The URL can be used to link to this page

06SN0191-Jan25.pdf December 15, 2005 CPC January 17,2006 CPC January 25, 2006 BS STAFF'S REQUEST ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDA nON 06SN0191 Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors Midlothian and Matoaca Magisterial Districts North and south lines of Midlothian Turnpike, east of Route 288 REQUEST: Rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Corporate Office (0-2) to General Industrial (1- 2) with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit exceptions to Ordinance requirements. PROPOSED LAND USE: Industrial, office and commercial uses are planned. On January 17, 2006, the Planning Commission deferred this request to February 21, 2006. Therefore, the Board should defer this request pending the Planning Commission recommendation. CASE HISTORY Planning Commission Meeting (12/15/05): At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to January 17,2006. Staff (12/16/05): The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information should be submitted no later than December 20, 2005, for consideration at the Commission's January 17,2006, public hearing. Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service ~--->-~---'--------"-~""__~~~.___~"__"~~~_'''m. ~_._, Staff (1/14/06): The applicant's representative requested a deferral to February 21,2006. Planning Commission Meeting (1/17/06): At the request of the applicant's representative, the Commission deferred this case to February 21, 2006, to allow time for the request to be amended and the transportation impacts addressed. The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, January 25, 2006, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take under consideration this request. 2 06SN0191-]AN25-BOS , ~ ---\í '~l\;;; w, v Il_~ L I.. -, o.--..J... ../ "7 _.~~c=-::~'~ I çj; ~ \ liT ~ Î 1....1./1/1 .J..O. I~! -<I r¡ , "Ü (.:::. a:: ~ a:: v ~.~ ~ ~ f-{t' 't'"" /--\,., -¡I H::.. µ ~r. '\ y "'~ ~~ ~--'.t, JIo --~. YJ lJ.. C~ r- S ~I Î ,,,.0') \ ~~/\0-\ ~ ~)( ~ ~ðð'2 ~ '~I '0 ~ 0 :=~F- j~ I' " I ",', .("XA~ ~ T"f'\ 1- ~ . (J1=1 ~ :r¡ ª~~;~l .-0::;. ¡:: ;~(%d0~~ -) ...2' ~~3 N;. Lj /;1 '\ -~ "J.t: CV) ~ - t ~ A ~ Y- -~ ~m]f )'''il N::. l' .;', .\ ,~J L~rc) # jl[j ~, y ~ ~,' ::Jj X!:n -. ~' ~ ]:Sfl , Q:: ~ ~ ~=':;¿,',,", :< > /l 1_ L ?'¥:' --IJ ,7' "\ __ ''I # J t;iJ~ I ~, ;> -~-"~, SJl 0-1-. ~ IÞ.:~ ~'\J7W'!JJ # 0 t- ., I " , 'II-h 'f--. ~\ ¡ '-, "-í ~ ~ ~ t: -L \ / # .!> i I.T ~ Lt~ "rll -L'YI ~ /'. I"foo . TI í I ______ ~ # ~ 'ry,,¡. r'SJ, ~~A)j jl 2}}; ~ ;; t-< -Ra/'ì;" n\ J- --.. _ t Ö'" ..ì ~'ff-,,' ~ ~~.JL ':::it. 1!6" " f · \\. - ---.. y' / \// m ~ ~ [ft.11: f ~ ' \ J ff" :>!h "'Î\.N :r '--Y ~ ~¡ -:- ,'!-SJ1L r~ ~J. I ~ ~~~ ~\ ~ûi,'" \- ~\{ ~...,; _ '\1.7 ~/S ~~ rr ~ J "' ~ rc í., ft" <ztA Y'h Tu ÿ, î ,V 0) \ /fJtÈ~'j¡ ~'\1 ::.::: ~\ Ml """ \....... 1 nJ -rl I. ~ II d3 I ;'- .:::::. ~<\JH~'Yf~ (t/ , \\ ~ .:::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.JIf¡~:~¡!¡~~ :~~~\ ~!j ~ :f'I. '7.: \1 '( ~\ 1/ ~ _~EiiH~;~:f;OJ.'l~ ~ . ~,'i-_ - .. ." \\r- .::::':':::::::: :::.::::::::::::::::::~:::::r ..... ~ ,/Ã' X/ )~.... ~ ,. I __-. ~\ ._ ............. .................. "ii1I '<-/ , ',~ - - ..c. · .........::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.. '.:.: :.:.:::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::: V" ~ l'" I' f' - - I ........................~~] .... ...... ........ . ........'........... , l!l@'4~t.~~~;~~t~!'j!!j/~\\ Jâl1 '~2~f!; </. ":( P·ffÆ····.. ........"". ." 1'R:1~ _~ r¡¡~ C;¡iJ~t::,......·· ,;(¡J~;;"t}:f'" I ~_ Ie-::::.. ...,,<Mm~i{l~i~::i' ~~.~ ~ / ~'IJ cr-¡ :::::/.::·:·ï::~ \ ~~~~~::::::::::::::::'" , ~ .J ·:~h~~~i:::¡~7 ~ ~ i~~~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~rá' \ ~ ..~ I ~.::¡~ ~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::tl ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ "::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:. ,^ ~ ~, :z: ~ # ··::::~:~~lli~tm~l. L~ j '\, \: ~ ~ \ , % c:::( \ -t-¿.. '<"",6" ~ C 0<;>- - t-:- ® z I- . r;;;;;;;J F-cr_~" ~ Ó ~ 0 ~ -oð(.) c:::( < j . 0 -.::~ -." ) m « ~~ ## ~V\ ~ ~ C; ~ ~Ó/ Æ~ n \\\~ ~¡ .~ \ "\\ \\\Ÿ>tl Q.::::.... -------- ~ # ... ...'" -- ...'" ...... ~ c:::( ~ ~ - ~ z+ -- Q) Q) LL -('III c. o ~ n I ' I ! o o o N ~ ~ -·"__M_"'___~_____~_~.__.~..,"_.,,~_.~>,_...~..~__._-,"_~ , .;,-1 ~ ARTICLE 17 B-1 CONVENIENCE BUSINESS DISTRICT Section 1l=! Uses permitted. i t I - / - .,.., wÞ- Within any 8-1 District, no building structure, .or premis'S shall be used or arranged or. designed to be used iñ any part except tUlr one or more of the following uses :.,' (1) Any permitted 'use as regulated in the R-40 District except dwel11ngs~ provided, however, that any dwellings legally ~Jist1ng in this District at the time of adoption of the Ordinance qfany amendment hereto shall not be subject to the restrictions or non-c~nforming uses contained herein. (1/23/74 )\..<;;1"...[ .:~ (2) Antique shap (3) Appliance store (4) Art school, gallery or museum (S) Artist material and supply store (6) Bakery goods ( 7 ) Bank I.AJf (Jý w-¡ b 1,:.... ¿I ~ t·d \~ , (8) ,"¡Barber shop (9) 'VBeauty shop (10) ~Bicycle sales and rental (11) :Book or stationery store (12 ) Ærokerage (13) ,Camera store (14) "Candy store (IS). 'Catering establishment (16) '~Cleaning, pressing and laundry (17) Clothes store ( 18 ) -Curio or gift shop (19) --'Drug store (20) :,pry goods store (21) ~Dairy products store (22) .' Delicatessen (23) -'Dress shop (24) Florist shop, greenhouse, nurser,y (25) Frozen food locker and sales (26) -Furniture store (27) ',Governmental offices (28) ·Grocery store (29) Hardware store (30) Hobby store (31) Hospitals, rest, nursing, con~llescent homes (32)' -Jewelry store (33) '-Laundromats and coin operated cry cleaning (34) Libraries (35) :,Locksmith (36) "Meat market (37) Medical facility or clinic (38) Messenger or telegraph service (39) Museums (40) Musical instrument sales (41) Newspaper or magazine sales (42) Nursery schools, child or day~are centers and k1ndergart~ns ~.\.. ~h¥ -32- (43) (44) ~ (4S) (46) (47) (48) (49) (SO) (Sl) (S2) (S3) (54) (5S) (56) (57) (58) (59) (60) (61) (62) (63) (64) (65) (66) ~ (67) I, ß) :l;. ,'P Sectir.n Offices, business and professional Office supply store Optome~rists sales and services Paint and wallpaper sales Pet shops Post office Photography studio Pha.rmacy Radio ~~d television broadcasting stu~ios and offices exclusive of towers Ra.dio, teIevísicn and Qther home entertainment sales and service Restaurants, not including drive-in establishments Savings and loan associations Self-service laundry e3tablishments Sewing ~achine sales, instruction, and service Specialty ::::hûps Sporting goods sales Shoe repair shop Tailoring æ1d dressmaking shops Taxidermy Telephone t·ooth Telephone exchanges TO:"1 stQre . Variety store One mcbile heme for an owner or ooerator of a business being conducted G~ the premises, subject to a mobile home permit from the B0ard of Supervisors (6/13/73). . Travel arranging and transportation ticket services (1/23/74) e~ ~ '.ç.~... Q~ ~æ.., Vf.µu¡~/au..~.fb.,f:,~tl-;U( ;~1fv:rn.¿. A.t,~.~--<.. ~¡;"/77) 17-2 Ac~e3sory usc& allowed. (1) Accessory u~~s allowed and as regulated in the R-40 District, unless previously allowed in Section 17-1. (1/23/74) (2) Other acce~30ry uses, not otherwise prohibited, customarily ~ccessory and incid2nt~1 to a~y permitted use. (3) Signs as re~u~ated in Section 24.2. (4) One d"\tTe11ing '.:r..i:::; for a.n owner or operator of the business being conducted on the premises. Section 17-3 Uses 2.l1':.~r~.~ by Conditional Use, subj ect to the provisions of Section 28--2. (1) Any cond1ti0nal use as allowed in the R-40 District, unless previously allowed in Section 17-1. (1/23/74) . (2) Jails, p~isonG~ road camps. (3) Commercial automobile parking (1/23/74) . (1.- ; H''¿^¡\/''i~-'\ (~\/!-~d'r:) -33- EXHIBIT B " -Sect~on 2 (B-1 Districts) OFFICES For those tracts designated in Exhibits C, D, F, and G, and Exhibits C-l, D-l, F-l and G-l as office and furth~Signated by tract numbers 732; 733; and 734 on Exhibits C, D, E-l, and D-l; 766 n Exhibits C, F, C-l, and F-l; . and 681 on Exhibits C, G, C-l and G- e uses shall. be as permitted by Article 17 of the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance, (except as herein after ~rovided). However, in order to further control the nature of the development, broaden employment opportunities, allow the optimum use of land, respect the natural environment, and~rovide more open space, the following modifications shall be made to the uses permitted and the requirements of Article 17 (use exceptions shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the land area in the B-1 Districts; where no specific modifications are made, 'the regulations of Article 17 shall apply as stated in the Zoning Ordinance): ARTICLE-17 Section 17~1 Uses Permitted . .\ (68) , (69) (70) (71) (72) ,(73) (74) (75) (76) (77) (78) (79) (80) (81) ¡,:~~ ,¡ ARTICLE 17 Section 17-5 (1)" . Automobile service station Contractors offices and display rooms Fraternal, philanthropic or other charitable uses Funeral homes or mortuaries Health clubs Laboratories and other research and development facilities'- Schools - commercial, trade, music, dance, business, vocational, .-' and training Recreational establishments, indoor and outdoor (related primarily to employees in the tract; such uses as handball courts, exercise rooms, tenn~s courts, etc.) Convention center or exposition hall Hotel, motel, or motor court Clubs, lodges, and grounds for games or sports Social, recreational, and community buildings Nursery schools, child or day care centers, and kindergartens Office warehouses when the warehouse area does not exceed 10,000 square feet V.e:kti'\ Additional R ~:~L~i-heðn~) . ired Conditions ~+ <'lo) ~ 191LR (4 ) The tracts shall be buffered from adjacent residential tracts by cornmon open space (not including street rights of way) which '100 r.( shall be maintained in a naturally wooded state for a ,.¡idth of;. 1., :, .:'J>~'-~ , at least thirty (30) feet, or ,.¡hich shall be maintained as a v';,:.).-¡, ,'S ,'" golf course or other non~oodeJL..~rea for a width of at least.£\ .¿ L!"I ¡ ~ .: fifty (50) feet. :--'Otñër than requirca-šëtõ"ãëKs-from public roads: " there shall be n@ miliM.,,,mn setback requirements from the boundaries of 'the tracts. 3D"' D~.~ -\.i'....,'H" ,-\-C\,-<,,, '-t,:.-.,,'1' ;', u~... i- ~_. -'. C'" -I ..... \ \......., . \.. - I¡ \.r.....,-' ... '- I 'ce, It...: Uses such as outdoor recreation facilities, outdoor restaurants. newspaper stands, etc. may be conducted out of doors, provided that no visl~al or other public nuisance shall be created. .. , ~ Quality C . onnectlon - -- Volume 3, Issue 3 ~rQ" ~ ·COr1lfr... Baldrige Criteria Training The Jùly issûe of County Comments features an arf.c¡e about the county's upd;;te,j Q:¡aiity System : enco!JI-age an empìoyees to take the tims to read 1~e article to stay informed. This updated Quaíìty System is base~~¡; triS 8a:driQ€ Criteria. Last menth, Baidriqe Criter;a training was p;'vided to the leadersh:p Gr(¡up,"d ¡<J the ir,j', viduals withir ne\v groups and teams U'at fCdTI1 71;8 Qua¡¡t¡ System, Department directors. 0¡"¡$;01'\ qua:íty counci! members and some departmer:: n':8my cow1dl members also received this training. The daylong training covered each c/ the caregories of the Baldrige Criteria: !eadersnip; strategic píanning: customer and market focus; measu'emelt, ana1ysi, and knowiedge management; human-resourre focus: process management and business resuits. \Ne were pleased to have two seasoned national Baldrlge eX:1m ¡oers deliver this training to our organization, There was a lot of information in this training and we w¡11 need further experience to fufiy understand all ¡h& relation- ships and how to integrate this into ()Ur::G:!ure. In the future, the School of Quality and Continuous Improvement Board wiH work to in:orpcrate these crite- ria into the quality classes. A time frame t'i8S not been established. but ¡ will keep you inf.:!rmed. The gcai is to provide the understanding of the Ba1drige Criteria to all who want to ¡eam. Leaming these criteria putS you in a good position to help the county achieve its highest levei of performance excellence, whiie r.eiping you achieve your personal career goals. 'Ne nave been \'ery successful at obtaining quaiity in our nrganization. We ~ow are trans¡tioning to the ne,,1 leve1, a systematic way of acnieving quaJit'l results. This çutcome will bs gcod for our customers, Jo L Rohr, Quality Coordinator July 2005 Pro.-rressive ThÌ11kin. "Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. " By Cindy Tavlor Ch('~tcrficld 'Cnh'er~ity GO\CfllIl1ctl! orgal1il.ati"n~ ,,I~11 ar~ ¡;riti,'izt:t\ for heing S].I\\ I.. dl'IIlg'" .lIld tim' iHing to cng;lg.. in il1l1m·atÎ",· prani"l:s. Par! of tlds llIa\ lIaH: 10 do \I illi .1 ""l1Ifort 1l:\d In doing Ihill~~ "I hI' \I .IY W;, .tI\\ al S ha\e." The quality- imprm'emcm model rhat Chc~tertìcld County fo1lows pro- vides us with tools and techniques to mm'e past this and provide innovatiYe senices. \'{,hat \\ ould tI\l' future h,' like if ell:~ thing r,'I1\¡lil1n tile same? Ry u~ing the Phm-Do-StHdy-Act ap- pr()~ch, employees can collect and analyze data rdated to thdr work prnce!';~es and envision how a process would be improved. This rrm'ides an antidott" to such l.-iJler phrases as "that wil1 never work," we've tried that beiore," and ''we can't do that." It's caned progressive thinking. Organizations that provide innova- tÌ\ e products or services use progres- si"e think¡n~ to get thcm business, and it's what keeps them in business. Cus(<ìn\ers c:-.ped Înno\'atíot! frol1l ¡heir local ~¡¡I'l~rnrn\:nt, too, To get (herl:, \H' sometime.; ne,'d to think "ou¡sidl' ¡h" ho"." By bench- marking with other organizations, locali- ties and private com- panies, Chesterfield County can Hnd new :tppro:l"hes and can begin to u!\e them in the work it does every day. LeMning new informal ion rl'mO\l:" ~"t1Il' "I' ! h,' h<lrrk~rs to progressive thinking. . Henry Ford Attention \Vritcrs tmd Artists: The QUdlity Connection Newsletter team weJcomes anyone who would like to volunteer their time and writ- ing or drawing skiJIs. [f you are interested in sharing your creativity to this new~letter, please give Jo Rohr a call at 751-4987. What is a Tal Facilitator, and why do we need them? When a department forms a learn to study a process and charges that team to make recommendations for improvements, a facilitator is used to gUide the team, The Quality Office maintains a list of county employees who have been trained and certified as TO! facilitators to meet those needs. A TOI facilit8tor is a county em- ployee who has been tramed in both the TQI tools and techniques needed to collect and analyze data and develop process improvements and the interper- sonal skills needed to manage the dy- namics of a team. To obtain such skills and knowledge, empioyeesare asked to complete the county's Tal Facilitator Certification requirements, An em- ployee must first graduate from the School of Quality and Continuous Im- provement The next step is to com- plete the following elective courses: SUlveys, Interviews and Focus Groups, Benchmarking and the Facilitator class. Participants also are asked to observe and assist with the Just Do It class as a fací!ítator, They also may shadow or Go-facilitate a team with an experienced facilitator. (See Facifitation on page 2) 2u.M.{ 'B¢"'~j t RtÑ\ 10 /l.ti /:}aM~ 220 Rural by Design: Maintaining Small Town Character at an upscale residential development known as The Fields of Long Grove, which received the 1988 "Best in American Living Award" from the Na- tional Association of Home Builders, Better Homes and Gardens, and Professional Builders. This project is further described in Chapter 20, "Residential Cases." Another region where this approach is currently being applied by many institutions and munici- palities is southeastern Pennsylvania, where the Brandywine Conservancy, the Brandywine Valley Association, and the Red Clay Vaney Association have been enthusiastic advocates for many years. One of the long-term goals of these groups is for all sewage treatment facilities in the Delaware River watershed to employ this technology, so that most of the wastewater produced in the region will be renovated and recyded on lands perma- nently dedicated to agricultural, recreational, or other open space uses. The objE.'Ctive is to make this watershed the first area in the country to at- tain the national goal of eliminating pollutant dis- charge into navigable waters. When applied to cropland, sprinklers in a wastewater renovation, reclamation, and reuse system administer the R'cycled water typically at a rate of 1/10 to 1/4 inch per hour, for 8 to 20 hours a week, but only when the soil temperature an inch below ground level is above 400 F, when soils are not wet, when it is not raining, and when wind speeds are low. Spray rates are typically adjusted by system operators, who monitor site conditions. In areas where the natural groundwater is high, horizontal site drainage must be designed to avoid surfacing of partially treated wastewater. Another more costly alternative is to install under- drains to keep the upper soil layers from becom- ing saturated from below. Wdl-engineered systems win also indude monitoring wells both upslope and downslope from the irrigation areas. Land treatment systems of these types have been installed in Itasca, Illinois; Northglenn, Col- orado; Pot Nets, Delaware (inland bays); and The Fields of Long Grove, Long Grove, Illinois. In Muskegon, Michigan, public officials rejected plans for a costly conventional treatment plant when the engineers admitted that it would only prevent further degradation of the quality of the water in Muskegon Lake, which was then almost as murky as pea soup. Since the installation of the innovative wastewater reclamation and reuse sys- tem (which contains underdrains because of high groundwater conditions), lake water has become dear again, with visibility down to 15 feet. For- merly unusable for recreation, the lake is now the second most popular location for the sale of three-day out-of-state fishing licences (Sheaffer and Sellers, 1994). Although less expensive to build than conventional treabnent plants, the Mus- kegon system is still more costly to create than many small rural communities could easily afford, unless the irrigation value of its treated effluent (about $150 per acre, per year) can be realized. When its relatively low annual operating costs arc taken into consideration, this system is less expen- sive than package treatment plants offering com- parable performance. This approach, and similar "land treatment" systems, are conceptually different from the others described in this chapter as they reusc, rather than dispose of, the wastewater generated by new de- velopment. The environmental engineers who design these systems view pollutants essentially as "usable resources out of place." As in "land appHcation,1I this approach provides nutrient-rich irrigation water, recharges groundwater, and en- ables development to be designed in a more com- pact manner to preserve fannland, scenic land- scapes, and the rural settings of historic properties. IMPLICATIONS OF PRIVATE SEWAGE FACILITIES Rising concern about the negative ('ff<'Cts of low- density rural sprawl causni by large-lot zoning ret)uirl'ments (v.;hich are thl'msdvl's a ("rude at- Il'mpt to achievf:> "pollution dilution"), and the presumed impacts on housing affordability, Il·d nine Massachusdts state agenÔ('s to evaluate tht., environment,11 impi'ld of al1o\'.rÎng mud1 widt'r use of small, privately owned sewagl' In'atnwnl fél('ilitie-s CPSTFs) in the Commonwealth. The PTOS- red of the slatl' signifkantly Hberalizing it!, hitb- eMu VCry consl'rvativt' positi¡.m n't~ardinr. nt''''' PSTFs literally struck fE."lf in tht' ¡",arts of m;my ~ municipal offida.ls who envisioned the ncw tech· nology acting as a "can opener," alIowin~ dcwl- opers to stl1xiividc large tracts of land that \....ere otherwise )e~al1v unbuildable under existing rt" quiremcnts for individual septic systems The nine agency sponsors hired engineering and planning consultants to collect and interpret the best available hard data and verbal information from a wide range of experienced practitioners and officials in Massachusetts and 11 other states. After a long series of public meetings, a prelimi- nary and a final "generic environmental impact report" (or "GEIR") were printed and distribut<.>d, in which all voiced concerns were addressed.. Acknowledging that some problems have Ix>en occasionally experienced. in other states, the spon- sors pointed. out that actual results logged by the several dozen PSTFs operating in Massachusetts were very n.'Spedable in tenns of BODs and TSS. This success was attributed. to the higher stan- dards set in Massachusetts for several measurable criteria of water quality and the introduction of an additional standard for total nitrogen rt.>duction. After reviewing all the data and listening to numerous public comments, the sponsors con- cluded that "there is no reasonable environmental public health basis for prohibiting PSTFs outright everywhere in a community" (Final GEIR, Nov. 1990). However, two classes of areas were identi- fied. as warranting restrictions on PSTFs. "Off- limits" areas would include flood ways, rare and endangered. species habitats, restricted wetlands, and "Zone I" of public drinking water supplies. Other environmentally sensitive areas require "spe- cial care" in permit review: l00~year floodplains, and land within one-half mile of public water sup- plies or adjacent to rarel endangered species hab- itats. Rather than continuing to rely upon archaic regulations on septic tank installation as a crutch to compensate for inadequate zoning, the spon- sors felt that towns should be encouraged. to link PSTF use with progressive land~use planning. PSTFs can be viewed. as a tremendously positive opportunity to implement real growth manage- ment, enabling village centers to become develop- ment nodes even if they have only relatively small areas of good soils. Development rights transfers Sewage Disposal 221 {TORs> could also be implemented to protect rural farmland, scenic vistas, and outlying habitat from low-density sprawl development on septic sys- tems, by deflecting that growth to revitalized vil- lage centers outfitted with PSTFs. In comments submitted to the sponsors, the Center for Rural Massachusetts strongly urged that permits for PSTFs be tied to a requirement that the resulting development be dl.'Signed in such a way that significant open space would be preservt..>d as a consequence. In addition to TORs, the use of compulsory open space subdivision de- sign techniques was also urged to accomplish this goal. It was widely felt that PSTFs should not be allowed. to become a technological solution enabl- ing developers to subdivide otherwise mostly un- buildable land in the conventional checkerboard. fashion, with little or no open space provision (other than wetlands or steep slopes). The only remaining issue is not a technical but an administrative or legal one: Massachusetts laws will need to be amended to ensure long-term enforceability of state health regulations against multiple-ownership entities, such as homeowners' associations. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has identified. six condi- tions it feels are nect..'Ssary to guarantee account~ ability for jointly owned PSTFs. ßcç¡mse this isstlc .fœq.y.~l]th:,".Misr.~j!l..miE2x_pth('r states, and b(·· ~jU~J¡!.l.ú1Dd¡)melltt1lIy important. these con- ..diliQn~, m:eJist~.9 below. 1. To ensure that a single entity, fundamentally identical to the users of the facility, is responsi- ble for the operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the facility 2. To ensure that all the users share the finanàal and operational responsibilities the above ob- ligations entail, that record. notice of the respon- sibilities is given to all prospective purchasers, and that no user can avoid these responsibilities 3. To ensure that the entity has the authority to institute a user-charge system capable of gener- ating adequate revenues 4. To ensure that the entity maintains a "ready fund" to finance emergency repairs and a "cap- ital fund" adequate to replace the system and key components at the end of their useful lives 222 Rural by Design: Maintaining Small Town Character ), 5. To ensure that the entity could not alter these arrangements without prior written approvaJ of the Massachusetts Department of Environmen- tal Protection 6. To ensure that the entity owns or has a legal easement to the land on which the PSTF is situated In North Carolina, the state Department of En~ vironment, Health, and Natural Resources com- prehensively addressed. issues of operation and maintenance relating to large septic systems in 1991 amendments to its Laws and Rules for Sani- tary Sewage Collection, Treatment, and Disposal (1SA NCAC 18A .1900). For example, septic systems handling more than 3,000 GPD (about 12 dwell- ings) are classified by the state as "Type V/' and are rt.'quired to obtain an operating pennit from the state, which is reviewed annually. All system owners must aJso contract with" certified manage- ment entities," which are required to inspect the facilities regularly and to report their findings regarding certain variables to the local health de- partment at specific frequency intervals. Required inspection frequencies vary from monthly for sys- tems handling between 3,000 and 10,000 GPD, to weekly for larger systems. Reports must be filed every six months. In Pennsylvania, state officials require munici- pal governments to be co-permittees of all new community septic systems, as a way of ensuring that there will always be a responsible authority to perform repairs promptly in the event of a system failure. In J:>elaware, "trust indentures" assign sys- tem responsibility to a chain of governmental bod- ies, from municipalities to counties to state agencies. SEPTIC SYSTEM DESIGN INNOVATION In Maine, a fn.>sh approach to subsurface septic disposal system design has relevance to other rural areas where the majority of soils are rated poor to very poor for this purpose. In that north- ern state, 81 percent of the mapped land acreage is classified into these two categories on the basis of slow permeability, shallow bedrock or restrictive hardpan, or seasonally high water tables. After extensive fieldchccking in the early 19705, that state's health engineering officials found per- colation testing to be unreliable under the above- described conditions. Many unsuitable areas had been (in effect) iIlegal1y developed with conven- tional systems that were not designed to com- pensate for the difficult soil conditions, and these ultimately experienced high failure rates. As a result, Maine's site evaluation methods and sys- tem design criteria were extensively revised in 1974. After the new rules had been in effect for a decade, state officials reviewed the track re<:ords of the 64,000 new systems and found that failure rates had decreased dramatically, to 0.1 percent, 1.0 percent, and 5.0 percent for systems in place for one, five, and ten years respectively (Hoxie and Trick, 1984). Newer design techniques, using concrete chambers over disposal beds/ posted the same success rate even though their bed areas covered only half the land area required for con- ventional systems. Another significant finding was that decreasing the required vertical separation distance between the bottom of the disposal bed and the bedrock, hardpan, or seasonal high water table from 48 inches to 24 inches may not adversely affect sys- tem performance. It has long been documented in the engineering field that nearly all the bacterial treatment of septic wastes occurs in the first 12 inches of soil around and under disposal beds, by soil adsorption, so that the bacterial population that is found more than a foot below the bottom of the bed is "about the level of the population in the control soil" (USEPA, Sept. 1978). In addition to using concrete chambers to re- duce bed area and the minimum required vertical separation distances, Maine authorities also aban- doned percolation testing in favor of pits dug 48-inches deep (or until bedrock is encountered), into which "licensed site evaluators" enter to determine the depth of the seasonal high water table. These evaluators are trained, examined, and licensed to make such determinations based upon visual and tactile inspections of factors such as soil texmre, color, and rooting depth. Soil is then classified according to three categories of depth to bedrock, four categories of depth to seasonal high water, and eleven soil profiles based on textural 1 differences at various depths. Although more complex than pouring water into a hole and tim- ing its seepage into the earth, Maine's test pit evaluations have proven to be a very effective way of determining a soil's ability to filter and treat septic effluent. Such testing has the additional advantage of being able to be performed at any time of the year when the land is accessible (while many jurisdictions limit "pere" testing to a 6 to 8-week period in the spring). CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS The use of artificial wetlands for domestic waste- water treatment is gaining wider acceptance as experimental systems around the country are be- ing refined. No fewer than 120 such systems were installed at individual homesites in Kentucky dur~ ing 1991. Other states where this technique is being applied, at least on a trial basis, include Virginia, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Ala- bama, and Colorado. Seen as a supplement rather than as a substitute, constructed wetlands are being designed as intermediate components pro- viding further treatment of septic tank effluent before it is conducted to drainage fields. Based on standards developed by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), these systems typically outperform conventional designs in the reduction of solids and biological oxygen demand (Schutz, 1992). Depending on their design, all or some of the effluent they produce is still disposed of in filtration fields, but its finer quality reduces the risk of soil clogging (and also makes artificial wetlands very suitable as replacements for failed conventional systems located on marginal soils). The newer designs for constructed wetlands for individual homes are typically shaped like volley- ball courts 300 square feet in area, with plastic membrane liners and 12 or more inches of gravel on which cattails and bullrushes are planted. In the dense mat formed by their roots, biological, physical, and chemical processes occur, purifying the wastewater. In the new TV A model, a second cell contains gravel topped with layers of loam and mulch, in which ornamental wetland species such as iris, arrowhead, and elephant ear are planted. Sewage Disposal 223 In addition to their use in residential applica- tions, such wetlands are beginning to playa role in treating agricultural animal wastes, such as milk-house wastes and effluent from animal waste treatment lagoons and aquaculture ponds. Cost sharing in this experimental program is available to farmers from the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service of the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture. ALTERNATIVE SEWER SYSTEMS A novel idea for simplifying sewer design could achieve significant cost savings for private central- ized and municipal sewage systems. Called "sep- lic tank effluent drains," this approach has been widely used in South Australia since 1%1. Briefly stated, effluent drains are small-diameter gravity IinL"S that can potentially be installed in- expensively with simple trenching machines. As their name implies, they conduct liquid effluent from septic tanks, which collect the settleable solid wastes (that must be pumped out periodically). The fact that effluent drains carry no solids, grease, or grit allows them to be designed with smaller bores and to be installed without a continuously downward-sloping gradient, as minimum flow velocity normally needed for self-cleansing is not necessary. According to the USEPA, "Excavation costs could be reduced substantially since these drains could follow t~ natural topography more closely than conventional sewers and avoid most obstructions within their intended path" (Otis, 1983). Five other advantages also characterize these innovative systems, as described by Otis: 1. Material costs are lower because septic tanks absorbing surges from peak flow periods allow pipes to be downsized (to 2 inches), and man- holes may be replaced by less expensive dean- outs or flushing points. 2. Operation and maintenance costs are lower because unskilled labor can perform the few nec- essary tasks of septic tank pumping and drain flushing. 3. Compared with conventional sewers, ground- water infiltration is lessened because the drains are smaller in diameter and can be installed at shallower depths. 224 Rural by Design: Maintaining Small Town Character 4. With no solid wastes to push along, mini- mum flows are not required, and much less wastewater is therefore needed, reducing loads on the treatment facility and avoiding concerns that wide use of water-saving devices or fix- tures could create blockages in the lines. 5. Treatment plants can be built more simply as it is not necessary to provide screening, grit removal or, sometimes, even primary sedimen- tation, as settleable solids are collected in septic tanks at each dwelling. Construction costs of effluent drains can range up to 50 percent lower than conventional sewers. However, dt.'Spite thrt..'C decades of very successful use in South Australia, officials in the United Stak's have generally not pennitted effluent drains to vary substantiaHy from the design of conventional sewers, citing "uncertainty in their long-term per- fonnance" {!} (Otis, ]983). The USEPA reports, however, that an effluent drain system installed in Westboro, Wisconsin, in 1977, serving 200 people with 85 connections, "has had an excellent record of operation, only requiring pumping of septic tanks every three years" (Kf(~issl, 1984). When these innovative systems are allowed to be desigm.>d k'Ss elaborately, more in line with the actual character of the liquid effluent they convey, significant savings will become possible. This is bt.'Cause drainage pipes typically absorb 60 per- cent to 80 pert"ent of the total construction budgets for new sewag(' collection and treatment facilities. Because of their lower residential density, the average length of sewer pipe per user in small rural communities can be up to five times greater than the national average 05 f('Ct), meaning that savings in piping could dramatically n..'CIucc total project costs in such placL'S (Otis, 1983). The potential for retrofitting existing villages experiencing widt.'Spread septic system failure, and encouraging compactly designed village ex- tt.'nsions (based on historic settlement patterns), offers new opportunitk'S to cn'ative planners, en- terprising d('velopers, and alert officials. When combined with "open space development design" (desc.Tibed in Chapters 14 and 15), effluent drains can help rt.'Solvc current sewage disposal prob- lems, promotc traditional neighborhood design, preserve open space, and lower costs (through less expensive facilities and expanded user popula- tions, among whom costs would be shared). Effluent treatment net..'CI not be restricted to con- ventional plants, but may occur though a variety of alternative facilities described in this chapter, including large soil absorption systems, contour systems, land treatment (or "spray irrigation"), and water reclamation/re-use systems. Some of these systems already utilize alternative waste- water collection technology, such as low pressure sewers (minimum 2-inch diameter, with grinder pumps) and mCllum Sf"Wers (minimum 3-inch dia- meter, with pneumatic valves at each connection). However, with virtually no mechanical compo- nents. effluent drains are simpler and less expen- sive, although they are limited to locations where very modL'st gravity flow is physically possible. Neverthelt,ss, low-pressure and vacuum systems have generally performed well. and also represent a viable engineering alternative to conventional sewer construction (Krdssl, 1984). WASTEWATER VOLUME REDUCTION TTl'atment system size, cost, and land require- ments can be reduced through ,I variety of simple techniques that lessen the volume of wastewater that is generated. This can be ('Specially important in locations where the areal extent of soBs suitable for subsurface disposal is rather limited, owing to generally unfavorable site conditions. four broad approaches arc described below: diminating un- necessary water consumption, installing water- saving devices, recycling water for rt'-use, and E'mploying waterless toilets. Most households waste watl'!' on a daily basis, somt' much more than others. Examples of "non- functional water use" include flushing cigarette butts, running dishwash('rs half fuJI, and allowing the taps to run while brushing teeth or shaving. Surprisingly. a steadily dripping faucet could dou- ble the water consumption of a typical family of four, wasting as much as several hundred gallons per day (Schmidt, Boyle (,t aI., 1980). Leaking toilets and "sweeping" asphalt driveways with garden hoses art.' other common sources of waste. ..... Achievable n.>ductions in water use range from 4 to 8 percent for "dams" or plastic bottles in- serted into toilet tanks; 6 to 10 percent for low- flush toilets; and 6 to 15 percent for gadgets that convert conventiondl toileh; into "dual-flush" toi- lets (making it possible for users to sek'Ct a "low- flush" mode for liquid wastes). Flow restrktors and reduced-flow shower heads can cut normal 4 to 10 gallon per minute usage to 1.5 to 3-gallons per minute. Wide variations exist in the water consumption of different clothes washers. Front-loading models can save 40 percent, and even greater reductions can be achieved in models that store and reuse the soapy wash-cycle water (fn.>sh water is, of course, still used for rinsing). Water recycling has been taken much farther in home systems that reuse sink, bath, shower, and laundry water for toilet flushing, and sometimes for lawn irrigation, too. These systems typically involve storage tanks, filters, and chemicals. In addition, unnL'Ct.'ssary strains on wastewater treatment systems can be avoided by improved user habits, such as not flushing disposable dia- pers or sanitary napkins, not washing cooking fats or grease down the sink, and not using garbage disposals (which add significant quantities of BODs and suspendL>d solids, increasing sludge and scum accumulation (Schmidt et ai., 1980). Much has been written about "waterless" toilets (sometimes called "biological" or "composting" S£'U7(lge Disposal 225 toilets). Originally designed for use in seasonal cabins in Scandinavia, these units have had to be extensively redesigned for year-round household usage there and elsewhere. Most modern units utilizc ventilation fans, electric hcating elements, and mechanical mixers to speed the evaporation of liquid wastes and to promote bacterial action and biological decomposition. Because liquids account for 90 percent of total human body wastes, the importance of heaters and fans in evaporating this moisture cannot be un- derestimatL>d. These heaters and fans add signifi- cantly to operating costs, as they typically consume about 6 kWh daily in households of five peoplt.~ (Kreiss!, 1986). lk'Cause of their high operating costs, high capital costs (starting at $1,(00), the need to empty humus residm$ every 3 to 4 months, and their limih.'Cl capacity to deal with overload situations during social occasions, such unit" will probably not enjoy widespæad popularity. Another drawback is homeowners' continued m..'t.'Cl to treat their greywatcr adequately. Grcy- water typically comprises two-thirds of total house- hold wastewater and contains pathogens (Kreissl, 1986). Field studies conducted for the USEPA in- dicatc that standard septic tanks and soil absorp- tion systcms still offer the most reliable method of greywater treatment. Most of thc alternative meth- ods of dealing with greywatcr have "faik>d to per- form their functions successfully" Œnfcradi et aL, 1986). COMMUNITY BUIlOOUT . Existing Concltioos COMMUNITY BUllDOUT . land Preservation District Encouraging OI'ell Span' Design 239 COMMUNITY BUllDOUT . Conventional 2 Acre lotting Figure 14-6. These three sketches, prepared by the Montgomery County (Pennsylvania) Planning Department, show a rural neighborhood and two alternative future scenarios. One is to become blanketed with wall-to-wall subdivisions, each consisting of a checkerboard of house lots and streets. Another is to preserve large blocks of land, with many open spaces adjoining one another, through cluster designs on each parcel. Source: Prepared by Montgomery County Planning Commission, October, 1990. 92 Rural by Desigll: Maintaining Small Town Character Figure 7-1. Aerid.l view of existing situation. 94 Rural by Design: Maintaining Small Town Character Figure 1-2. Aerial view after conventional dewlopmenL Evolution from Village to Town in a Typical Inland Site 97 Figure 7-3. Aerial view after creative development.