Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198200066 Application 1982-10-25 $20. Permit Fee v?() Application To. 'fir � - o(t) Sign Erected By: Cl�,� L< � Staff:_ — �� APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Nted P a /m40 SL Zoning ng Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596 County of Albemarle 296-5832 Date of Application d c}(3 k Z , 19 . OWNER OF PROPERTY OCCUPANT (If other than owner) Nape: W -bu.xf'er-) Name: Address: { () Address: Telephone: - (dj cC) Telephone: Location of Property: ( cj r- Hl I Y4..,) (LoCtF(1 4n 4- no -::Bi A e (n I ) (0Po NO( Tax Map Parcel 1 Ej Acreage '6O, IC Existing Zoning 4t- District ' \ as_ (\; - ! Existing Use: ►( q\4) Variance sought (describe briefly relief sought) : (1 4 (c1,^' t a c i 30.5.(0, 0- ,- Q Alhui.aP a c ,..KIA_.\ /ViAi-R O r- o 1 rn Q AhAnAro , f111, I hereby certify that the foregoing information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I an the owner named above. ),,W.\\1\o'NCY Applicant Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Zoning Administrator has/has not rendered a decision. If so, state substance of decision: Date of Hearing: Final Decision Made: /J(y. /712. The variance sought was approved with the following conditions: /rtdrve-44 SP trVa%Liti ale -4100 0.1ti 046-) V- Special Use Permit# BOARD OF ZOTG APPEALS Sim Permit f 1 �y�!Y°� J /�/�'/ �,a �� // 7d, Date Building Permit, 1 I r f Y.,r ., M M` #-' l k^ rffirt r :a: spa. a . ,,.. "'t"" � �� �' -,ems °t , 'hs�` W Ada 5 ''e•�F�� f T t a*'r mom' ., 3 G '1 4 a \ K. Pt k ill 5, v. l 2...,..1 1 \' It tiT 4...,.., z , (4 I .' rt \e. �rj J_Ys et It% th 144 (At 1 i C4I .0114.' tr r. �. Z 'h9 1 .N. 2 AF /! 7! S a. 1 S Pr /2 47 G o Pf j 1ti, . N ,,. E � ; - �c` n o n R 1 � -f n ; f b �. a n 4 b 1 .4 i ' b e k� t rlin ' t H 3° Q t Z Ni.. bi �` N ��; & s r e4 IN to t p tY, ,E p ; 3 t� 1� I /' F • Jy F 3,io4 A s • • N. `rr '4 1. b+ ��:....,mt. p Al w • S 4a%in,S3 • �� f 0 (� r; _ C • < `ESL - lua a a ` R >. 5 Z 7 Lr �' s .44 MBta� ®� Tr't 57�•wIoct � - a,. _ �... .��-. ;. _ a;l ,"mow-. .. - , ..,, ia--- . __ A,„7„1. 4. ,(0,,,,,- { n ,. ( ,r 74 r* '4-., . ;... * f -`a�^� l CiCrf�Glyg�Q a ,1 1,41 4—.7.t'Pe' 5."-S-..'. ' , _ , I '' ',:-* �'�N TrW 6,d �' • ',k :- r die ,J�'2.Z.t" 1 a a' _ ` i .,.;r Y '. :. < ALBEMARLE 'COUN-v Nose 13 // \. __� ( \ / �`~ I 1! )..s / \ I 1\ I , / \ \ A I .------- ---1 // i ' ..„...,. ----------\.N.,-.....-1---- / • --...........f.... ee \ \ ---.2..., 24•2 -\ 1...._.......--.--..-.-...\, / \ X ` I /\ 7 \ \ \ . I) , . \ _ - 1 • i 1 25 �. .,,_ ,.2 27 �•) < � � ) � J \,7 . 26 1N - ( (1/ \ i i 47.... r• ------ . / 24 v - '�/ f.\ 7/ -• > a _ - - ,Icon t_'°TL*+u,[' Nlr ilia/ j/ 7-•23 1 / 2s 1a i r .... Rt. 6! n 4 �-� 22e � i / /1/ / i \---‹ o zzA ./�\ a zl I N '''"vr\/ Vilbl. 8 0 I .42` ID 4111 � 11A .a. /// v .� i" Ali is is 9X 2P I i 12 � 7 \ \ / I I C Iil Sitei . 39- l ��p / �14A \.26 II �` wo SCALE IN FEET I ... . .. �, ... WHITE HALL DISTRICT SECTION 25 e 1\1%45 Parcel I b i awe —012' REVISED STAFF REPORT June 28, 1983 SP-83-18 Dr. and Mrs. W. D. Buxton Reauest: Convert a concrete ford to a low-water culvert bridge in floodway of the Moormans River in accordance with Sections 30 . 3.5. 2.1 of the Flood Hazard Overlay District and 30. 5 . 5. 2.6 of the Scenic Areas Overlay District. Location: Property to be served by this bridge consists of 80.10 acres, zoned Rural Areas RA, described as County Tax Mao 25, Parcel 18. Property is north of Route 614 , about 4 ,000 feet west of Route 674 in the Sugar Hollow area. Character of the Area The Moormans River is the only stream in the County to receive scenic designation to date. Public use of the Mcoiinans River in this area includes fishing and swimming. The river is passable at times of high flow by kayak and canoe. This property is currently served by a concrete ford rising slightly above the river bottom. A suspension foot bridge is upstream and L cable and fence are downstream of the bridge site. Applicant's Proposal The applicant proposes conversion of the existing concrete ford to a low-water bridge. As currently designed the bridge would contain eleven 20 inch diameter culverts , however, it appears that additional culverts may be necessary to traverse the channel. The bridge would rise 21 to 31/2 feet above the river bed, and would be 111 feet in width and approximately 60 feet in length. Intent of Scenic Areas and Flood Hazard Overlay Districts : Th Scenic Areas district is intended to "conserve elements of the County' s scenic beauty as are contained along scenic waterways and scenic highways " . Obviously, much of the experience of a scenic stream is its usage for boating, fishing and the like. It should be noted that many properties in the area are posted against trespass . The bridge would be briefly visible to travelers on the public road, and would be visible to stream users when not overtopped. The aesthetics of the structure , in staff opinion, are a subjective matter for consideration by the Board. Should redesign of the bridge be necessary for other purposes , the applicant may wish to consider a more rustic treatment in keeoina with the natural setting (i.e. - facing bridge sides with river stone as opposed to finished concrete; use of half culverts to provide arched design) . w STAFF REPORT June 28, 1983 SP-83-18 Dr.' and Mrs. W. D. Buxton Page 2 The Flood Hazard District is intended "for the purpose of providing safety and protection from flooding" . This zoning district is designed to prevent unwise encroachment into flood-prone areas and does not _directly address access of property at time of flooding. From dis- cussion with the County Engineer, it appears that engineering determi- nation as to the effects of the bridge in regard to the stream are complicated by the characteristics of the Moormans in this area. Thorough evaluation may require additional field work and information (i.e. - stream channel cross sections and profile) . , ,e Sic , '30.3 . . 4 . i Comprehensive Plan: Since the Moormans River is both on a scenic stream and water supply tributary, the Comprehensive Plan contains a number of applicable standards in Chapter 10 Comprehensive Plan Standards. Complete text for "Water Supply Watershed" and "Rivers and Streams" standards are attached to this report. A recommended condition of approval of this petition is County Engineer and Water- shed Management Official approval of plans and program of construction reflective of Comprehensive Plan standards for "Rivers and Streams" and "Water Supply Watersheds" . Due to the relative small scale of this project, the Watershed Management Official has indicated willing- ness to provide guidelines to the applicant as opposed to requiring the applicant to submit proposals . Relevant Provisions of the Code of Virginia: The Scenic Areas district cites 5 chapters of Title 62. 1 of the Code of Virginia specifically and also refers to all other applicable State and Federal law. j Sections 62. 1-1 and 62. 1-3 of the Code state in part that the beds of all watercourses "not conveyed by special grant or compact accord- ing to law, shall continue and remain the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia" and that to "build, dump, or trespass" onto state-owned beds is unlawful unless permitted "pursuant to statutory authority or a permit by the Marine Resources Commission" . In the case of SP-77-45 Dr. Charles W. Hurt, the Marine Resources Commission required the applicant to provide verification of ownership. Planning Department files show that, at one time or another, the following agencies were involved and/or consulted in review of SP-77-45 Dr. Charles W. Hurt and SP-82-7 C. H. and Josephine Atkins : • Virginia State Water Control Board • Virginia Marine Resources Commission • United States Army Corps of Engineers • Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries • Virginia Department of Health • Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission • Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation • Federal Fish and Wildlife Service • National Marine Fisheries Service STAFF REPORT June 28 , 1983 SP-83-18 Dr: and Mrs . W. D. Buxton Page 3 The extent of involvement, if any, of these agencies in this current request is unknown, however, as can be seen from this history, the State and Federal review and approval process may prove time consuming and expensive. From past applicantions , it appears that the State Water Control Board and Virginia Marine Resources Commission are key contact agencies which function in a "clearinghouse" manner for other agencies. A recommended condition of approval of this petition is "review and approval of all appropriate local , state and federal agencies", before issuance of the special use permit and bridge construction. The Board may wish to consider substitution of "favorable comment" for "approval" in this condition to avoid extensive delay to the applicant. The applicant has been provided with application materials to the State Water Control Board. Staff Recommendation Section 30.5.5. 2 (d) 6 contains 7 criteria for review of this petition. Following the Planning Commission public hearing on this petition, members of the Engineering and Planning staffs met with the applicant on-site in an effort to provide more detailed information regarding these criteria. Comment by the Engineering Department is provided in the attached memo to Ron Keeler from Maynard Elrod and Tom Muncaster, dated June 29 , 1983. Other comment is as follows : 30.5 .5 . 2 (d) 6 Bridges, causeways and other similar structures designed for pedestrian and/or vehicular access ; provided that the Board of Supervisors shall find, by clear and convincing evidence, in addition to the findings required by section 31. 2. 4.1 that: (a) such bridge-or other structure is to be located at the site of an existing bridge, ford or other stream crossing; The proposed bridge would be located on the existing concrete ford. (b) such existing crossing is regularly used, and such bridge or other structure is to be used, as to the sole means of .access to one or more existing, law ' fully occupied dwellings ; Y STAFF REPORT June 28, 1983 SP-83-18 Dr. and Mrs. W. D. Buxton Page 4 The property was purchased by the applicant in 1961. The property received occasional residential usage until 1982 when it became the applicant's permanent residence. A second dwelling has recently been constructed. (c) no alternative means of access to such dwellings is physically practicable; The applicant has stated that unsuccessful attempts have been made to obtain alternative access . The County Engineer has recommended that the only practical access is at the existing ford (See attached memo) . (d) no such alternative means of access has been abandoned, aliened or otherwise relinquished by the voluntary act or omission of the owner of the land upon which sect dwellings are located since December 10 , 1980; The applicants have stated that they have never enjoyed other accss to the property. (e) such bridge or other structure is necessary to prevent, eliminate or substantially alleviate a hazard to the life or property of any resident of the County; The applicants in a recent letter to the Planning Department stated that: "Our own observations over the twenty-odd years we have been here, would indicate that a 24" to 30" raise above the present ford would make it possible for us as well as safety vehicles to cross the river most of the year. There would be times when Route 614 etc. is under water, but I cannot estimate that in days per year. Perhaps 4 or 5 times in 20 years?" (f) such bridge or other structure is so designed as to pose the minimum practical disruption of the environ- ment of the stream consistent with the other Provisions hereof; and As stated earlier, Recommended Condition 1 addresses this issue requiring "County Engineer and Watershed Management Official approval of, plans and program of construction reflective of Comprehensive Plan standards for Rivers and Streams and Watersupply Watersheds . " (g) such bridge or other structure shall comply with all. applicable State and Federal law including, but not limited to, Chapters 3. 5 , 7, 8,9 and 20 Title 62 .1 of the Code of Virginia (1950) , as amended, to the extent that any or all of the same may be applicable in a particular case. STAFF REPORT June 28, 1983 SP-83-18 Dr.. and Mrs. W. D. Buxton Page 5 Section 62.1-194 . 2 of the Code of Virginia states in part that it shall be unlawful for any person to "make or cause to be made any obstruction which exists for more than a week (excepting a lawfully constructed dam) in, under, over or across any river, creek, stream, or swamp so as to obstruct the free passage of boats, canoes, or other floating vessels , or fish in such waters". Recommended Condition 2 addresses this issue by requiring "County Engineer approval of bridge modification consistent with 62. 1-194. 2 of the Code of Virginia, if necessary" . Extensive discussion of the relationship of canoeing and the proposed bridge is provided in the County Engineer's memo. • • • • q'SVF,W;VAVE1) JUN 29 1983 PLANNING ,DEPT. BY TO: RON KEELER, ASS WANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING FROM: TOM MUNCASTE MAYNARD ELROD RE: CANOEING THE UPPER MOORMANS RIVER DATE: 6/29/83 The following are our comments regarding SF 83-18: Condition 30 . 5. 2 (d) 6,c We have walked the site with Mrs. Buxton and examined the U. S. G. S. and tax maps of the region. No practical alternate exists to the north because of a steep 900 foot high mountain. None exists to the west (upstream) because of the distance involved (3000 feet) . There is a physical possibility of an access to the east (downstream) , however, that access would have to pass between an existing home and a steep embankment. The area between . the home and the embankment is about 30 feet and the landowner will not give his permission for a driveway that close to the home. The only practical access is to the south as the Buxton' s propose. I Condition _0. 5. 5. ' (d) 6,f The three major canoeing guidebooks for this area all mention the upper Moormans. Randy Carter wrote the original whitewater "bible" , Canoeing White Water River Guide, in 1967. On page 112 of the eighth edition he says, "For some real thrills (with hither water) , put-in along the road which goes to the Charlottesville Reservoir above Route 810. . . Use all safety precautions and then some ! " Randy Carter paddled open boats and is best known for his gaging system found on bridge abutments throughout the .state. Burmei ster' s Annal a.ch i an Waters . 4: The Southeastern Rivers recommends this stretch of river only to experienced paddlers equipped with decked boats probably because he rates the rapids up to Class 4. He says boats can be put in 1/5 mile below the Sugar Hollow Dam when water levels are "high-plus" , which he describes as bankfull . He goes on to say that these favorable conditions are normally found from the end of March through the first two weeks of April . Virginia. White Water by Roger Corbett is currently THE canoeing - 1 - r.r guide for the state. Corbett recommends putting in well above the final bridge before the dam. "Then prepare for an exciting Class 3 downstream dash through immovable slalom gates (trees) , . over flexible obstacles (bushes) , and under country guillotines (wire fences) ; then you are ready for rock gardens, quick turns, low hanging trees, small ledges, and narrow passages. Sheer delight, except for one moment of sheer (but unwarranted) terror. If you make the trip, you will recognize that spot; make an eddy turn and set up below that point to see the expressions on the faces of the following canoeists. The upper part of the Moormans River is best for open boaters who can and will jump out and hold their canoes. . . This is no place to be swept into trees or fences that wait for the hesitant, the unskilled, or the benumbed. " My personal experience includes many trips on the, Moormans below Route 810, but never above. There are Randy Carter gages on the Moormans at Whitehall (Route 810 bridge) and Millington (Route 671 ) and the Doyles River (Route 674) which enable one to determine whether or not the stream is canoeable. In my experience the Millington gage is most accurate for this stretch, that is, "zero" is the minimum canoeable depth. Several years ago I grew tired of driving all the way out to Millington only to find there wasn't enough water to paddle, so I decided to find a better way. A gage was installed on the Moormans just upstream of Free Union Road (Route 601 ) October 1 , 1979, so by noting the discharge and whether or not the stream was canoeable a minimum discharge could be determined. I knew from experience that 200 cfs was minimum on the Rivanna River, therefore a narrower stream would certainly be less. It turned out that 165 cfs is the minimum canoeable discharge on the Moormans River below Route 810. It should be noted that parts of • the stream may be paddled at lesser flows, but some walking will definitely be required. Rapids, the reason everyone paddles, are the first parts of a stream to not be canoeable at low flows. Also, since the Moormans proper is the topic of discussion, it should be mentioned that time after time when the Moormans is passable there is not enough water in the Moormans at Route 810, putin must be on the Doyles River at Route 674. Knowing the minimum canoeable discharge on the Moormans I did a linear regression analysis between the Moormans and Palmyra gages. Using the 366 data points for the 1980 Water Year a correlation coefficient of 0. 885 was determined. This meant I could call the Palmyra gage, a telemark, and get a reasonable estimate as to whether or not the Moormans was canoeable. The system has worked quite well even without considering the influence of the Sugar Hollow Dam or South Fork Rivanna Dam. I also tried to correlate rain events with canoeability, but was unsuccessful . Given the fact that 165 cfs is required below Route 810 a reasonable estimate for the' smaller stream above - n _ Route 810 would be about 150 cfs. } The next question is how much of the time does the Moormans River above Route 810 exceed 150 cfs? The Water Control Board compiles flow duration curves for the state' s streamflow gaging system. The closest gage with a meaningful period of record is the Palmyra gage. It may stretching things to compare flows from Palmyra' s 664 mile watershed to the approximately 20 square miles at the Buxton' s, but in lieu of a better analysis, it is a reasonable method to extrapolate the percent of time the flow exceeds 150 cfs. SCS Hydrology Manual methodology was used as a first cut to relate discharge and drainage area. Actual data using the Moormans, South Rivanna and Palmyra gages did not compare well with this technique. Instead of the discharge per square mile increasing on the way up the watershed, cfs/square mile remained almost constant. 150 cfs/20 square miles at the Buxton' s corresponds to 4980 cfs at Palmyra. The Water Control Board' s flow duration curves indicate this flow can be expected to be exceeded 1 . 07.. of the time. That is, on the long term, it is estimated that the mean daily flow for the Moormans. River above Route 810 will be adequate for canoeing 3-4 days a year. This data compares very favorably with a similar analysis done using the South Fork Rivanna gage near Earlysville which is no longer in service. It should be repeated that this analysis was done for mean daily flows and there will be other days with transient flows above the canoeable minimum. Also, the discharge is influenced by the Sugar Hollow Dam and its operation obviously would have a considerable impact. Besides looking at the long term number of days of canoeabi l ty it might be constructive to look at a couple years of actual flow_. The Moormans gage is the closest and it has two years of published data available. 150 cfs/20 square miles corresponds to 560 cfs at the Moormans gage. In Water Year 1980 (October 1 , 1979 to September 30, 1980) this mean daily flow was exceeded 10 times, in other words, it is estimated the stream was canoeable 10 times. Water Year 1981 did not appear to be canoeable at all , Based on 48 years of data the Palmyra gage average flow is 717 cfs which means Water Year 1980 (9=0 cfs mean) was a wet year and 1981 (241 cfs mean) a dry year. The above discussion indicates that the existing site would be canoeable 7-4 days per year normally, not at all in "dry years" and on the order of 10 days during "wet years" . The exact effect • of the proposed structure is not easy to determine by analytical methods because of the turbulence that the stream would exhibit at the one to three foot depths of flow. The question at this point is how necessary is it to determine the effect of the structure on the canoeabil. ity of the stream if the stream is only canoeable 3 to 10 times a year without the structure? Also, we are concerned that such an analysis could be rendered useless if a large storm occured and changed the stream topography. r • Other than the canoeability question we feel that the structure as designed (with some minor changes) will not pose any erosion, ponding or siltation problems that would adversely affect the stream. Condition 3O. 5. 0. 2(d) Sig The Buxtons or their engineer will have to apply to the SWCB who will process a joint (local-state-federal ) review. A copy of the permit application has been furnished to the Buxtons. • I • • • • • 1 • - 4 - STAFF REPORT t9ee PeJ (gel '" 4 ' 28'—(; June 21, 1983 SP-83-18 Dr. and Mrs. W. D. Buxton • Request: Convert a concrete ford to a low-water culvert bridge in floodway of the Moormans River in accordance with Sections 30 . 3.5.2. 1 of the Flood Hazard Overlay District. and 30 .5. 5. 2.6 of the Scenic Areas Overlay District. Location: Property to be served by this bridge consists of 80.10 acres, zoned Rural Areas RA, described as County Taxi Map 25 , Parcel 18. Property is north of Route 614, abou 4,000 feet west of Route 674 in the Sugar Hollow area. Character of the Area The Moormans River is the only stream in the County to receive scenic designation to date. Public use of the Moormans River in this area includes fishing and swimming. The river is passable at times of high flow by kayak and canoe. This property is currently served by a concrete ford rising slightly above the river bottom. Three other river crossings - two unimproved fords and one concrete ford - exist between the Sugar Hollow Reservoir and Route 674. A suspension foot bridge is upstream and cable and fence are downstream of the bridge site. Applicant's Proposal The applicant proposes conversion of the existing concrete ford to a low-water bridge. The bridge would contain eleven 20-foot diameter culverts and would rise 21/2 feet to 31 feet above riverbed The bridge would be 112 feet wide and 32 feet long, topped with a concrete slab 60 feet in length. Staff Comment In review of this petition, Staff has referred to similar past petitions , the statements of intent of the Scenic Areas and Flood Hazard Overlay Districts, the Comprehensive Plan and relevant provisions of the Code of Virginia. Similar Petitions : SP-82-7 C. H. and Josephine Atkins, a request to renovate and restore a small hydroelectric power generating plant, was approved with specific requirements related to passage of fish ; and boats and canoes. SP-77-45 Dr. Charles W. Hurt, a request to permit continuance of a bridge similar to the one proposed in this petition (20 feet wide, 80 feet long, fourteen 36-feet culverts) , was denied by the Board of Supervisors. During review of the • No.. STAFF REPORT June 21, 1983 SP-83-13 Dr. and Mra. W. D. Buxton Page 2 petition, the County Attorney' s Office expressed opinion that "the legality of this bridge depends not only upon compliance with our soil erosion and floodplain regulations but also upon Virginia Code Section 62. 1-194 . 2 , and that if the bridge is in violation of the State Code, then of course no special use permit could lawfully be issued. " Section 62.1-194 .2 of the Code of Virginia states in part that it shall be unlawful for any person to "make or cause to be made any obstruction which exists for more than a week (excepting a lawfully constructed dam) in, under, over or across any river, creek, stream, or swamp so as to obstruct the free passage of boats, canoes, or other floating vessels, or fish in such waters. " Subsequently, the Circuit Court required Dr. Hurt to "alter, in a lawful manner, the structure of the causeway in controversy so as not to obstruct the free passage of boats, canoes, or other floating vessels suitable to use in said river at this point, or of fish. . . . " As proposed, this current request appears inconsistent with 62. 1-194.2 of the Code since, at the least, the bridge would interfere at times with canoe/kayak usage. Intent of Scenic Areas and Flood Hazard Overlay Districts : The Scenic Areas district is intended to "conserve elements of the County's scenic beauty as are contained along scenic waterways and scenic highways . " Obviously, much of the experience of a scenic stream is its usage for boating, fishing and the like. While many properties in this area are posted against trespass , right of public passage on the stream itself appears o_Ee guaranteed by Section 62,E- --- 194 . 2 of the Code of Virginia. The aesthetics of the structure, in Staff opinion, are a subjective matter for consideration by the Commission and Board. The Flood Hazard District is intended "for the purpose of providing safety and protection from flooding. " This zoning district is designed to prevent unwise encroachment into flood-prone areas and does not directly address access of property at time of flooding. Staff opinion is that, regarding flood situations , this bridge would be of limited utility. Since Route 614 is innundated in several locations in a 1007year storm, Staff_ sees no value of the proposed • bridge in such a storm. In the rainy spring months, it appears the --- bridge would be overtopped by a minor storm. (This is based on brief review of the upstream watershed area. Detailed calculations have not been performed. When viewed in May, water was a few inches over the existing river bottom ford. ) Since the bridge would constrict the channel cross sectional area, velocity of flood waters would increase substantially for smaller storms and less so for storms of greater magnitude. Provision should be made to avoid downstream scour. Section 30.5.5. 2 of the Scenic Areas district, among other things, requires positive finding by the Board of Supervisors "by • ftief STAFF REPORT June 21, 1 83 SP-83-18 Dr. and Mrs. W. D. Buxton Page 3 clear and convincing evidence" that "such bridge or other structure is necessary to prevent, eliminate or substantially alleviate a hazard to the life or property of any resident of the County. " Should the Commission and Board choose to approve the bridge as currently proposed or approve a modified design, Staff would recommend that the applicant be required to submit engineering study of sufficient detail to demonstrate utility of the bridge as opposed to a convenience to the property owner. Comprehensive Plan: Since this property is located both on a scenic stream, which is also a trout stream,and within a water supply watershed, the Comprehensive Plan contains a number of applicable standards in Chapter 10 Comprehensive Plan Standards. Complete text for "Water supply Watershed" and "Rivers and Streams" standards are attached to this report. Standards viewed by Staff as most relevant are as follows : o Watershed Management areas as described under "Water Supply Watersheds" should be maintained along both sides of trout streams - and water supply tributaries and around impoundments since maintenance of temperature norms and protection from sedimentation are important to the integrity of these watercourses . o Watershed Management areas should be established along each water supply impoundment and its associated tributaries . These management areas should extend a minimum of 100 feet horizontally from the edge of an impoundment and its tributaries . These areas will serve as filter strips along the water courses and impoundments which, if properly maintained, should filter sediment from overland flow and maintain the inherent temperature norms in the adjacent streams and other bodies of water. The following guidelines should apply in these areas : - The management areas should remain in natural vegetation where possible and should not be used for dumping, storage, parking of equipment and automobiles or any activity which will disturb the vegetation, compact the soil as to lower infiltration, or allow material to be unnecessarily eroded into the stream or surface impoundment. - Any soil disturbing activities should be particularly discouraged within 50 horizontal feet of any tributary stream or impoundment. Soil disturbances in the remainder of the area should be limited to the smallest surface area and volume of soil practical and for the shortest possible length of time. - Forestry and tree-removal activities should be limited to the minimum amount necessary to maintain the integrity Ana vit J ity of the area. tirw .•••, STAFF REPORT June 21, 1983 SP-83-18 Dr. and Mrs . W. D. Buxton Page 4 o Provisions should be made for the rapid revegetation of all denuded areas through natural processes, supplemented where ' necessary by artificial revegetation practices. o Any earth-disturbing activity should be limited to the area which is necessary to perform that phase of the work. o Erosion along stream banks, highways, right-of-ways and drainage ditches should be controlled by implementation of approved Best Management Practices. o Natural corridors should be maintained along scenic streams to protect, in addition to environmental factors , the visual qualities of such watercourses. Buffer strips, a minimum of 65 feet on both sides of scenic streams, should be maintained. Conservation easements to further protect these watercourse- should be-strongryTencouraged. o Crossings of scenic streams by roads, utilities and the like should be avoided. Where such crossings are necessary, particu ar care should be exercised to maintain visual character by angular routing, revegetation, and other measures. o Fences , bridges, and other impediments across canoeable streams should be discouraged. Property owners should be encouraged to remove fallen trees and other obstacles to canoe and boat passage. o Dams and other obstacles to passage of fish and other aquatic life should be discouraged. Where permitted, such structures should be modified by fish ladders or other devices. o Dredging, sand and gravel removal, and similar activities s 'oul not be permitted during fish spawning seasons. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, Staff opinion is that plans and proposals as well as a program of construction should be required of the applicant. These documents outlining measures intended to satisfy Comprehensive Plan standard should be subject to review and approval of the County Engineer and Watershed Management Official. Relevant Provisions of the Code of Virginia: Section 30. 5.5.2 of the Scenic Areas district cites 5 chapters of Title 62. 1 of the Code of Virginia specifically and also refers to all other applicable State and Federal law. Earlier in this report, Staff stated that the proposed structure appears in conflict with 62.1-194.2 of the Code. _ Additionally, the Code states that "all the beds of the hays, rivers , creeks, and shores of the sea within the jurisdiction of this Commonwealth, and not conveyed by special grant or compact according to law, shall continue and remain the property of the Commonwealths of Virginia. . . . " (062.1-1) . The Code continues to state that to • • STAFF REPORT June 21, 1983 SP-83-18 Dr. and Mrs. W. D. Buxton Page 5 "build, dump, or otherwise trespass" onto state owned beds is unlawful unless permitted "pursuant to statutory authority or a permit by the Marine Resources Commission. " (M62 .1-3) . In the case of SP-77-45 Dr. Charles W. Hurt, the Marine Resources Commission required the applicant to provide verification of ownership. Planning Department files show that, at one time or another, the following agencies were involved and/or consulted in review of SP-77-45 Dr. Charles W. Hurt and SP-82-7 C. H. and Josephine Atkins : o Virginia State Water Control Board o Virginia Marine Resources Commission o United States Army Corps of Engineers o Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries o Virginia Department of Health o Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission o Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation o Federal Fish and Wildlife Service o National Marine Fisheries Service The extent of involvement of these agencies in this current request is unknown; Staff would recommend that the applicant contact the State Water Control Board and Marine Resources Commission initially. Staff Recommendation This is only the second bridge reviewed by Staff in the past eight years , the last review being some six years ago. This is the first proposed bridge to be located on a County Scenic Stream, which is also a trout stream and water supply reservoir tributary. Given this background, Staff was reluctant to recommend that the applicant expend additional time and money attempting to improve the posture of this petition until the Commission and Board dealt with the basic issues of whether or not any such improvement was warranted. More specifically, in the past, Staff has recommended that encroachment into floodplain areas be permitted only to provide reasonable usage of a property. Several properties along the Moormans River have access by means of stream crossing only. Finding that this property does not have reasonable usage without substantial improvement to the existing concrete ford would, in Staff opinion, be equally applicable to these other properties. Should the Commission and Board determine that the existing access does not provide reasonable usage of the property and choose to look favorably on the applicant' s request, Staff recommends that the following issues should be resolved: 1. The bridge should be modified so as not to be in conflict with 62.1-194.2 of the Code of Virginia regarding passage by vessel and possibly passage by fish; • STAFF REPORT June 21, 1983 SP-83-18 Dr. and Mrs. W. D. Buxton Page 6 2. The applicant should be required to demonstrate appropriateness of the proposal regarding other criteria of 30.5. 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) ; 3. The applicant should present proposals, plans and the like reflective of the Comprehensive Plan Standards for "Rivers an Streams" and "Water Supply Watersheds" ; 4. Review and comment by appropriate State and Federal agencies; 5. Consideration should be given to expanding usage of the river crossing to serve several properties , thereby avoiding numerous crossings. This could be accomplished through application of private road provisions; 6 . The existing foot bridge and cable and fence should be removed; 7. Item 2 clearly requires exercise of legislative discretion, and Items 4 and 5 may require such action. Staff would recommend that all issues outlined above should be resolved prior to final Commission and Board action; 8. Requests by the Commission and Board for additional information, studies and the like should in no fashion be deemed to be indicative of any subsequent action to be taken by either body. I 30. 5. 5 PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT AND SPECIAL PERMIT 30. 5. 5. 1 Within an adopted SA overlay district , uses shall be permitted as for and subject to the district regulations of basic and/or other overlay districts as cited in section 30 . 5. 2, except as hereinafter expressly provided. 30. 5. 5. 2 Within the immediate environs of any stream designated in section 30. 5. 2. 1, no person shall commence any use involving the construction of any structure, the cutting of any living three over six (6) inches caliper, or the grading or other like physical alterations of the immediate environs of such stream except as follows : a. The cutting or removal of any such tree as may be necessary to prevent the obstruction of such stream, to eliminate a danger to the health, safety and ; welfare of any citizen of the county; b . Fences; c. Maintain existing fords and bridges ; d. The following uses by special use permit only: 1. Navigational and drainage aids; 2. Flood warning aids and devices; 3. Water monitoring devices ; 4 . Bank erosion structures; 5. Boat docks , piers , wharves; ------_ > 6. Bridges , causeways and other similar structures designed for pedestrian and/or vehicular access; provided that the board of supervisors shall find, by clear and convincing evidence, in addition to the findings required by section 31.2 . 4. 1, that : (a) such bridge or other structure is to be located at the site of an existing bridge, ford or other stream crossing; (b) such existing crossing is regularly used, and such bridge or other structure is to be used, as to the sole means of access to one or more existing, lawfully occupied dwellings ; (c ) no alternative means of access to such dwellings is physically practicable; -195- (Supp . #17, 1-19-83) • (d) no such alternative means of access has been abandoned, aliened or otherwise relinquished by the voluntary act or omission of the owner --� of the land upon which such dwellings are located since December 10, 1980; (e) such bridge or other structure is necessary to prevent, eliminate or substantially alleviate a hazard to the life or property of any resident of the County; (f) such bridge or other structure is so designed as to pose .the minimum practical disruption of the environment of the stream consistent. with the other provisions hereof; and - (g) such bridge or other structure shall comply with all applicable State and Federal law including, but not limited to, Chapters 3. 5, 7, 8, 9 and 20 of Title 62 . 1 of the Code of Virginia (1950) , as amended, to the extent that any or all of the same may be applicable in a particular case. e. Uses and structures immediately appurtenant and necessary to the foregoing. 30. 5. 5. 3 For purposes of this section, the term "immediate environs" shall include the bed of any such stream and the land on either side thereof to a distance of fifteen (15) feet from the edge of such at mean annual flow level. 30 .5. 6 AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS AND OPTIONS FOR BONUS FACTORS Area and bulk regulations and options for bonus factors shall be as for and subject to the district regulations of the underlying basic and/or other overlay districts as cited in section 30 . 5. 2, except that the following limitations shall apply : -195 . 1- (Supp . #17, 1-19-83) `, R w e Clearing of land for agricultural purposes is the subject of the soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance. T � • Preservation of unique woodland habitat areas should,,be encouraged by provisions in land use classification and by tax incentives. -' • Whether conducted on a commercial basis or ,by an individual property \ owner, tree harvesting shouldy jo be conducted -using standards and pri •ciples recommended by the Virginia Divis)ofi of Forestry. / [:' Mineral Resources Mineral resources include soil, sand ravel coal, a >„�'g , petroleum, natural gas, and other mineral deposits. Since/hese resources occur in fixed locations, standards for protection are expressed primarily in terms of preventing encroachment. V o Development of into patible residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses in or near known areas of mineral deposit concentrations '"' should be discour� b d. • Review of proposed developments in proximity to active mining opera lay - tions involvi blasting should include analysis of geological formations in terms of shockwave transmission. ' • Disclosure of mineral rights leasing should be required as a part of rezor_i g, subdivision, site plan and other applications for County " review. In the case of land subdivision, a prominent disclosure state- meny' regarding leased mineral rights should be required on the sub- [7. div' ion plat. • evelopment of natural resource extraction areas should be discouraged where incompatible to existing or proposed development. : Water supply Watersheds a The continued ability of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to provith cost-efficient and palatable/potable water is vital to AIbemarle County and th_ City of Charlottesville. The County's Run-off Control Ordinance, Soil Erosio • and Sedimentation Control Ordinance and certain zoning and subdivision regula tions have aided in providing protection for the area's watersupply impound !,r merit and tributary areas. However, there is a need to provide more defini- tive guidelines to provide more complete protection for the quality of water in the impoundments and tributaries. While additional ordinances and other measures could be imposed by the County, success in watersupply protection � r efforts rests in large measure on cooperative efforts by farmers, foresters, developers, and landowners in these watersheds. • Watershed Management areas should be established along each water 27 ,14 supply impoundment and its associated tributaries. These management F'";1 124 rt — ___— __ N areas should extend a minimum of 100 feet horizontally from the edge of an impoundment and its tributaries. These areas will serve as filter strips along the water courses and impoundments which, if pro- perly maintained, should filter sediment from overland flow and main- tain the inherent temperature norms in the adjacent streams and other bodies of water. The following guidelines should apply in these areas: - The management areas should remain in natural vegetation where ' possible and should not be used for dumping, storage, parking of equipment and automobiles or any activity which will disturb the vegetation, compact the soil as to lower infiltration, or allow • material to be unnecessarily eroded into the stream or surface impoundment. - Any soil disturbing activities should be particularly discouraged within 50 horizontal feet of any tributary stream or impoundment. Soil disturbances in the remainder of the area should be limited to the smallest surface area and volume of soil practical and for the shortest possible length of time. - Forestry and tree-removal activities should be limited to the mini- mum amount necessary to maintain the integrity and vitality of the area. • All clearing, grading and construction activities should be restricted to the minimum area required for the planned development. 2, • Erosion along stream banks, highways, right-of-ways and drainage ditches should be controlled by implementation of approved Best Management Practices. _ • Agricultural practices presently being advocated by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service and the Soil Conservation Service should be strongly encouraged. • All forestry activities should utilize the practices identified in the State's Forestry Best Management Practices Handbook. 1 Y o The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation should be encouraged to follow the guidelines and specifications contained in the . T,. Department's Erosion and Siltation Control Manual. >` �o Provisions should he made for the rapid revegetation of all denuded areas through natural processes, supplemented where necessary by w artificial revegetation practices. • Any earth-disturbing activity should be limited to the area which is necessary to perform that phase of the work. • On-site facilities for the retention of sediments produced by any earth- :k disturbing activities should be provided for both during the construe- 4 I tion process and upon completion of the project. Plans for a regular 4 maintenance program should be submitted at the time of processing of other project plans. 1 e All existing ordinances and regulations relating to the control of earth- disturbing activities should be reviewed and revised as necessary, to K conform with the ongoing watershed management program. u Fg Rivers and Streams E • Rivers and streams vary in the County in terms of character and in terms of utilization; i.e., water supply tributaries, scenic rivers and streams, trout streams, general recreational use, and agricultural use. Many standards for water supply tributaries are presented in Watersupply Watersheds. The intent 4 of this section is to provide standards which will work toward protecting stream integrity through maintenance of water quality, water temperature norms, shoreline, and aquatic habitat and immediate stream area. I. ' :1' e Maintenance of natural filter strips and shade strips should be encouraged for all land uses. These strips reduce erosion and run-off of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides from land activities adjacent to .: watercourses; provide stream bank stabilization by maintenance of live Y- root systems; maintain temperature norms along watercourses; and s maintain shoreline and aquatic habitats. • Watershed Management areas as described under "Watersupply Water- sheds" should be maintained along both sides of trout streams and =y watersupply tributaries and around impoundments since maintenance of - temperature norms and protection from sedimentation are important to the integrity of these watercourses. • Filter strips, perennial buffers of undisturbed natural or established vegetation, not less than 30 feet in width, should be maintained along F all watercourses. For large-scale activities exempt from the require- ment of a grading permit, filter strips should be maintained between the area of earth-disturbance and the watercourse in accordance with TABLE 22. e Natural corridors should be maintained along scenic streams to pro- tect, in addition to environmental factors, the visual qualities of such - watercourses. Buffer strips, a minimum of 65 feet on both sides of scenic streams, should be maintained. Conservation easements to further protect these watercourses should be strongly encouraged. o Crossings of scenic streams by roads, utilities and the like should be avoided. Where such crossings are necessary, particular care should be exercised to maintain visual character by angular routing, revegeta- tion, and other measures. • Fences, bridges, and other irnpe.liments across canoeable streams should be discouraged. Property owners should be encouraged to remove fallen trees and other obstacles to canoe and boat passage. Nor , Nor `_ •. Dams and other obstacles to passage of fish and other aquatic life .i should be discouraged. Where permitted, such structures should be modified by fish ladders or other devices. i x -- _>-s Dredging, sand and gravel removal, and similar activities should not . be permitted during fish spawning seasons. Air r_ The quality of air depends on many factors. For instance, topography,(forest cover, industries, motor vehicles, and population concentrations it /general play important roles, but little is known about how these factors/fnodify. or l' • - contribute to the overall air quality picture. Air samples are t •ken at fixed Ili t locations and tend to reflect air quality conditions for restricted areas only, but they are used to form composites for larger areas. (.Air quality is a regional problem since an area may receive large amounts of pollutants from distant sources. Pollutants may affect health and eve climate and plant growth. w. „ The Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board was es ablished to monitor and regulate air. quality according to Section 110 of the Federal CIean Air Act. Ambient air quality standards are required 9/assure that ambient con- centrations of air pollutants are consistent with/established criteria. Primary K r ambient air quality standards define levels of, air quality which, allowing an q. ' .adequate margin of safety, are necessary toprotect the,Y� public health. Secondary air quality standards define r ore stringent levels of air quality which are necessary to protect the pub c welfare from any known or antici- pated adverse effects of air pollutants. p3 While the State has assumed the rna-jor responsibility in regulating air. quality; opportunities are available for lore/governments to incorporate air quality con- e siderations into the planning prNess. For example, decisions often involve work done by local and redo iI planners, i.e. , location of a highway, that o f have a direct bearing on air quality. Similarly, a peculiar concentration of F: emissions sources may creel pollution pockets of particular local significance. i - For effective coordination/ of effort, the County should not only make air t pollution control a p rf' of the comprehensive planning develop working relations with air process, but also pollution control agencies. /i` . AGRICULTURE/FORESTAL LAND USE STANDARDS k. The maintenance and protection of agricultural, horticultural, and forestal r areas is ji.rrportant to the economy and quality of life in Albemarle County. Local governmental efforts related to the agricultural industry have been pri- marily/in terms of direct and indirect financial contribution and in terms of land se controls. W7ile the continued economic viability of farming operations is mainly a pri- 0 vate enterprise function, some opportunities do exist for local government to r_ A4 1 4 1 � 3,/1 • Ove/ , ^� 1)ls T. •cl— ,'/ •/d / R v. poS e , /T e c:kx.c e. o c a M .cir,.,, ar a12, 714 0 �, 114 3,-1.=.qe. -4.4". e, .. "Pool v I c.-s v.... 6 r 3C. L Wi .2...S. S(el, d, t i 2*I ( %L-el , • 7 - WZTa✓'.. F .,.. 1)*P 0p ►n ; '!je✓ -d.Tte U e / � C O÷- (4. c Noe/ec4 c Pc--t: e.— r3 1 Goa rir 62. 1 -8 O . I ,49 p /i c VI /i 1y o S. Tive.-,4P✓' TAft. pro ,J°is'f / e'+ 1 :. 0 „flc .- &kali w,op7 C i ?obi, e U. 4- 11 a-L J e-C + h e l i s s-e•' 232, C1 _ • 8 Y i u ►'( d ,,N `I O$- %Ski ►-Ace, WAV/S , :idk,e . 9 rN! wa 6-Y'c b tl vs c2-8 , Ci, . 2 /9ee / a 4 c©� S Of �e-�s . , m--7, d +JVe -.� Uri r e, / ss.: •4 Z- 1 - / I I : 1 E/if.2 eSou►�reS ,I9r.% n : ` v.i - � HJ II 6 s-51-3Y l c C //e'y d r et'N lie PO / PI 2 f c,R., 7t. i.,0 a /.�', LI '-•�'l 9 r 2 an law I 65 h'!71' e or, Cs ,J.-�2. (ji ie. ill.,c4c ..., -.-7, o h s 4`r c-1-(-mil /N ec.Je o u e v^ f or, �craSS � rrue ✓' .) C,/e 4 e , 61 ke c.. 'I , b r` S CO ' .30 a.+Y 1-0 v1,54e“.c'/' -h e frc�. a.s,S - 04 ,b....As S Ca ✓1©e.s r,,, a 4-Le v 1 ' c(d4V v �Sels1 or' ;tilt tin �uz�c o rs • { e . 3 . � W +4-ei. fee 1 /30n c1 6 2. j - 1 3 PLO"' 13 4S as Lk. 1 ' 6 2 •l^ 3 6 / 4 rc& - [, "if. f 3 1/ . 3.6 I, Pia v1 41:-c7 d c e (of yyi , a s e.-- o aAt 40.0 ' Lc.f��/ ' ►=� ti 7 + kr ' S bor>+e ► r Sao}dr�� e� 1-v Z, o rin �,t�. a_ Po ) , cy . ,- ,.e. i � t VI C c�44 ✓• ,d-L Sc�-mac i'C o j' '-�^ , fa o __ jJ S u l• l�r�' Z �m Y`C! 1 YI-4 , Ts csi-G p/ C Il t V 1 4y.e__A G 2. 7 it* a.u 2 4-0 S 40,re. - /o-�1 j c i r I -� 5(. 4- 21, 2. q• — 3•C, C , iZ , ) See - q_3 Z (o Bee- P CX-`-o v f?ea. . ! - Z et 94 S 4- own pis 7L® e,e ,< d TO ,n /�,�,�. 1,c)214-4 rhor Co r / he. filaerr/e \s) 0uvsce,s km,e2 s.S�a►�1 S°G� /� `ia .714 /-0 /s s K pa," O // 0 Re Ye- .7a as. sf2Ies ©sec. /cam r (At s ,C,i° OF ALE esitcdii i CP (...Crjr r U ® 0114%t R08ERT E.VAUGFiN Inspections Department MickAEL �. ricxELL DIRECTOR OF INSPECTIONS Assistant 3uilding Official ZONING AO MI NISTRATOR BUILDING.ZONING.SOIL EROSION ANOREW O.EVANS JESSE R. HURT FIRE PREVENTION DEPUTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INSPECTIONS 401 MCINTIRE ROAD.ROOM 2-2 IRA B. CORTEZ 0(ARLOTTESVILLF.VIRGINIA 2290 1-4396 FIRE PREVENTION OFFICER (804)296-5832 MEMO TO: Board of Supervisors & County Executive FROM: Robert E. Vaughn, Zoning Administrator /elf RE: Intent of Zoning Ordinance - Section 30.5.5.2(C) DATE: November 24, 1982 A recent request by Dr. and Mrs. W.D. Buxton for a permit to make improvements to an existing ford crossing the Moorman's River (Parcel 18, ' Tax Map 025) has raised questions as to the intent of the Board in the enactment of the scenic river portion of the Scenic Areas Overlay District. This memo -is to request clarification of your intent. The Buxtons occupy a residence which is accessed by a ford that has a concrete deck which is above the level of the water during normal flow. During an average two year flood, this ford is blocked by the depth of the water flowing over the ford. Access to their residence by fire or rescue vehicles during a two year flood is not available over the existing ford, and presents a danger to their safety. They engaged an engineer to design a ford that is calculated to allow the water in a two year flood "to overtop the deck of the ford, but not to a depth that would prohibit emergency* emergency vehicle access. Section 30.5.5. 1 (copy attached) provides that uses in the Scenic Areas Overlay District are regulated by the underlying districts over which the Scenic Areas are overlaid, except as provided in Section 30.5.5.2.- Section 30.5.5.2 (copy attached) speaks in paragraph (a) to the cutting of a tree to eliminate a danger to the health, safety, and welfare of any citizen; and in paragraph (c) to maintaining existing fords and bridges . My interpretation is that health, safety, and welfare of citizens is a concern for the Zoning Administrator to consider in all matters, and is applicable to all paragraphs of Section 30.5.5.2, not just to paragraph (a) only. My question is , did you intend paragraph (c) to allow improve- ments to crossings to eliminate a danger to the users of the crossing, or is the provision to "maintain existing fords and bridges" intended to be limited to keeping the crossing in useable condition? Page 2 Memo to Board of Supervisors & County Executive November 24, 1982 Early discussions with the Buxtons were focused on maintaining their existing ford as a use by right. The design drawings, however, were, in my opinion, a substantial improvement to the ford. The Scenic Areas Overlay District does not address a substantial improvement. Section 30.5.5.2 speaks to prohibiting the construction of any structure in the immediate environs of the stream that shall "commence any use." I do not interpret the Buxton' s existing ford as being under the category of commencing a use. I therefore had to turn to the Flood Hazard Overlay District, which under- lays the Scenic Areas Overlay District in this case, and advised the Buxtons that, in my opinion, their planned improvements would require a special use permit. I also advised them that an interpretation from the Board as to the restrictions on maintaining existing fords would be requested prior to my final ruling on this matter, and prior to their filing an application for a special use permit. I believe Section 30.5.5. 1 triggers the application of the regulations ! of the underlying district, since 30.5.5.2 is not clearly applicable to the Buxton's situation. I also believe the special permit process provides the Planning Commission and the Board the opportunity to protect the Scenic Areas i{ Overlay District without impairing the safe use of property. However, if maintaining an existing ford as a use by right is intended to include its safe use, then the special permit process would obviously not apply. Your assistance is appreciated. REV/st cc: Maynard Elrod Andrew Evans Robert Tucker Enclosures (4) { 30 . 3 . 5 . 2 .1 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITHIN THE FLOODWAY 1 . Dams , levees and other structures for water supply and flood control . 2 . Water related uses such as boat docks, canoe liveries , bridges , ferries , culverts and river crossings of transmission lines of all types . 3 . Sod farming, topsoil, sand and gravel removal. 4. Pump stations for water or wastewater including power supply and control devices , holding ponds and other appurtenances . 5. Bank erosion structures . 6. Hydroelectric power generation (reference 5 .1 . 26) . (Added 4-28-82) 30 .3 . 5 . 2. 2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITHIN THE FLOODWAY FRINGE 1. Uses by special use permit in the floodway. • 2. Aircraft landing strip excluding structures and aircraft parking/storage . -185 .1- (Supp . #11, 4-28-82) 30. 3 . 9 RESTORATION OR REPLACEMENT OF NONCONFORMING USES Irrespective of the provisions of section 6. 0 of this ordinance, for the purpose of this section, the following shall apply to the flood hazard overlay district: 30. 3. 9. 1 If a nonconforming structure or activity is destroyed or damaged in any manner to the extent that the cost of restoration is equal to or greater than fifty (50) percent 1 of the cost of entire reconstruction, it shall be restored only if such complies with the requirements of this ordinance. 30.3.9. 2 Any substantial improvement or expansion of a noncon- forming structure or activity shall comply with the requirements of this ordinance. 30. 3. 10 WAIVER, MODIFICATION AND VARIANCE OF REGULATIONS In order to assure continued qualification for the regular program of the National Flood Insurance Program, no waiver, modification or variance of the regulations of section 30. 3 shall be granted by any board, commission or officer of Albemarle County until comment has been received from the Federal Insurance Administration. Notice to the Federal Insurance Administration shall be in accordance with section 15. 1-431 of the Code. Failure of the Federal Insurance Administration to respond within thirty (30) days of such notice shall be deemed tacit agreement with such request . In addition to the foregoing and section 34. 2, the following shall apply: 1. No variance, modification or waiver shall be granted to section 30. 3. 4. 2. No variance, modification or waiver shall be granted which would result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of a one hundred year flood discharge. 3. Variance, modification or waiver shall only be issued upon: (a) a finding of good and sufficient cause; (b) a determination that failure to grant such variance would result in undue hardship to the applicant; and (c) a determination that the granting of such variance would not result in additional threat to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create public nuisance, cause fraud or victimization of the public, or conflict with local laws or ordinances . 4. Where such variance would result in the location, construction or substantial imp-ovement of a structure below the one hundred year flood elevation, -188- 30.5. 5 PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT AND SPECIAL PERMIT 30.5.5.1 Within an adopted SA overlay district, uses shall be permitted as for and subject to the district regulations of basic and/or other overlay districts as cited in section 30.5. 2, except as hereinafter expressly provided. 30.5. 5. 2 Within the immediate environs of any stream designated in section 30. 5. 2.1, no person shall commence any use involving the construction of any structure, the cutting of any living tree over six (6) inches caliper, or the grading or other like physical alterations of the immediate environs of such stream except as follows : a. The cutting or removal of any such tree as may be necessary to prevent the obstruction of such stream, to eliminate a danger to the health, safety and welfare of any citizen of the county; b . Fences; c. Maintain existing fords and bridges; d. The following uses by special use permit only: 1. Navigational and drainage aids; 2. Flood warning aids and devices; l 3• Water monitoring devices; 4. Bank erosion structures; 5. Boat docks, piers, wharves ; e. uses and structures immediately appurtenant and necessary to the foregoing. 30.5.5. 3 For purposes of this section, the term "immediate environs" shall include the bed of any such stream and the land on either side thereof to a distance of fifteen (15) feet from the edge of such at mean annual flow level. 30.5. 6 AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS AND OPTIONS FOR BONUS FACTORS Area and bulk regulations and options for bonus factors shall be as for and subject to the district regulations of the underlying basic and/or other overlay districts as cited in section 30 .5. 2, except that the following limitations shall apply : ,t -195- Cyr v.v..cp • gott.fy OF A LE3EL, = • , ROBERT E.VAUGHN Inspections Department RICHAEL C. MICKLLL DIRECTOR or INSPECTIONS 1J p : Assist/me &sliding Off1cIai ZONING AOM:NISTRATOR JESSE R.HURT BUILDING.ZONING.SOIL EROSION ANOREW CI.EVANs rEPUTY DIRECTOR OR INspscrloNs FIRE PREVENTION Gti1•UTY ZONING AOMINI3TRATOw 401 MCINTIRE ROAD.ROOM 2-2: IRA 9.C7RTEZ cHARL,OTYESVIU.E.VIRGINIA 22901-4596 IIRE►RSV[NTION®KAKI 18041 296-5832 1 TO: Guy B. Agnor Jr. FROM: Robert E. Vaughn ;�/� Zoning Administra �. � DATE: November 15, 1982 } I RE: Intent of Zoning Ordinance - Section 30.5.5.2 (C) Permitted Use'By Right - "Maintain Existing Fords • and Bridges" (Property of Dr. & Mrs. W. D. Buxton, j Tax Map 25 Parcel 18) I have determined that the existing ford and the foot bridge located on the above property may be maintained as a use by right as provided in Section 30.4.4.2 in • the scenic area overlay district - SA. However, the owners are concerned with'the existing ford during-a normal two (2) year flood. At present, the ford does not allow access to their residence during high water for fire or rescue or egress for them from their property in case of an emergency. In order. to eliminate this danger to their safety and welfare, they have had an engineer design an improved ford raising the present elevation 28 inches which would give them safe egress-ingress during a two year storm. I have determined that the proposed work is a substantial improvement of a ! non-conforming use as addressed in Section 30.3.9 of the flood hazzard overlay district - FH and will require a Special Use Permit under Section 30.3.5.2.1(2) . The problem the zoning administrator is having is in determining the intent of Section 30.5.5.2 (C) as to what limits or restrictions should be considered reasonable to require and enforce when permitting an owner to "maintain 'existing fords and bridges." This same section of the ordinance, prohibits the cutting of any living tree over six (6) inches in caliber except as may be necessary to prevent the obstruction of such stream, to eliminate a danger to the health, safety and welfare of any citizen of the county. 1 Guy R. Agnor - Page 2 November 15, 1982 Does paragraph (C) prohibit replacing fords or bridges if destroyed by flood? Does it prohibit improvement to such crossings to eliminate a danger? The special use permit required for any substantial improvement under Section 30.3.5.2.1 (2) would provide the board with a review of any proposed improve- ments and allow the board to determine if any proposed improvement in the S.A. stream was reasonable, and within the intent of the ordinance. I herewith request a clarification of the intent of Section 30.5.5.2 (c) by the board. If the board determines that it is not the intent of the ordinance to - prohibit any needed improvement, the zoning administrator will advise the owners . to comply with the special use permit requirements under Section 30.3.5.2.1 (2) and to comply with all other requirements and other approvals required under Section 30.3.3.2 for a development permit. REV/kjb C/C Andrew Evans Robert Tucker Jr. Maynard Elrod 1' Noe Noe STAFF REPORT VA-82-66. Dr. & Mrs. W.D. Buxton Tax Map: 025 Parcel: 18 Zoned: RA EXISTING ACTIVITY Single-Family Dwelling PROPOSED VARIANCE The applicant requests relief from Section 30.5.6. 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow a man-made river crossing to be constructed in the floodway of the Norman's River, a variance of 65 feet. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT Pursuant to Section 30.5.6. 1, except as herein otherwise expressly provided, no buildings or structures other than necessary accessory appurtenant fences and/or walls shall be constructed within sixty-five (65) feet of the edge of any designated stream at mean annual flow level. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The existing entrance to the property is by way of a ford which has been improved by a concrete covering. We feel that in instances of high water the property would not have a viable access. The construction on an improved ford should be designed so that it would still be possible for river navigation, thus keeping it in as natural a state as possible. The crossing should be of good engineering standards to withstand a possible 100 year storm or as recommended by the County Engineering Department. If the variance is granted it has to be conditional upon receiving special use permit approval by the Board of Supervisors.