HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200500332 Review Comments 2005-11-28From: Bill Fritz
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 5:23 PM
To: landbwilson @earthlink.net; MPBC @hscmail.mcc.virginia.edu; medavid @hotmail.com;
prtaylor101 @yahoo.com; Merrily36 @aol.com; LRHAGH @aol.com; connie @goldviolin.com;
BCowan1017 @aol.com; ledawn @earthlink.net; keslife @aol.com; ACole10332 @aol.com;
Peculyie @aol.com; Ken Boyd
Cc: Steve Tugwell; Amelia McCulley
Subject: Keswick Meadow
I am writing this email on behalf of the Current Development Division which is currently reviewing
a submission known as SUB 2005 — 332 Keswick Meadow. We have received numerous emails
from various people and recognize that there is a high level of interest and concern about this
application. Instead of responding to each of you individually I am taking this opportunity to
contact each of you by this email. The County staff will review this proposal to insure that it
meets the applicable requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances. The application
does not include requests for waivers, modifications or exceptions. Please understand that,
although the plat will be reviewed to insure compliance with the applicable ordinances, these
ordinance requirements may not address each of your particular concerns. Some of these
concerns are beyond the requirements of the ordinances and we cannot condition approval of the
plat on requirements that are not imposed by County regulation. Any regulation that is applicable
to this proposal will be adhered to and the plat must meet the requirements of the ordinance.
First let me describe the project that is before the County. The plat submitted meets the definition
of a boundary line adjustment. It is a plat that is moving existing boundary lines as opposed to
creating new (additional) lots. Currently 37 lots exist and if the applicant's proposal is approved
10 lots will result. The existing lots are considered non - conforming. That is, they fail to meet one
or more existing provisions of the ordinance, such as lot size, frontage, width, etc, but they are
still considered existing lots. Boundary line adjustment plats must address specified
requirements and it is these requirements that are currently under review. These requirements
are outlined below and in the ordinance.
Let me address the plat content requirements and review procedures. The Subdivision
ordinance specifies the procedure and content for this type of plat in Section 14 -208.1 of the
County Code. The code may be found here
http: / /www.albemarle.org /upload /images /forms center /departments /county attorney /forms /Albem
arle County Code Ch14Subdivision of Land.pdf Section 14 -208.1 will refer to additional
sections of the ordinance _ Steve Tugwell, the planner reviewing the plat, will insure the plat
meets the requirements of the ordinance. Please note that, by ordinance, boundary line
adjustment plats do not have to meet the same requirements as other types of applications. The
ordinance contains different requirements for different types of plats. If a regulation of the
Subdivision or Zoning ordinance is not referenced in Section 14 -208.1 the County cannot require
compliance on this plat or any other boundary line adjustment plat.
Many of you have mentioned the fact that the resulting lots do not meet all of the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance (acreage, frontage, etc.). The proposed plat would change the property
lines of existing non - conforming parcels. As such, the resulting parcels do not have to meet all
the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for lots. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the
resulting lots meet all the requirements OR the resulting lots be found to be more substantially
conforming. The exact language is found in Section 6AC of the Zoning Ordinance (copy below):
C. Asian, combMafion, or adjustment ofbomTdin, --Yneofnorwonforming lot authorLed-
A uoncoufornnng lot may be divided combined via& am other lot or h A-e one or more of its bomidary
Dues adjusted, prcr6d,ed:
1. TIv- resulzmS lot or lots cmVkf with the requinmews appli -cable to the disthkt
in which the hat is located and all aaliel applxabk requirements of the AIbm -irle County Code; or
?- In The opium of [he zMME adminimaror, the resultwg lot or lots more
substautially conform io the regakenm s of %ecd=4 -0 (g metal reguladms.) of this chapter and die area
and bulk reenlations applicable io the distri€t in which ibe lot is located, and camgly with all other
applicable -e- airemeut=_ of the mane Ca= Code-
The County cannot require that any lot meet all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, only
that they meet item 1 or 2. If either item 1 or 2 is met, the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
have been complied with. The Zoning Administrator, or her designated agent, makes the findings
for this provision of the Zoning Ordinance.
One issue has been brought to our attention that will need to be addressed on the plat. We have
been informed that the plat does not include or reflect an easement for the benefit of the Lively's
(parcel #079A1- 00 -OD- 00400) at 1070 East Keswick Dr. for their septic field that flows onto the
potential planned lot #1. This easement will need to be shown on the plat because this
information is required on the plat by Section 14 -208.1 which requires the plat to meet the
requirement of Section 14- 302(4) which states:
4. I'Vivre m raaen1s. The lacauon and dimensiow of all existiug and proposed
private easeaaeiits. Existing easeaaenes shall be labeled uith & deed book and page number and the name
of the owner of record
The Deputy Zoning Administrator has made an official determination about whether this submittal
meets Section 6.4 C Nonconformities (see the preceding code language). This determination is
attached to the end of this email. This written determination may be appealed by an "aggrieved
party" to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Any appeal would need to specifically identify the error in
the decision. Boundary line adjustment plats are administratively reviewed and approved. They
are not subject to an appeal to the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors.
I know that this information will not address each of your concerns. The Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances contain the requirements of the County and staff works to enforce these
applicable requirements on each and every project. Unfortunately, many of your concerns, such
as traffic and the general character of the area are simply not addressed in the ordinance
provisions for this type of proposal; therefore, we do not have the authority to consider these
concerns. Other issues such as well /groundwater information are not addressed at the plat
review stage but are addressed at the time of building permit. I am aware that some of you
believe that this may be too late in the process; however these are the requirements of the
ordinance. The interest you show in the project is welcomed by the County. I encourage each of
you to be involved in the County's efforts at developing and updating the Comprehensive Plan
and in any proposed changes to the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance. Our County website is
used to communicate the status of any changes to these documents and has a method to sign up
for Amail which is used to notify the public about the services, programs, and events important to
residents, visitors, businesses and the greater community. Users of this service will receive
media releases, announcements and periodic updates on major events related to the topics they
are most interested in.
William D. Fritz, AICP
Chief of Current Development
Albemarle County
434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3242
AO
HI
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Steve Tugwell, Planner
From: Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning and Deputy Zoning Administrator
Division: Zoning and Current Development
Date: November 28, 2005
Subject: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION of Authorization for Adjustment of
Boundary Lines for Tax Map79A1, Parcels D1, D2, D20, D25, D33,
E2, E3, E4, E7 and E9
You have asked me to review the plat entitled, "Redivision of Tax Map79A1, Parcels D1,
D2, D20, D25, D33, E2 E3, E4, E7 and E9" dated October 25, 2005 and drawn by SL
Key Inc. and to exercise my discretion as deputy zoning administrator under Section 6.4.
The following is an excerpt from the applicable Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
regulations.
Sec. 6.4 Nonconforming lots.
A nonconforming lot may continue, subject to the provisions, conditions and
prohibitions set forth herein.
C. Division, combination, or adjustment of boundary line of nonconforming lot
authorized. A nonconforming lot may be divided, combined with any other lot, or
have one or more of its boundary lines adjusted, provided:
1. The resulting lot or lots comply with the requirements applicable to the district
in which the lot is located and all other applicable requirements of the Albemarle
County Code; or
2. In the opinion of the zoning administrator, the resulting lot or lots more
substantially conform to the requirements of section 4.0 (general regulations) of
this chapter and the area and bulk regulations applicable to the district in which
the lot is located, and comply with all other applicable requirements of the
Albemarle County Code.
In this redivision plat, the purpose is to combine existing lots, not to create new lots.
Therefore, the zoning regulations that apply to new lots (such as minimum lot size and
other requirements in § 10.4) do not apply. In this case, we look only at Section 6.4,
Nonconforming Lots, and make a determination under that language. The Zoning
Ordinance regulations do not include consideration of the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan or of the Rural Areas zoning district.
For this plat, it is my opinion that the resulting ten lots satisfy the criteria in
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance § 6.4(C)(2) and can be approved. The
proceeding will describe my findings.
Although Tax Map 79A1 shows a total of only ten parcels and one proposed road in the
area bounded by I -64, West Keswick Drive (Rt. 731), and East Keswick Drive (Rt. 730),
there are actually 37 individual lots plus an area reserved for a proposed road. These lots
were created by the Royal Acres subdivision plat, recorded in 1948. Several of theses
lots were then partially taken in 1967 by the Commonwealth of Virginia for the I -64
corridor right -of -way. An official zoning determination of parcels and development
rights was made September 15, 2004 which found that each of these 37 lots is entitled to
one theoretical development right. This determination was not appealed and is now final
and unappealable.
In reviewing this redivision plat, we first find that the resulting ten lots more
substantially conform to the area and bulk regulations of the Rural Areas (RA) district
in which they are located (Section 10.4.)
Following is a step -by -step analysis comparing the ten combined lots on this plat to the
Rural Areas district requirements for new lots.
The RA district requires a minimum lot size of two acres for new parcels. The
Royal Acres subdivision plat does not show the sizes of the original 37 lots.
However, many were small — around 10,000 square feet (so. Even the larger lots
appear to have been less than the RA district's current two -acre minimum. Several
of the original 37 lots had portions of them taken by the state and the residues of
those lots appear to be 5,000 sf or less. Therefore, the ten lots resulting from the
redivision plat, all being a minimum of 1.5 acres, and ranging to 2.5 acres, are
substantially more conforming with the RA district's minimum lot size. In no case is
a proposed lot diminished from its existing nonconforming size. In most cases, the
proposed lots are six or more times the size of the existing lots.
2. There is a gross density of 0.5 dwellings per acre in the RA district. With the total
area of 21.277 acres shown on this redivision plat, this regulation would permit ten
dwellings if new lots are being created. In the Royal Acres subdivision, with its
existing 37 separate lots and corresponding theoretical development rights, up to 37
dwellings could be constructed now if houses could be sited and sewage disposal
accommodated either on each lot or by virtue of an easement on other property. If
37 dwellings were constructed, the resulting density would be 1.7 dwellings per
acre —more than three times the permitted gross density in the RA district for new
lots. The density proposed by the redivision plat is substantially more conforming
with the RA district's gross density since it actually produces a density of 0.47
dwellings —less than the RA district's maximum. [Our opinion is that it is unlikely
that all 37 lots would be developed. However, if even half the lots (18) were
developed, the density would still be 0.8 units per acre —more than 1.5 times the RA's
maximum of 0.5 units per acre.]
3. The frontage requirement for new lots in the RA district is either 250 feet on a
thoroughfare road or 150 feet on an internal subdivision road. For the redivision
plat, we consider West Keswick Drive to be a thoroughfare road and East Keswick
Drive to be an internal subdivision road. Therefore, the proposed Lots 1 through 8
would need 250 feet of frontage while Lots 9 and 10 would only need 150 feet of
frontage. Of Lots 1 through 8, two meet the applicable frontage requirement and, of
those six remaining, the least frontage provided is 144.59 feet. Both Lots 9 and 10
have more than 150 feet of frontage. Of the existing 37 lots, only two meet current
ordinance requirements. Since twelve of the existing 37 lots have no frontage,
eleven have 100 feet or less on the proposed road, and only the two fronting on East
Keswick Drive of the remaining fourteen meet the frontage requirements, the
redivision plat demonstrates that the proposed lots more substantially conform to the
RA district's frontage requirements.
Our second finding is that the resulting ten lots more substantially conform to the
requirements of Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Section 4. 0, General
Regulations. The applicable portions of § 4 are discussed next.
Section 4.1.3 states: For a parcel served by neither a central water supply nor a
central sewer system, there shall be provided a minimum of sixty thousand (60, 000)
square feet per commercial or industrial establishment or per dwelling unit as the
case may be. Only a few, if any, of the existing 37 lots contain 60,000 sf. Since the
smallest of the ten proposed lots is 66,341 sf, the proposed lots will all conform to
the requirement of this section. This increase in lot size will provide additional area
in which to locate adequate drainfield areas with separation for wells and dwellings.
2. Section 4.2.1 defines and requires a building site on each lot. The surveyor has
certified that a building site meeting Section 4.2.1 exists on each of the ten proposed
lots. It is our opinion that at least 20 of the 37 existing lots do not contain the
minimum sized building site of 30,000 sf; therefore, the ten proposed lots with a
minimum of 60,000 sf are substantially more conforming to this section.
3. Section 4.6.1 Frontage and Lot Width Measurements states in part:
Lot frontage and the minimum lot width shall be established as follows:
a. Except as otherwise provided in sections 4.61 and 4.66, every lot shall front on
an existing public street, or a street dedicated by subdivision plat and
maintained or designed and built to be maintained by the Vir ing is Department
of Transportation, except that private roads shall be permitted in accordance
with section 14 -514 of Chapter 14 of the Code ofAlbemarle.
c. Minimum lot width shall be at least the same distance as the frontage required
for the district in which such lot is located. The depth offront and rear yards
shall be established where minimum lot width is achievable but shall not be less
in depth than required for the district in which such lot is located. Minimum lot
width shall be maintained between the front and rear yard. Lot width shall not
be reduced under section 4.6.10).
Since nine of the existing 37 lots have no road frontage (other than on I -64 where no
entrance can be obtained) and another eleven have frontage on the unbuilt road, this
redivision plat is more substantially conforming to Section 4.6.1(a) in that it provides all
ten proposed lots with some frontage. Similarly, the 37 existing lots are nonconforming
to the lot width provisions and although they will not completely comply, the proposed
lots will be more conforming. Most of the existing lots are 100 feet or less in width and
of the proposed lots, only two of the ten lots narrow to 100 feet at any location and all but
one have building sites that are more than 150 feet wide. These ten proposed lots are
more conforming with respect to Section 4.6.1(c).
We know of no other applicable requirements of the Albemarle County Code with which
the ten lots do not comply. Many other regulations will be applied when applications for
building permits are received. Until then we will not be able to judge setbacks or our
regulation that depend on health department approvals.
In summary, the proposed redivision plat combines 37 existing nonconforming lots into
ten lots which more substantially conform to the requirements of Section 4. 0, General
Regulations, and the area and bulk regulations applicable to the RA district in which
the lots are located, and comply with all other applicable requirements of the
Albemarle County Code.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have the right to appeal it within thirty
(30) days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section
15.2 -2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination
shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning
Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the
grounds for the appeal. In order for an appeal to be considered complete, it shall include
a completed application and $120 fee. The date notice of this determination was given is
the same as the date of this letter.
Sincerely,
Janice D. Sprinkle
Deputy Zoning Administrator
Cc: Kingma Developers, Inc, 1994 Martin Farm Lane, Charlottesville, VA 22901
SL Key, Inc., P.O.Box 1346, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Brian Cowan & Connie Hallquist, 3555 Keswick Road, Keswick, VA 22947
Marcia Joseph, 481 Clark's Tract, Keswick, VA 22947