P)
(Notes: With approval of this request Proffered Conditions 7 and 17 of Case
97SN0206 are hereby deleted. In addition, this proffered condition supersedes
Proffered Condition 3 of Case 97SN0206. Further, the Covenants of Case
97SN0206 are amended to allow “Parcel C” to increase to a height of 380 feet
2 10SN0181-AUG25-BOS-RPT
above mean sea level. All other conditions of approval for Case 97SN0206
remain in effect.)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
The subject property is located off the west line of Iron Bridge Road, south of Ironbridge
Parkway. Tax ID 772-653-Part of 5418.
Existing Zoning:
A and I-3 with conditional use
Size:
232 acres
Existing Land Use:
Industrial (landfill and quarry)
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North - R-7; Public/semi-public (solid waste transfer station)
South - A with conditional use; Sanitary landfill
East - C-5; Commercial and industrial
West - R-40, R-25 and A; Single-family residential or vacant
UTILITIES
Public Water System:
The existing landfill is connected to the public water system. This request will not impact
the public water system.
Public Wastewater System:
The existing landfill is connected to the public wastewater system. This request will not
impact the public wastewater system.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Drainage and Erosion:
The request property is located adjacent to Swift Creek. A portion of the property is
currently being used as a quarry and a portion for landfill operations.
3 10SN0181-AUG25-BOS-RPT
Chesterfield County began participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
in 1983. In 2003, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), under the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), began a map modernization and
update of FEMA floodplains in Chesterfield using today’s technology. The updated
maps, called Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (D-FIRM), show the entire quarry and
proposed landfill being inundated for all floods greater than 100 years.
The FEMA D-FIRM maps, when adopted, would still allow a structure to be constructed
that would prohibit inundation of the quarry and the proposed landfill area from Swift
Creek at time of severe storms. The modifications to Proffered Condition 3 of Case
97SN0206 are acceptable and would accomplish the goal of eliminating inundation of the
quarry from Swift Creek.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Fire Service:
The Airport Fire Station, Station 15, currently provides fire protection and emergency
medical service (EMS) to this area. This request will have a minimal impact on Fire and
EMS.
County Department of Transportation:
It is difficult to determine the traffic impact of this request. Typical traffic generation
information is not available for the existing sanitary landfill use. Information included
with the application indicates that the landfill is generating approximately 400 vehicles
per day. Traffic generated by this development will be initially distributed along Iron
Bridge Road (Route 10), which had 2009 traffic counts of 40,219 vehicles per day from
Route 288 to Beach Road and 31,303 vehicles per day from Lewis Road to Chalkley
Road. The capacities of these sections of Route 10 are acceptable (Level of Service D and
C, respectively) for the volume of traffic they carry.
A county bond-funded project will provide a six-lane roadway on Route 10 between Frith
Lane and Greenyard Road. An additional left turn lane will also be provided on Route 10
at the Beach Road intersection. Construction is anticipated to begin in spring of 2011.
In May 1997, the Board of Supervisors approved a Conditional Use (Case 97SN0206)
and accepted proffered conditions that permitted sanitary landfill operations to be
expanded onto an existing rock quarry site. There were no limitations placed on the
amount of traffic that could be generated or the number of tons of waste that could be
received at the landfill. The applicant is now requesting modifications to several of the
proffered conditions, including deletion of a condition (Proffered Condition 7 of Case
97SN0206) regarding the restriction on receiving out-of-state solid waste.
According to the applicant’s representatives, out-of-state waste is currently being
received into part of the landfill that does not have the out-of-state restriction. They have
4 10SN0181-AUG25-BOS-RPT
also indicated that during the state permitting process for the landfill a total maximum of
5,350 tons per day of solid waste was established. The applicant could request an increase
to the tons per day limitation without county approval. Placing a limitation on the daily
traffic generated by the landfill operations would be problematic for the county to
monitor and enforce. With these modifications to the existing conditions, the applicant’s
representatives anticipate that there will be no substantial change in the volume of traffic
generated. However, if the local demand for landfill use increases, the volume of traffic
would probably also increase.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT):
This request will have no impact on these facilities.
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Central Area Plan which
suggests the property is appropriate for general industrial use.
Area Development Trends:
Area properties to the south and east are zoned and developed for commercial and industrial
uses, which includes the existing Shoosmith sanitary landfill, or are vacant. Property to the
north is zoned residentially and is the location of a county waste transfer station and
recycling operation. Property to the west, across Swift Creek, is zoned agriculturally and
residentially and is currently occupied by single-family residential uses or is vacant. It is
anticipated these development patterns will continue in the area, as suggested by the Plan.
Zoning History:
On March 25, 1965, the Board of Supervisors approved a use permit to allow a quarry
and stone crushing plant on a portion of the request property (Case 65-6 U.P.). Case 65-6
U.P. was approved subject to a condition that the operation be conducted as a bench type
operation and quarrying go no lower than the creek bed.
On April 13, 1966, the Board of Supervisors deleted the depth limitation imposed with
the approval of Case 65-6 U.P.
On May 28, 1997, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation from the
Planning Commission, approved a conditional use (Case 97SN0206) to permit a sanitary
landfill on the request property. Conditions of Case 97SN0206 prohibit disposal of waste
in the quarry pit until quarrying activities have ceased; prohibit acceptance of waste
collected outside of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and limit the maximum height of
one section of the landfill to 280 feet above mean sea level. The average natural grade in
the vicinity of the landfill is approximately 180 feet above mean sea level.
5 10SN0181-AUG25-BOS-RPT
Development Standards:
Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and conditions of zoning approval for Case
97SN0206 require conformance with development standards of the Zoning Ordinance for
industrial development in Emerging Growth Areas. These standards address access, parking,
landscaping, architectural treatment, setbacks, signs, buffers, utilities, and screening of
dumpsters and loading areas. These requirements would remain in affect with the approval
of this case.
Quarry:
As previously stated, current conditions of zoning do not allow solid waste disposal
activities within the quarry pit until all quarrying activities have ceased. The applicant notes
the co-existence of the landfill and quarry for a number of years without incident and that
other facilities around the country have successfully operated simultaneously, and requests
this condition be deleted. The county’s Waste and Resource Recovery Office indicates these
activities would be regulated by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the
Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (DMME). The county, along with the
applicant, will work with DEQ and DMME to ensure the regulations/standards the activities
are subject to are adhered to. Therefore, staff has no concerns about deleting the condition
prohibiting simultaneous operations.
Out-of-State Waste:
Proffered Condition 17 of Case 97SN0206 prohibits the applicant from receiving waste that
is collected from outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. The original landfill (as depicted
on the attached graphic) does not have a similar condition and continues to accept out-of-
state waste. Staff feels acceptance of waste from outside the Commonwealth of Virginia into
the original landfill has had no detrimental effect on the area, and that allowing receipt of
such waste on the subject property would have no detrimental effect. Additionally, the
applicant indicates deletion of this restriction would allow them to shift landfill operations
away from existing residential neighborhoods in The Highlands subdivision more quickly
because this additional waste stream would allow the active fill areas to reach closure
sooner. Staff has no concerns about deletion of this condition.
Restrictive Covenants:
With Case 97SN0206 the applicant proffered to record off-site (on the original landfill site)
restrictive covenants which, among other things, included a height limit on the then-existing
portion of the landfill, identified as “Parcel B” and “Parcel C” on the attached graphic.
“Parcel B” was restricted to a maximum height above mean sea level of 380 feet, while
“Parcel C” was restricted to 280 feet above mean sea level. The applicant is requesting
modification to this covenant to allow an increase of the landfill height on “Parcel C” to 380
feet, consistent with the height of “Parcel B.” A height of 380 feet above mean sea level
would restrict the height after closure to approximately 200 feet above the existing average
natural grade in the vicinity of the landfill. Since this is a small area (approximately 16
6 10SN0181-AUG25-BOS-RPT
acres) of a more than 400-acre landfill/quarry site, and the remaining landfill areas, between
“Parcel C” and the residential areas to the west, can go to a height of up to 380 feet, staff
feels the impact of this change on the area would be minimal. The increased height would
not be noticeable to nearby residential development.
CONCLUSION
The proposed amendments should have no greater impact on the area than the approved uses as
currently conditioned. In addition, existing county ordinances together with the requirements of
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Virginia Department of Mines,
Minerals, and Energy (DMME) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as
conditions of zoning approval (relative to siting, design, construction, operation and closure of
solid waste management facilities and quarry facilities) further ensure that these operations are
conducted in a manner that is compatible with area development and would not have an adverse
impact on public health and safety or the environment.
Given these considerations, approval of this request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (3/16/10):
On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to their May 18, 2010 public
hearing.
Staff (3/17/10):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than March 22, 2010 for consideration at the Commission’s
May 18, 2010 public hearing.
Staff (3/19/10):
A revised letter was sent to the applicant indicating any significant, new or revised
information should be submitted no later than April 19, 2010 for consideration at the
Commission’s May 18, 2010 public hearing.
Applicant (5/3/10):
Revised proffered conditions were submitted.
7 10SN0181-AUG25-BOS-RPT
Planning Commission Meeting (5/18/10):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to June 15, 2010.
Staff (5/19/10):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than May 24, 2010 for consideration at the Commission’s
June 15, 2010 public hearing.
The applicant was also advised that a $1,000.00 deferral fee must be paid prior to the
Commission’s public hearing.
Staff (5/24/10):
To date, no new information has been received, nor has the deferral fee been paid.
Applicant (6/14/10):
The deferral fee was paid.
Planning Commission Meeting (6/15/10):
The applicant accepted staff’s recommendation. It was understood there would be a
public hearing, but the intent of the Commission was to defer the case for thirty (30) days
to their July public hearing while answers to issues and concerns are obtained.
Mr. Gulley and the County Attorney’s office cleared up matters of misunderstanding that
were noted by Mr. Gulley. One concern was that the landfill was sold subsequent to the
1997 zoning and is now owned by someone other than Shoosmith Brothers, Inc., and
whether this represents a violation of conditions of zoning. The County Attorney assured
the Commission and the public that this is no violation. A second concern was the
contractual negotiations between the applicant and the County and what relationship they
have to the zoning amendment. It was made clear that these negotiations are separate
from the zoning case and one (1) has no bearing on the other.
There was opposition present, expressing concern relative to: acceptance of out-of-state
waste; environmental issues with disposing of waste in an active quarry; safety of
disposing of sewage sludge on the site; the area becoming inundated in the event of a
greater than 100-year storm; increasing odor problem; view of the landfill and quarry
from area properties; danger of the use of fly ash on the landfill as a cover material;
8 10SN0181-AUG25-BOS-RPT
traffic; effects of vibrations from blasting in the quarry; noise; and damage anticipated to
area roads from increased larger truck traffic.
Mr. Gulley noted there does not appear to be an operation the Virginia where there is
landfilling occurring in an active quarry, and that while there is an operation such as this
in California, the circumstances may be different. He indicated DEQ regulations with
respect to odor control may not be sufficient, and that the applicant should consider
standards beyond what DEQ requires. He suggested he cannot support this case unless his
concerns with blasting while simultaneously filling in the quarry have been adequately
addressed.
Mr. Hassen questioned if thirty (30) days is enough time to have the issues raised
resolved. It was noted, unless the applicant requests a deferral, thirty (30) days is all that
is available to the commission.
It was agreed there are several issues that need to be resolved.
On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to their July 20, 2010 public
hearing.
Staff (6/16/10):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than June 21, 2010 for consideration at the Commission’s
July 20, 2010 public hearing.
Staff (6/21/10):
To date, no new information has been received.
Planning Commission Meeting (7/20/10):
The applicant accepted staff’s recommendation, but did not accept the Planning
Commission’s recommendation.
There was opposition present expressing concerns relative to: the area becoming
inundated in the event of a greater than 100-year storm; odor problems; possibility of
chemicals/contaminants in the landfill; impacts on private wells; noise; damage
anticipated to area roads from increased larger truck traffic; debris on roads; impacts on
adjacent neighborhoods; water quality impacts; and effects of vibrations from blasting in
the quarry. There were also petitions submitted in opposition.
9 10SN0181-AUG25-BOS-RPT
There was support present noting this has become a cleaner operation; reduced road
debris; odor dramatically decreased over past few years; no significant impact from
blasting; the facility providing a place for affordable waste disposal; and improvements
made to the facility in recent years.
The Commission expressed concerns relative to how odor complaints are handled;
possibility of damage to cell liners due to blasting in the quarry; protection of ground
water; taking in out-of-state waste accelerating the need to find a replacement landfill for
County waste; no proven track record for disposing of waste in an active quarry; lack of
penalties for odor violations; and area property owners in opposition to the proposal.
On motion of Mr. Bass, seconded by Mr. Hassen, the Commission recommended denial.
AYES: Messrs. Hassen, Bass, Gulley and Waller.
NAY: Dr. Brown.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
10 10SN0181-AUG25-BOS-RPT