Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-5-09Tentative BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T E N T A T I V E MAY 9, 2012 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 3:00 P.M., ROOM 241 1. Call to Order. 2. Closed Meeting. 3. Certify Closed Meeting. 4. Discussion: Implementation of Virginia Retirement System (VRS) Changes Mandated by SB497. 5. Discussion: Solid Waste Service Options. 6. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 7. Adjourn. 6:00 P.M., AUDITORIUM 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members. 6. Recognitions. 7. Larry Land, Director of Policy Development, Virginia Association of Counties. 8. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. 9. Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10. County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and VDoT Six Year Secondary Construction Program Budget (FY11-12 to FY16-17). 11. SP-2010-00042, David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair (Sign #120). PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for a public garage with auto detailing and repair ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Rural Areas (RA) - agricultural, forestal and fishery uses SECTION: 10.2.2 (37) Public garage COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density .5 units /acre of development lots ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: 599 Rocky Hollow Rd. (Rt. 769); east of Stony Point Rd. (Rt. 20). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 062000000076A1 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. 12. WPTA-2012-00001. Water Protection Ordinance. Amend Sec. 17-321, Types of file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0509/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/2/2020 11:01:12 AM] Tentative development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority, of Chapter 17, Water Protection, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 17-321 to allow the program authority to authorize development, with an approved mitigation plan, within the 50 feet of a stream buffer that is the most landward if the development would be on a lot that is within both a development area and a water supply protection area where the stream buffer protects an intermittent stream. 13. ZTA-2012-00002. Water and Sewer. Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.1, Area and health regulations related to utilities, 4.2, Critical slopes, 4.2.1, Building site required, 4.2.2, Building site area and dimensions, 4.2.3, Location of structures and improvements, 4.2.4, Location of septic systems, 4.7, Open space, 5.1.43, Special events, 5.1.44, Farm worker housing, and 10.5.2, Where permitted by special use permit; and repeal Secs. 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6 and 4.1.7 (all untitled), of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend the regulations pertaining to building sites, critical slopes, and water supplies and sewer systems serving developments and individual lots by adding and deleting definitions (3.1), restating and clarifying the standards for developments and lots to be served by public or private water supplies and sewer systems (4.1), updating the terminology for provisions pertaining to critical slopes (4.2), clarifying the minimum standards for building sites (4.2.1), restating the minimum standards for building site area and dimensions for uses not served by public sewer systems, and providing for special exceptions from those standards and for alternative onsite sewer systems (4.2.2), eliminating an ambiguity as to whether special use permits for additional development rights are permitted in the watershed of a public water supply reservoir (not allowed) (10.5.2), and making corresponding technical changes and non-substantive changes updating terminology to other related sections (4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.7, 5.1.43, 5.1.44, 10.5.2). A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. 14. STA-2012-00001. Water & Sewer. Amend Secs. 14-106, Definitions, 14-309, Soil evaluations, 14- 310, Health director approval of individual private wells and/or septic systems, 14-415 Central water supplies and sewerage systems, and 14-416, Individual private wells and septic systems, of Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend the regulations pertaining to onsite sewage systems serving subdivision lots by adding definitions pertaining to onsite sewage systems (14-106), and by allowing subdivision lots to be served by either conventional or alternative onsite sewage systems, requiring health director review of such systems, and revising the terminology (14-309, 14-310 and 14-416); and would amend the minimum area requirements for lots served by central water supplies or central sewerage systems (14-415). 15. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 16. Adjourn to May 10, 2012. C O N S E N T A G E N D A FOR APPROVAL: 9.1 Approval of Minutes: January 4 and February 8(N), 2012. 9.2 HO-2011-152. Stanley Chang. Home occupation modification for traffic generation. 9.3 FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations. 9.4 FY 2012/13 Resolution of Appropriations – Capital Budget. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0509/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/2/2020 11:01:12 AM] Tentative FOR INFORMATION: 9.5 Housing Choice Vouchers – Status of Commitment to The Crossings. Return to Top of Agenda Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page Return to County Home Page file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0509/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/2/2020 11:01:12 AM] COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Virginia Retirement System (VRS) Changes Mandated by SB 497 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Decision on how to implement new VRS changes STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Elliott, Davis, and Ms. Allshouse, Ms. Burrell and Ms. Gerome LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2012 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On April 18, 2012, the General Assembly approved a variety of changes to reform the retirement plan administered by the Virginia Retirement System (VRS). The General Assembly passed bills establishing a new hybrid retirement plan for state and local employees who are hired on or after January 1, 2014 (HB 1130 and SB 498), as well as a companion bill (SB 497) which requires local governments’ and school divisions’ current employees to pay a 5% contribution to VRS by no later than July 1, 2016 and for local governments and school divisions to provide employees with a salary increase to offset the cost of the employees’ VRS contribution. (The “5 and 5 Requirement”) Prior to the final approval of SB 497, the Governor amended the language to provide a 5-year period in which local governments, as well as school boards, can phase-in the contributions for existing employees at the rate of 1% per year until July 1, 2016. Additional details regarding the anticipated long-term benefits to the VRS system as identified by the state and information regarding the Governor’s amendment are detailed in an April 10, 2012 letter from the Governor (Attachment A). SB 497 mandates local governments and school divisions to:  Require current employees who are VRS members to contribute 5% of their salaries to VRS by no later than July 1, 2016 and for local governments and school divisions to pay employees an increase in their base salaries to offset the cost of the employees’ contributions to VRS.  Require all new employees hired after July 1, 2012 to pay the 5% contribution immediately.  Complete any phase-in option, if elected, using whole percentages by no later than July 1, 2016. DISCUSSION: The County must implement these changes effective July 1, 2012, and they will have cost implications that must be included in the FY 13 budget for both the School Division and the County. Determining whether to implement the new VRS contribution requirement in its entirety in FY 13 or to phase-in the change over time has important implications. Considerations include (these considerations are more fully described in Attachment B):  Commonality with the School Division  Complexity/equity issues associated with administering disparate pay schedules and grades  Costs: There is a cost to implementing this change to both the employee and employer because the employee VRS contribution is not pre-taxed for purposes of FICA. Therefore, the employee and employer must pay the FICA tax on the full five percent or phased amount contributed to VRS on the amount contributed by the employee. o Option 1: The cost to implement “The 5 and 5 Requirement” entirely in FY 13 is approximately $355,000 for the General Government and $754,144 for the School Division. o Option 2: Costs to phase in the VRS mandate in FY 13 using the straight 1% phase-in option is estimated to be $83,000 for General Government and $182,460 for the School Division in the first year. The long-term cost of phasing in the mandate over the entire five years at 1% per year has not AGENDA TITLE: Virginia Retirement System (VRS) Changes Mandated by SB 497 May 9, 2012 Page 2 been calculated by OMB staff and is not recommended. Staff believes that implementation should be done as quickly as possible after FY13 to avoid other negative implications of delaying implementation as outlined above and in greater detail in Attachment B. Note: Costs for either option would be significantly greater if the School Division and/or the General Government decide to also provide additional funding above the required raise to employees to help them offset the cost of employee-paid FICA and other tax implementations. Some call this option “making employees whole.” General Government leadership believes that implementing this VRS-related mandate should be undertaken utilizing the same approach and funding schedule for both the School Division and General Government due to the County’s history of and desire to continue commonality. Given the administrative complexities and staff equity issues that might occur due to the utilization of a phase-in approach, staff believes that, in principle, fully funding this “5 and 5” mandate in FY 13 would be the preferred approach for the County to take. Staff does not, however, recommend funding this requirement with one-time end of year monies since it is an on-going operating cost. Given that this unfunded mandate has been imposed on localities at this late date in the FY 13 budget development process and the significant on-going financial impacts of this mandate for the School Division and General Government, phasing-in 1% of this requirement in FY 13 is a reasonable approach to take at this time with a goal to accelerate the phase-in process as quickly as possible. Phasing in this mandate incrementally allows staff time to fully evaluate the impact and develop strategies and options during the Board’s five-year financial planning discussions that begin in the fall. BUDGET IMPACT: Impacts to the FY 13 Budget could range from $83,000 to $355,000 for General Government and $182,460 to $754,144 for the School Division, depending on the direction taken to implement this requirement. The impact would be much greater if the decision is made to implement the 5% contribution in FY 13 and provide additional funds for employees to offset employees’ additional costs. For example, the estimate for the School Division alone would be $1.44 million in FY 13 if that approach was taken by the School Board. Additional costs would be incurred if part-time employees who are not in VRS are also provided the same amount of raises as VRS employees are given. There will be continuing annual operating impacts in the following years. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the VRS mandate be phased at the rate of 1% in the first year with the objective of accelerating completion of the phase in as soon as possible and as a high priority during the Five-Year Financial Plan discussions this fall. Other recommendations of staff include:  not exercising the option for General Government to pay a lower VRS rate than the rate certified by the VRS Board of Trustees;  not utilizing one-time fund balance to pay for this on-going annual operating mandate in FY 13;  not providing equal offsetting raises for part-time employees who are not VRS members and therefore will not be contributing to VRS;  working with the School Division to continue commonality ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: April 10, 2012 Letter from Governor to Local Officials and VRS Employers Attachment B: Detailed Summary of issues Return to agenda ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A 1 Attachment B Detailed Summary of Issues Commonality with the School Division: The County’s School Division and General Government have shared Human Resources and Finance Departments, and practice commonality in employees’ pay grade levels and salary ranges. To maintain commonality in employee wages moving forward, it is important for General Government and the School Division to implement this change with a consistent approach. Costs: o The General Government’s estimated cost includes the costs for ECC staff, constitutional officers and their employees, and other state-supported general government employees, such as social service employees. In addition, depending on the approach taken by these entities, the Regional Jail and Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center may request funding to assist them to meet this mandate. o Option 1: The cost to implement “The 5 and 5 Requirement” entirely in FY 13 is approximately $355,000 for the General Government and $754,144 for the School Division.  These costs to the County are due to the increase in wages (including unfunded raises to constitutional officers and local state employees), as well as associated increases for the County for FICA and life-insurance costs.  The costs to implement this requirement will be an ongoing annual operating expense that must continue to be funded in the years ahead.  These estimates do not include raises for those part-time employees who are not members of VRS, since they will not be required to contribute to VRS.  If the County desires to also provide additional funds to employees to offset their additional FICA and other costs, there would be additional costs. For example, the School Division estimates that if it were to fully implement the 5 and 5 Requirement and also provide additional funding to employees to offset additional employee costs, the School Division cost in FY 13 would be $1.44 million. o Option 2: Costs to phase in the VRS mandate in FY 13 using the straight 1% phase-in option is estimated to be $83,000 for General Government and $182,460 for the School Division in the first year. o Costs would be significantly greater if the School Division and/or the General Government decide to also provide additional funding above the required raise to employees to help them offset the cost of employee-paid FICA and other tax implementations. Some call this option “making employees whole.” Timing: Timing for this decision is of the essence, as the change is effective on July 1, 2012. o Payroll Programming: the newly-implemented Access Albemarle system will need rapid programming changes in order to process VRS contributions, regardless of which strategy is chosen. o Change in Procedures: Pay scales will need to be altered soon, as the Human Resources (HR) Department is already in the hiring process for positions that will begin work after July 1, 2012. o Teacher Contracts: The HR Department is in the process of hiring teachers for the upcoming school year and cannot provide a salary amount in the contracts at this time. Virginia Code requires after the school budget has been approved, teachers must be furnished a statement confirming continuation of employment and salary. o Staff Communication: Current staff will see a difference in their pay and, while some communications have been given to School Division employees regarding this issue, it is critical to provide concrete details to all employees and the impact that this will have on them as soon as possible. 2 Staff impacts: o Employees who are members of VRS would also experience additional costs due to this new requirement that will not be fully offset by a raise of the equal amount due to increased FICA costs. o All new hires who will be members of VRS must pay the 5% contribution to VRS if they commence employment with the County on or after July 1, 2012. o Part-time employees who are not members of VRS will not be required to pay the 5% contribution. External Competitiveness: The County’s competitiveness for new hires will be impacted by how it chooses to implement this requirement in comparison with how other jurisdictions decide to proceed. If the County decides to phase-in the requirement while most other localities in the County’s competitive market do not, the County’s pay scale may be considered to be less competitive for new employees. (See the results of the County’s survey of other general governments and school divisions on the next page.) Internal equity: o New Hires: Even if the County phases-in at 1% for current employees over the next five years, all new hires after July 1, 2012 must contribute at the 5% level as mandated by SB 497. This also includes any employees that become VRS-eligible anytime during the year. (For example, this would apply to part-time employees who become full time during the year.) This could create a situation in which full-time employees making the same salary would see a difference in their net pay due to different contribution requirements. o Part-time employees: If the pay does not increase for part-time employees because they will not be contributing an equal amount to VRS, the County would create separate salary scales for part-time employees who are not members of VRS.  Within the School Division, employees frequently fluctuate between full and part-time status, which would create issues with having separate salary scales.  If an employee who is currently full-time is contributing less than 5% due to phasing in of this mandate drops to part-time, for even a day, then returns to full-time status, they would be required to contribute the full 5% to VRS immediately.  Some employees work two part-time jobs which results in full time employment and VRS membership, which will pose further administrative challenges for the HR Department regarding adjustments to the pay scale. o Administration: The tracking of the different contribution rates is expected to require additional labor hours in the HR Department, and the idiosyncratic nature of the different employment scenarios could increase the chance of error. Survey of other Jurisdictions and School Division’s Planned Approaches: A market survey of HR and budget staff at select jurisdictions in Virginia was conducted by the Office of Management and Budget and the HR Department during the time period of April 17, 2012 to April 30, 2012. The results are as follows:  General Governments: Sixteen general governments were contacted. Of those, seven indicate that they plan to implement the “5 and 5 Requirement” all at once in FY 13. Two of those seven indicate they plan to provide additional raises (a total of 5.7%) to their employees to help offset employee’s FICA and tax implementation costs. Two jurisdictions do not participate in VRS, four have not made a decision yet, and three plan to phase-in this requirement at this time. It is perhaps worthy of note that most of these localities surveyed do not have “commonality” issues with an associated school system and would experience less of a financial impact when only considering general government employees.  School Divisions: Fifteen school divisions were contacted. Of those, two plan to implement the “5 and 5 Requirement” all at once in FY 13 and one school division plans to phase-in the requirement this year. The remaining twelve have not made a decision yet as how they plan to proceed. 3 Option to Reduce VRS Contribution “Rate” beginning July 1, 2012: The adopted budget bill (HB 1301), also approved on April 18, 2012, provides local governments with the following options regarding a VRS contribution rate beginning July 1, 2012:  Pay the rate certified by the VRS Board of Trustees for the 2012-2014 biennium announced in December 2011; or  Pay either the rate certified by the VRS Board of Trustees for FY 2011-2012 or 70% of the VRS Board- certified rate for 2013-2014, whichever is higher. If the County’s General Government chooses to exercise this option, the combined contribution rate for General Government’s share and its employees’ share would be the current VRS rate in FY 12, which is 15.14%, rather than the VRS Board rate of 18.99%.  Allows for rates to be phased in over 6 years, not requiring full payment of the rate certified by the VRS Board of Trustees until FY 2018. The budget adopted by the General Assembly allows political subdivisions to phase-in employer rates certified by VRS over three biennia. For FY 13, the County has the option to pay the FY 12 VRS overall rate, which is 15.14% rather than the updated VRS certified rate for Albemarle County which is 18.99%. If the County opted to take this approach, this would reduce the County’s overall payment into the County’s VRS Trust Fund by $1.2 million in FY 13. While this reduction could offset the cost of implementing the “5 and 5” Requirement in the short term, staff recommends that the County does not elect this option. If the County does not properly fund its VRS Fund, the County will be required to pay higher rates in the future based on the actuarial valuation of assets and liabilities as approved by the VRS Board of Trustees every two years. Staff does not recommend that the County take the same approach to under fund its VRS Fund that has been taken by the state in prior years which has resulted in the need for higher rates to make up the shortage caused by the earlier funding decisions. School Board Discussions and Considerations: On April 26, 2012, the School Division staff reviewed the SB497 VRS Mandate requirements in detail with the School Board. The School Division’s staff’s PowerPoint provided to the School Board is linked here (see attached). School Division staff presented the following three implementation funding choices to the School Board: 1) Request Local Government to provide funds to meet the new VRS mandate passed following their b udget adoption, 2) Use School Board Fund Balance to address the costs, or 3) reduce operational funds to address the costs. Due to the complexities of this issue and the other decisions the School Board needed to make to balance its budget, the School Board did not make a decision on how to address the VRS implementation. The School Board is scheduled to meet again on May 7, 2012 to consider this issue. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Service Options SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Evaluate long term options for County directed solid waste services STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Davis, Graham, and Shadman LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2012 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The purpose of Wednesday’s work session is to obtain Board direction on preferred alternatives for providing future solid waste services. For background, attached are the executive summaries previously reviewed with the Board as well as a draft set of questions staff will review to help clarify Board direction. These draft questions and the background materials are being provided in advance so the Board can think through the various issues that will need to be clarified before the County can proceed. DISCUSSION: Staff is planning a facilitated discussion of these issues so that the scope of the County’s future solid waste operation can be more clearly established. The Board needs to define its desired level of service whether the services are provided by the public or private sector, so that the different service provision alternatives can be considered and the ultimate cost of those services can be determined. The Board will also have to decide whether the Board of Supervisors or the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority will oversee the provision of solid waste services to County citizens. Attachment A provides a brief background on each of the draft questions and some important issues to consider. At Wednesday’s meeting, staff will provide a brief overview of the issues related to each question and will work to achieve consensus from the Board that will set direction for the future. Depending on the Board’s responses to these issues, it is possible that additional work will need to be done by a consultant. BUDGET IMPACT: The budget impact will be determined based on the results of the work session RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has no recommendation at this time. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Draft Questions regarding Solid Waste Services Attachment B – March 2012 Executive Summary Attachment C – November 2011 Executive Summary Attachment D – October 2010 Executive Summary Return to agenda ATTACHMENT A 1. Level of Service a. Collection of Municipal Solid Waste and Construction Debris i. Current Services 1. Curbside Services for MSW a. Private collection currently in place for 90-95% of County residential waste 2. Drop off Services for MSW and Construction Debris a. RSWA Transfer station at Ivy Landfill i. provides MSW services for citizens not serviced by private collection ii. provides services for small contractors iii. waste transported by Waste Mgt through contract with RSWA ii. Future Services 1. Curbside Services for MSW a. Continued private collection services 2. Drop off Services for MSW and Construction Debris a. Maintain current level of service? b. Expand services? c. Reduce services? d. Collection center rather than transfer site? b. Recycling i. Current Services 1. County Funded Recycling Center at RSWA Transfer station at Ivy 2. Shared County/City RSWA Recycling Center at McIntire 3. County Funded RSWA Paper Recycling at Scottsville, Forrest Lakes and Pantops ii. Future Services 1. Does the Board want to expand services beyond the above 2. If yes, issues to consider: a. Level of service? b. Locations? c. Funding? c. Other Services i. Current Services 1. Vegetative waste – mulching 2. White Goods – Refrigerators, stoves, etc. 3. Tires and Batteries 4. Recyclable metal 5. Paints 6. Household Hazardous Waste ii. Future Services 1. Maintain current level of service? 2. Expand services? 3. Reduce services? 2. Organizational Oversight a. Regional Oversight of County Service (RSWA Board – 2 County Reps, 2 City Reps, 1 Citizen Rep) b. Board of Supervisors Oversight of County Service 3. Service Provider a. RSWA b. County c. Privatize ATTACHMENT B COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Options – Consultant Services SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Contract to evaluate solid waste service options STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Graham, and Shadman LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: March 7, 2012 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: In November 2011, staff presented the Board with a summary outlining long-term options for solid waste services. (Attachment A) Staff recognized it lacked some of the expertise to accurately analyze these options, especially an evaluation of costs and potential permitting obstacles. Therefore, staff recommended retaining a consultant with experience in Virginia solid waste programs and estimated that services would cost between $30,000 and $40,000. The Board directed staff to finalize a scope of services and cost with a consultant, and to bring it back to the Board for approval. A proposed scope of services and cost estimate is attached (Attachment B) for the Board’s consideration. DISCUSSION: Staff has selected Draper Aden Associates for this project for several reasons. First, Draper Aden has a local presence and has already been pre-selected by the County for providing professional services through an open list of consultants. Staff considers this important because it reduces the cost of travel time for the consultant and the County avoids additional costs in procuring services. Second, Draper Aden has worked for the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) and, more particularly, has worked at the RSWA’s Ivy facility (Ivy MUC). Draper Aden already understands RSWA’s current operations and challenges. This helps the County avoid the cost of educating a new consultant. Additionally, Draper Aden was a technical support consultant for RSWA’s strategic planning process, giving the firm an understanding of local preferences. Third, in staff’s interviews, Lynn Klappich, Draper Aden’s Program Manager for this project, was found to be both knowledgeable of the issues and insightful about the difficulties in balancing objectives. When staff considered all of these factors together, Draper Aden was rated the best choice for this project. Staff has kept the proposed services focused on the outlined options, but includes some flexibility should additional questions or issues arise. For this reason, staff is recommending the contract be based on an “hourly, not to exceed” basis rather than as a fixed sum contract. Should the scope of work adequately address the questions without the need to study additional issues, the County can limit the cost of the work. Should additional questions or concerns arise, this form of contract allows the scope to be easily amended to include that work . Staff recognizes there is some appeal to skipping this analysis of options and proceeding to bid for solid waste services as quickly as possible. Staff believes the County’s interest is best served by first exploring all three options and verifying the best direction. This will help assure County citizens are being served in the best way possible and for the lowest cost. Through fees charged by service providers or through County support of programs, it appears each of the options could result in a total cost of several million dollars over the next decade. Additionally, even if the decision is ultimately made to privatize services, this study will help craft that bid to better serve the County’s interest and hopefully improve the chances of a successful contract. BUDGET IMPACT: As shown in Attachment B, the proposal is capped at a not to exceed fee of $32,000 and is within the originally anticipated cost. The FY12 CIP appropriation to the RSWA for environmental services has been evaluated as a possible funding source. Based on past expenditures and anticipated services in the year ahead, staff believes that a portion of this amount could be shifted to a consultant contract while still meeting all obligations under the RSWA Environmental Support Agreement. If approved, staff will request an appropriation at a future Board meeting. ATTACHMENT B AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Options – Consultant Services March 7, 2012 Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board: 1) authorize the use of $32,000 from the FY12 CIP appropriation to the RSWA for environmental services to fund a contract to evaluate solid waste service options; 2) authorize the County Executive to sign a contract with Draper Aden Associates for services as proposed in Attachment B, subject to the County Attorney’s approval of the contract as to form; and 3) direct staff to present the study to the Board as quickly as possible. Staff anticipates this will be in two or three months. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – November 2011 Executive Summary Attachment B – Proposed Scope of Services, with Cost Estimate COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Long Term Solid Waste Service Options SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Process for evaluating future solid waste service options STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Graham, and Shadman LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: November 2, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: In October 2010, the Board reviewed options for solid waste services based on information provided by staff. The Board reviewed service level options and costs and decided to maintain the current level of service through short term agreements with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RWSA). The County currently provides a support payment to the Authority to cover any operating deficits after revenues are considered. This action was taken after the City of Charlottesville advised RSWA and the County that they had no interest in continuing to receive services from RSWA’s Ivy facility. At a December 2010 meeting, staff advised the Board that the City had expressed an interest in continuing to support recycling services provided by RSWA at the McIntire Recycling Facility. The Board established expectations for the service agreements to continue solid waste and recycling services and directed staff to work with RSWA staff to develop agreements to continue these services while long term options were considered. In August 2011, the Board reviewed the RSWA support agreements for both the RSWA Ivy and McIntire Facilities (Attachments A and B) and authorized the County Executive to sign these agreements. While the agreements satisfied the Board expectations for services in the short term, questions remained as to whether or not RSWA could meet the County’s long term needs within the current structure of a regional authority, recognizing that a regional body with City representatives would be involved in the decisions regarding a service provided solely to County residents. To address this concern, the Board directed staff to prepare a review of how future services might be provided following RSWA’s consideration of the current Organizational Agreement. The RSWA Board conducted a review of the Organizational Agreement in early August and agreed to propose a change to the agreement to “allow” rather than “require” that RSW A provide services for the City and County. While this did not resolve the County’s long term direction, it did clarify that RSW A does not advocate to be the sole provider of solid waste services. The purpose of this agenda item is to seek Board direction on a preferred process for determining a long term strategy to meet the County’s solid waste needs. DISCUSSION: In considering long-term options for delivery of solid waste services, staff believes there are three options that the Board should consider: 1) Maintain a support agreement by which RSWA would continue to provide these services. The advantages of this option are that the RSWA has proven to be a cost effective service provider and is very experienced at providing these services at the Ivy facility. The disadvantages of this option are that the current Authority structure and the complexity of the service agreement make it difficult for the County to address long-term capital improvement requirements for services solely provided to County residents. For example, the current agreement is subject to 2 year periods and has non-appropriation clauses to avoid binding future Boards to this agreement. Both of those factors present a problem for RSWA financing major capital improvements. Similarly, the current RSWA Organizational Agreement makes it possible for the County representation on the RSW A Board to be a dissenting minority when RSWA adopts its annual budget. If the City representatives and the independent member of the RSWA Board included costs in the budget that the County found unacceptable, the County is left with the choice of either paying that cost or terminating the agreement. That would effectively leave the County with an ongoing short term agreement rather than a long-term solution to meet its solid waste needs. AGENDA TITLE: Long Term Solid Waste Service Options November 2, 2011 Page 2 2) Enter negotiations to either purchase or lease the part of the Ivy facility that provides the solid waste services and then either manage it with County employees or contract out the management to others. The advantages of this option are that the County assumes better financial control of its solid waste services and uses an existing facility rather than investing in a new facility. The disadvantages of this option are that the County has very little experience managing solid waste services and this would likely require a new permit from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The lack of experience could potentially be addressed by RSWA employees simply shifting to the County, however, the transfer of the operation to the County and the lease or purchase of the facility would be subject to approval by the RSWA Board. Additionally, with the potential of needing a new permit from DEQ, it is possible that an upgrade of the facility to meet current standards would be required. However, it is likely that an upgrade will be needed in any case to provide effective long term operations. 3) Identify a new location for constructing a transfer station and provide solid waste services independent of RSWA. The advantages of this option are that the County is no longer subject to the approval of the RSWA Board and the County can establish its own direction for providing long term solid waste services, including the financial planning and control of capital investments. This potential operation could be overseen by the Board of Supervisors through a County department or could be set up as an independent Authority similar to the Albemarle County Service Authority or as an additional responsibility of the Albemarle County Service Authority. The disadvantages of this option are that the County would need to undertake the often difficult and controversial siting of this new facility and the complexity of managing this new service. The management issue is very similar for options 2 and 3. Staff anticipates finding an acceptable location for a new facility would prove very controversial and the conditions to address concerns would increase the cost of services. Staff has not fully evaluated each of these options and has concerns that the information above lacks the expertise to provide a reliable analysis, especially with respect to the costs and other issues that may be associated with options 2 or 3. For staff to fairly compare the above options and their costs and assure that significant issues are not overlooked, we believe contracting with a consultant experienced in solid waste services is necessary and prudent given the significance of establishing a long term direction. Staff anticipates this would be contracted as a professional service and that the scope of services would be adjusted through negotiations rather than requesting a simple quote for a predefined service. BUDGET IMPACT: While staff has not discussed these services with potential consultants, it is thought that the cost would like ly be in the range of $30-40,000 for a preliminary analysis adequate to provide the necessary information for the Board to effectively evaluate the options. The FY12 CIP appropriation to the RSWA for environmental services has been evaluated as a possible funding source. Based on past expenditures and anticipated services in the year ahead, staff believes that a portion of this amount could be shifted to a consultant contract while still meeting all obligations under the RSW A Environmental Support Agreement. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board: 1) Direct staff to procure consulting services to evaluate the options as described above, as well as any other options. 2) Direct staff to prepare an appropriation request in an amount necessary for the consultant contract based on a negotiated scope of services. ATTACHMENTS: A – 8/23/11 Ivy Facility Agreement B – 8/23/11 McIntire Facility Agreement COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Service Options SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Work session to consider solid waste service disposal options upon the expiration of the City/County support agreement STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and Shadman LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: October 6, 2010 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: In 1990, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville entered into an agreement (Attachment A) to form the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) for the purpose of managing solid waste generated in the County and the City. The agreement designated the RSWA as the sole provider for solid waste disposal services for both the County and the City. The agreement anticipated that the RSWA would be self-supporting, primarily through the collection of tipping fees at the Ivy Facility. This arrangem ent worked well until 2001, when the last landfill cell at the Ivy Facility was closed, and tighter regulations, as well as public opposition, made it highly unlikely that the RSWA could open a new landfill cell. From that point, the RSWA has provided a limited capacity transfer station at the Ivy Facility for garbage (MSW) and construction debris (CDD). This Facility is not adequate to handle the total demands of both the County and the City. To compensate, the RSWA accepted MSW and CDD through a contractual arrangement at a private transfer station at Zions Crossroads. As a result of losing the tipping fees generated by the Ivy Facility, the RSWA was no longer self-sustaining. The County and City entered into a Local Government Support Agreement in December, 2007 (Attachment B) to fund RSWA’s operational deficits. Since entering into that agreement, other disposal options have become available and the RSWA has determined that it is no longer in a position to serve as the sole provider of solid waste disposal services for the County and the City. Currently, there are at least four options for disposal of MSW and CDD generated in the County: the Ivy Facility, two private transfer stations at Zion’s Crossroads, and a private transfer station in Greene County. Acknowledging the City’s interest in exploring other service options, in June, 2010, the County and City amended the 2007 agreement to end the County/City funding of RSWA’s operational deficits as of December 31, 2010 (Attachment C). The County must now determine its service needs and delivery options with the assumption that the City is discontinuing its financial support of the RSWA, except for a prior commitment to fund the environmental mitigation at the Ivy Landfill. The purpose of this work session is to define the solid waste disposal services the Board believes are needed in the County. This will be followed by a November work session to consider options for providing those services. DISCUSSION: Staff initiated its analysis by considering levels of service and developed the attached table that defines a low, medium, and high level of public service for solid waste disposal (Attachment D). The County currently provides a medium level of service. Staff believes the public would perceive the level of service to be low if there were a significant drop in the level of service and that they would perceive the level of service to be high if there were a significant increase in the level of service. Staff recognizes that these are debatable standards. The rationale for defining the existing level of service at medium is that there have been few complaints received at the current level of service. While there have been complaints about curbside recycling options in the past, those complaints have diminished since the Zions Crossroads transfer stations started extracting recyclable materials from both MSW and CDD. It appears people interested in curbside recycling have largely found that those transfer stations addressed their needs. Thus, staff does not see an immediate need for increased services. With this framework, the County involvement and costs were compared to peer communities (Attachment E). From this, it appears Albemarle has a lower level of service in solid waste disposal services and also has much less tax support than most of the peer localities. Stafford County is one of a few localities that still operates its own landfill. Similar to the RSWA’s experience prior to 2001, revenue generated from Stafford’s landfill appears to allow that AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Service Options October 6, 2010 Page 2 locality to fund a number of solid waste related services to their constituents. Complicating this analysis, Albemarle appears to be unique since the public is now served by a private transfer station that incorporates a materials recovery facility (recycling) in its process. To perform an accurate total cost analysis would require merging the fees charged by private haulers with the localities’ support. That data was not available for this analysis. Additionally, there are subjective values that would need to be included in a total cost analysis. For example, what value does the typical citizen place on a curbside service that provides co-mingled recycling? Next, the RSWA FY 11 budget anticipates a deficit of $385,000 for operations, while the County has budgeted $350,000 for RSWA support in the current year. Pursuant to the amended support agreement, that cost is shared by the County and the City through December 2010. Staff notes the current financial data suggests that there will be a higher deficit than budgeted, but it is too early in the fiscal year to verify this. (Attachment F) This data suggests that even if the City were not to contribute in the second half of FY 11, it may be possible for the County to continue receiving the current level of services with little or no service adjustment in FY 11. The final factor staff considered in its analysis was the current demand for services and whether alternatives exist. Based on the RSWA’s records and prior surveys of residents, staff believes there remains a significant need for a drop-off center in the County. This need is not only for MSW, but for other materials such as woody debris and appliances. For MSW, it was noted that RSWA continues to see a sizable number of residents who are not served by commercial trash haulers. Many of those are due to their remote location, while others are people who generate very little trash and/or have limited income. If a convenience center/transfer station were not available to those residents, staff anticipates the County would see an increase in illegal dumping and complaints over the service reductions. With respect to the McIntire Road Recycling Facility, staff notes that the recycling offered continues to be a very popular program for both County and City residents, though the need appears to be reduced due to expanded curbside recycling options available in both the County and the City. Staff believes there will continue to be some need for drop- off recycling services. Based on the above, staff believes the County should maintain the current RSWA operations, with the possible exception of the McIntire Road Facility. The comparison to peer communities indicates that the RSWA is providing a cost effective service and service demands have not dramatically changed. While an expansion of services could allow the County to better match peer communities, there appears to be little public demand for expanded services, perhaps because there are multiple private options currently available to County residents and businesses, many of which are not available in those peer communities. If the Board is interested in expanding services (and funding support), staff believes those changes should be permanent. The County’s experience in closing the Keene landfill suggests there would be significant citizen dissatisfaction and increased illegal dumping if the County expanded services, then later reduced them. Conversely, while a reduction of services may be possible, staff noted many residents and businesses continue to rely on the RSWA’s programs at the Ivy Facility. Therefore, staff recommends keeping those services in place. If the City does not continue to fund the Ivy Facility, then the RSWA should implement a fee system for its use by City residents. With respect to the McIntire Road Facility, staff notes this Facility receives a similar per capita usage by County and City residents, but the City has not committed to continuing its support. If the City is not willing to continue its support, staff believes the RSWA should consider the cost savings that could be realized by consolidating services at the Ivy Facility. If the City is willing to continue its support, staff recommends continuing to support the McIntire Road Facility. Staff would also ask that the RSWA consider restoring the fluorescent bulb and battery programs that were recently eliminated at the McIntire Road Facility. While restoration of those programs would likely require additional funding, there are currently no alternatives available to County residents, and those programs appear to be important for environmental reasons. Finally, staff notes that while the RSWA provides a cost effective service, the organizational agreement provides the County and the City equal votes in setting the RSWA budget. When the costs of those services are shared by the localities, that arrangement is appropriate. However, if the County were to become the sole funding source for the RSWA, it would be inappropriate to allow the City to continue to have an equal vote in setting the RSWA’s operations budget. If the Board agrees with staff’s recommendation for the County to continue to fund the RSWA and if the City discontinues its partnership with the County in funding the RSWA, staff recommends that the Board consider amending the RSWA Organizational Agreement at its November work session. AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Service Options October 6, 2010 Page 3 BUDGET IMPACT: The County has $350,000 budgeted in FY 11 to support RSWA FY 11 operations. Based on the RSWA adopted budget for FY 11, it was anticipated that RSWA’s operational deficit would total $385,000. It appears that County and City funding for the period of July, 2010 through December 2010, combined with County funding from January 2011 through June 2011, will cover the RSWA’s FY 11 operational deficit. If inadequate, it appears RSWA would need to use its reserves. Staff’s recommendation focuses on maintaining services without any significant increase in the County support to RSWA. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board 1) continue support of services currently provided at RSWA’s Ivy Facility (it appears this will require little, if any, increase in current County support payments); 2) continue support of RSWA’s McIntire Road Facility if the City agrees to continue its support (otherwise, staff recommends requesting RSWA to consider consolidating those services to the Ivy Facility, with the goal of not increasing current County support payments; and 3) consider changes to the RSWA Organizational Agreement at a November work session with the goal of assuring the organization matches operations and support by both the County and the City. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Solid Waste Organizational Agreement Attachment B –RSWA Local Government Support Agreement Attachment C – Amendment to RSWA Local Government Support Agreement Attachment D – Solid Waste Service Levels Attachment E – Peer Community Comparison Attachment F – RSWA July 2010 financial report COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: HO 2011-152, Stanley Chang – Home Occupation Modification for traffic generation Staff: David Benish Planning Commission Meeting: April 24, 2012 Board of Supervisors Meeting: May 9, 2012 Owner/s: Stanley Chang Applicant: Stanley C. Chang dba Tae Pyung Acupuncture, P.C. Acreage: 1.02 acres Special Use Permit History: SP 2002-020, Pine Crest Orchids Home Occupation Class B Amendment (for increased square footage) SP 1990-069, Leon Blumreich Home Occupation Class B Amendment (administratively approved for additional greenhouse) SP 1985-021, Leon Blumreich Home Occupation Class B (administratively approved) TMP: 061A0-00-00-01400 Location: 1100 Pen Park Lane The property is located at the intersection of Rio Road and Pen Park Lane. Existing Zoning and By-right use: R-4, Residential Magisterial District: Rio Conditions or Proffers: YES conditions, NO proffers Development Area: Urban Neigh. 2 – Places 29 Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A Proposal: The applicant has requested a Home Occupation Class A (HOCA) modification for the number of vehicle trips generated from the Home Occupation. A concurrent application is being processed for a HOCA clearance to operate an acupuncture office. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban Density in Development Area 2 Character of Property: A residential lot within the Pen Park subdivision. Use of Surrounding Properties: residential lots within the Pen Park subdivision. Factors Favorable: 1. This property has had a home occupation use since 1985. 2. The use will not produce any excess noise, waste, or light. 3. The level of traffic potentially generated from this request is consistent with other by-right uses permitted within residences (including day care for up to 5 children); 4. Pen Park Lane and the driveway serving the residents/home occupation can adequately accommodate anticipated traffic, drop-off/pick-up, and parking activity generated by this request. Factors Unfavorable: 1. No factors unfavorable RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the modification request with conditions. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: HO 2011-152, Stanley Chang SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant requests a Home Occupation Class A (HOCA) modification for the number of vehicle trips generated from the Home Occupation Class A. STAFF CONTACT(S): David Benish LEGAL REVIEW: NO AGENDA DATE: April 24, 201211 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YES BACKGROUND: The applicant, Stanley C. Chang (Tae Pyung Acupuncture, P.C.), is requesting a Home Occupation Class A (HOCA) modification for the number of trips generated by the HOCA use. A concurrent application is being processed for a HOCA clearance to operate an acupuncture office. The applicant is an acupuncturist and intends to operate within his home. The applicant is requesting up to thirty (30) clients per week. Characteristics of the anticipated operation:  Operating hours are by appointment, Monday through Friday. The office will be closed on Saturdays and Sundays.  Sessions last an average of 50 minutes, but can range from 40 minutes to 60 minutes for follow-up visits and up to 90 minutes for initial consultations. The property (TMP 061A0-00-00-01400) is located at 1100 Pen Park Lane and is located at the intersection of Rio Road and Pen Park Lane. The 1.02 acre parcel is zoned R-4, Residential. Pen Park Lane consists of single-family detached homes. A previous Home Occupation Class B for flower sales on-site has existed on this property for over 20 years. The Home Occupation was amended in 2002 (SP2002-20, Pine Crest Orchids) to allow for an expansion to the greenhouses on-site. The normal operating hours for that Home Occupation was 8:00 to 5:00, M onday through Saturday, and it was estimated to generate 7 to 10 customers per week. DISCUSSION: The applicant is seeking a modification of Section 5.2 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance for home occupations, which states, “[t]he traffic generated by a home occupation shall not exceed the volume that would normally be expected by a dwelling unit in a residential neighborhood.” The Zoning Department assumes the “normal volume” of traffic for a dwelling unit is 5 round trips per day (10 vehicle trips per day) and will also allow one additional trip per day for clients, stipulating that these trips should be spread throughout the week (seven per week ). The applicant’s request is to be allowed to serve an up to 30 clients per week five days per week (Monday through Friday). This would result in 30 round trips per week, from the home occupation use (and an average of 6 round trips per day). A “round trip” means one vehicle entering and exiting the site. Staff has evaluated the request based on the traffic impacts to Pen Park Lane, Rio Road, and the neighborhood. Planning staff typically evaluates traffic generation of this type of request against other uses permitted by-right within residences, most particularly a daycare serving up to five (5) children (a special use permit is required for a day care serving six or more children). A by-right daycare would generate up to 50 round trips per week and 10 round trips per day (2 round trips/day per child for drop-off and pick-up) in addition to the 5 round trips from the residential use. The applicant’s request is also consistent with the threshold established for Rural Area Home Occupations, which is to not exceed 30 vehicle round trips per week . That section of the ordinance (Section 5.2A.e.) is provided below:  “Traffic generated by a major home occupation. The traffic generated by a major home occupation shall not exceed ten (10) vehicle round trips per day or more than thirty (30) vehicle round trips per week. For the purposes of this section, a “vehicle round trip” means one vehicle entering and exiting the site.” SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application: 1. This property has had a home occupation use since 1985. 2. The use will not produce any excess noise, waste, or light. 3. The level of traffic potentially generated from this request is consistent with other by-right uses permitted within residences (including day care for up to 5 children); 4. Pen Park Lane and the driveway serving the residents/home occupation can adequately a ccommodate anticipated traffic and parking activity generated by this request. Staff has not identified any unfavorable factors. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of HO 2011-152 with the following conditions: 1. No more than 30 clients per week and no more than 6 clients per day (Monday through Friday). ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT A – Location Map ATTACHMENT B – Neighborhood Level Aerial Photo ATTACHMENT C – Zoning Ordinance Section 5.2, Home Occupations in Zoning Districts Other Than Rural Area Zoning District Planning Commission minutes Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 18-5-22.18 Zoning Supplement #65, 1-12-11 shall be the distance between the existing permanent structure and the street, road, access easement or lot line on May 5, 2010 and that distance shall not be thereafter reduced. An enlargement or expansion of the structure shall be no closer to a street, road, access easement or lot line than the existing structure. d. Parking. Notwithstanding any provision of section 4.12, the following minimum parking requirements shall apply to a farm stand, farm sales use, and farmers’ market: 1. Number of spaces. Each use shall provide one (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of retail area. 2. Location. No parking space shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to any public street right-of-way. 3. Design and improvements. In conjunction with each application for a zoning clearance, the zoning administrator shall identify the applicable parking design and improvements required that are at least the minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare by providing safe ingress and egress to and from the site, safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site, and the control of dust as deemed appropriate in the context of the use. The zoning administrator shall consult with the county engineer, who shall advise the zoning administrator as to the minimum design and improvements. Compliance with the identified parking design and improvements shall be a condition of approval of the zoning clearance. (§ 5.1.19, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01; §5.1.35, Ord. 95-20(3), 10-11-95; § 5.1.36, Ord. 95-20(4), 10- 11-95; § 5.1.47, Ord 10-18(4), 5-5-10) 5.2 HOME OCCUPATIONS IN ZONING DISTRICTS OTHER THAN THE RURAL AREAS ZONING DISTRICT Each home occupation authorized in a zoning district other than the rural areas zoning district shall be subject to the following: a.Purpose and intent. The purpose for authorizing home occupations in zoning districts other than the rural areas zoning district is to encourage limited home-based economic development, balanced with the need to protect and preserve the quality and character of the county’s residential neighborhoods. The regulations in this section are intended to ensure that authorized home occupations will be compatible with other permitted uses and the residential neighborhood by regulating the scale, hours, external activities, external appearance and other impacts that may arise from a home occupation. b. Location and area occupied by a home occupation. A home occupation shall be located and sized as follows: 1. Class A home occupations. A Class A home occupation shall be conducted entirely within the dwelling unit, provided that not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit shall be used for the home occupation and further provided that the gross floor area used for the home occupation shall not exceed one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet. 2. Class B home occupations. A Class B home occupation shall be conducted within the dwelling unit or an accessory structure, or both, provided that not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit shall be used for the home occupation and further provided that the cumulative gross floor area used for the home occupation shall not exceed one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet. ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 18-5-22.19 Zoning Supplement #65, 1-12-11 c.Exterior appearance. The exterior appearance of a parcel with a home occupation shall be subject to the following: 1. Class A home occupations. There shall be no change in the exterior appearance of a dwelling unit or other visible evidence of the conduct of a Class A home occupation. 2. Class B home occupations. There shall be no change in the exterior appearance of a dwelling unit or other visible evidence of the conduct of a Class B home occupation, except that one home occupation sign may be erected as authorized by section 4.15. Accessory structures shall be similar in façade to a single-family dwelling, private garage, shed, barn or other structure normally expected in a residential area and shall be specifically compatible in design and scale with other residential development in the area in which it is located. Any accessory structure that does not conform to the applicable setback and yard requirements for primary structures shall not be used for a home occupation. d. Sales. No home occupation shall sell goods to a customer who comes to the site except for goods that are hand-crafted on-site and goods sold that are directly related to a beauty shop or a one-chair barber shop home occupation. e.Traffic generated by a home occupation. The traffic generated by a home occupation shall not exceed the volume that would normally be expected by a dwelling unit in a residential neighborhood. f. Parking. All vehicles used in a home occupation and all vehicles of employees, customers, clients or students shall be parked on-site. g. Performance standards. All home occupations shall comply with the performance standards in section 4.14. h. Prohibited home occupations. The following uses are prohibited as home occupations: (1) tourist lodging; (2) nursing homes; (3) nursery schools; (4) day care centers; and (5) private schools. i.Zoning clearance required. No home occupation shall commence without a zoning clearance issued under section 31.5, subject to the following: 1. Class A home occupations. Prior to the zoning administrator issuing a zoning clearance for a Class A home occupation, the applicant shall sign an affidavit affirming his understanding of the requirements of section 5.2. 2. Class B home occupations. Prior to the zoning administrator issuing a zoning clearance for a Class B home occupation: (a) there shall be a valid special use permit for the Class B home occupation; (b) the applicant shall provide the zoning administrator evidence that the Virginia Department of Transportation has approved the entrance to the site; and (c) the applicant shall sign an affidavit affirming his understanding of the requirements of section 5.2. (§ 20-5.2, 12-10-80; § 5.2.1, 12-10-80, 3-18-81; § 20-5.2.2, 12-10-80; §18-5.2.2, Ord. 98-A91), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11) 5.2A HOME OCCUPATIONS IN THE RURAL AREAS ZONING DISTRICT Each home occupation authorized in the rural areas zoning district shall be subject to the following: a.Purpose and intent. The purpose for authorizing home occupations in the rural areas zoning district is to encourage limited home-based economic development, balanced with the need to protect and preserve the quality and character of the county’s agricultural areas and residential ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 18-5-22.20 Zoning Supplement #65, 1-12-11 neighborhoods in the rural areas zoning district. The regulations in this section are intended to ensure that authorized home occupations will be compatible with other permitted uses, the agricultural areas, and the residential neighborhoods by regulating the scale, hours, external activities, external appearance and other impacts that may arise from a home occupation. b. Location and area occupied by a home occupation. A home occupation shall be located and sized as follows: 1. Major home occupations. A major home occupation shall be conducted within the dwelling unit or accessory structures, or both, provided that not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit shall be used for the home occupation and further provided that the cumulative area used for the home occupation, including the gross floor area within the dwelling unit or any accessory structure and the area used for outdoor storage as provided in section 5.2A(g), shall not exceed one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet. Plants that are planted in the ground that are to be used for a major home occupation do not count toward the one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet limitation. 2. Minor home occupations. A minor home occupation shall be conducted entirely within the dwelling unit, provided that not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit shall be used for the home occupation and further provided that the gross floor area used for the home occupation shall not exceed one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet. c.Exterior appearance. The exterior appearance of a parcel with a home occupation shall be subject to the following: 1. Major home occupations. There shall be no change in the exterior appearance of a dwelling unit or other visible evidence of the conduct of a major home occupation, except that one home occupation sign may be erected as authorized by section 4.15. Accessory structures shall be similar in façade to a single-family dwelling, private garage, shed, barn or other structure normally expected in a residential area and shall be specifically compatible in design and scale with other residential development in the area in which it is located. Any accessory structure that does not conform to the applicable setback and yard requirements for primary structures shall not be used for a home occupation. 2, Minor home occupations. There shall be no change in the exterior appearance of a dwelling unit or other visible evidence of the conduct of a minor home occupation. d. Visitors and sales. Visitors and sales related to a home occupation shall be subject to the following: 1. Major home occupations. Customers, clients and students may visit a major home occupation. The sale of goods by the major home occupation to a customer who comes to the site is prohibited except for goods that are hand-crafted on-site and accessory goods that are directly related to a major home occupation, including but not limited to tools for pottery making and frames for artwork. 2. Minor home occupations. No customers, clients or students may visit a minor home occupation for a purpose related to the home occupation. The sale of goods or the provision of services by the minor home occupation to a customer, client or student at the site is prohibited. e.Traffic generated by a major home occupation. The traffic generated by a major home occupation shall not exceed ten (10) vehicle round trips per day or more than thirty (30) vehicle round trips ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 18-5-22.21 Zoning Supplement #65, 1-12-11 per week. For the purposes of this section, a “vehicle round trip” means one vehicle entering and exiting the site. f. Parking. All vehicles used in a home occupation and all vehicles of employees, customers, clients or students related to a major home occupation shall be parked on-site. g. Outdoor storage. The storage of goods, products, equipment other than vehicles used in a home occupation, or any materials associated with a home occupation, other than natural landscaping materials such as mulch and plants, outside of an enclosed structure is prohibited. h. Days and hours of operation for major home occupations. Major home occupations may operate up to six (6) days per week and the hours of operation shall be between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. for those home occupations that have employees, customers, clients or students visiting the site. i.Number of vehicles used in a home occupation. The number of vehicles that may be used in a home occupation that are parked or stored on-site shall not exceed two (2) motor vehicles and two (2) trailers. j. Number of home occupations. More than one home occupation is permitted on a parcel, provided that the area occupied and the traffic generated by the home occupations shall be considered cumulatively and all requirements of this section shall apply. k. Performance standards. All home occupations shall comply with the performance standards in section 4.14. l.Prohibited home occupations. The following uses are prohibited as home occupations: (1) any use requiring a special use permit under section 10.2.2; (2) animal rescue centers; (3) automobile graveyards; (4) restaurants; (5) storage yards; (6) gun sales, unless the guns are made on-site by one or more family members residing within the dwelling unit; (7) on-site pet grooming; (8) body shops; (9) equipment, trailers, vehicles or machinery rentals; (10) shooting ranges; (11) commercial stables; (12) rummage or garage sales other than those determined by the zoning administrator to be occasional; (13) veterinary clinics or hospitals; (14) pyrotechnic (fireworks or bomb) device manufacturing or sales; and (15) any other use not expressly listed that is determined by the zoning administrator to be contrary to the purpose and intent of section 5.2A. m. Waivers and modifications. The waiver or modification of any requirement of section 5.2A is prohibited except as provided herein: 1. Area. The area requirements in section 5.2A(b) may be waived or modified, provided that the waiver or modification shall not authorize the home occupation to occupy more than forty-nine (49) percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling. In granting a waiver or modification of the area requirement, the commission shall make the following findings in addition to those findings in section 5.1: (1) the nature of the home occupation requires storage or additional space within the dwelling unit to conduct the home occupation; (2) the primary use of the dwelling unit as a residence is maintained; and (3) the waiver or modification would not change the character of the neighboring agricultural area or the residential neighborhood. 2. Traffic. The traffic limitation in section 5.2A(e) may be waived or modified. In granting a waiver or modification of the traffic limitation, the commission shall find, in addition to those findings in section 5.1, that the waiver or modification would not change the character of the neighboring agricultural area or the residential neighborhood. n. Zoning clearance required; notice of request. No home occupation shall commence without a zoning clearance issued under section 31.5. For each zoning clearance requested for a major home occupation, the zoning administrator shall provide written notice that an application for a zoning ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 18-5-22.22 Zoning Supplement #65, 1-12-11 clearance has been submitted to the owner of each abutting parcel under different ownership than the parcel on which the proposed home occupation would be located. The notice shall identify the proposed home occupation, its size, its location, and whether any waiver or modification is requested. The notice shall invite the recipient to submit any comments before the zoning clearance is acted upon. The notice shall be mailed at least five (5) days prior to the action on the zoning clearance as provided in section 32.4.2.5. (Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – APRIL 24, 2012 HO-2011-00152 STANLEY CHANG – Consent Agenda 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission April 24, 2012 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, April 24, 2012, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Bruce Dotson, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris, Chairman and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Members absent were Bruce Dotson. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present. Staff present was David Benish, Chief of Planning; Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Francis MacCall, Senior Planner; Ro n Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Morris called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Consent Agenda: Approval of Minutes: August 23, 2011, September 13, 2011, February 28, 2012 and March 6, 2012 HO-2011-00152 Stanley Chang PROPOSAL: Request for a modification to Home Occupation Class A allow six appointments per day, Monday through Friday, not to exceed 30 trips per week. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6-34 units/acre). LOCATION: The property is located on the at 1100 Pen Park Lane, in the northeast corner of the Rio Road-Pen Park Lane intersection. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061A0-00-00-01400 (David Benish) Mr. Morris asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda. There being none, he asked for a motion. Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded for approval of the consent agenda items . The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0. Mr. Morris noted the consent agenda was approved with the following recommendation to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for HO-2011-000152. The Planning Commission recommended approval of HO-2011-00152 Stanley Chang modification for the number of vehicle trips generated from the Home Occupation Class A with staff’s recommended condition, as follows. 1. No more than 30 clients per week and no more than 6 clients per day (Monday through Friday). (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations #2012073 and #2012074 for local government projects STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, and Davis; and Ms. L. Allshouse LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2012 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YES REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc. The total of the requested FY 2012 appropriations itemized below is $61,620,00. A budget amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: This request involves the approval of two (2) FY 2012 appropriations as follows:  One (1) appropriation (#2012073) totaling $61,620.00 for various Emergency Communications Center (ECC) projects; and  One (1) appropriation (#201274) reallocating $12,000.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies for Wireless Planning. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of appropriation #2012073 and #2012074. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Attachment A 1 Appropriation #2012073 $61,620.00 Revenue Source: ECC Fund Balance $ 61,620.00 At its March 15, 2012 meeting, the ECC Management Board approved the following appropriations of funds and is requesting that the County, acting as fiscal agent for the ECC, make an appropriation from ECC’s available fund balance as follows:  $9,520.00 to replace the existing base station on Carters Mountain with a very high frequency (VHF) repeater that is narrowband compliant. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license for the old frequencies is currently up for renewal and based on changes in FCC regulations, this license must be narrow-banded in order for its continued use.  $52,100.00 for renovations to the office space on the second floor of the Albemarle County Office Building located on 5th Street to install the appropriate electrical circuits, receptacles, switches, antennas and telephone lines to allow the location to be used as a back-up location for the ECC in the event the primary location would need to be evacuated or damaged in some way. Appropriation #2012074 $0.00 Revenue Source: Reserve for Contingencies $ 12,000.00 On December 7, 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved a motion to appropriate up to $12,000 from the Reserve for Contingencies to proceed with Task 2 of the Wireless Planning Draft Proposal for Consultant Services. Engaging a consultant to complete specifics tasks associated with Task 2 will assist the County in reviewing and updating the County’s Wireless Policy / Regulations. Details regarding the scope of work and a schedule for this project was provided to the Board on May 2, 2012. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 12/13 Resolution of Appropriations – Capital Budget SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request Approval of the Resolution of Appropriations for the Albemarle County Capital Budgets for FY 12/13 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, and Davis; and Ms. L. Allshouse LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2012 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The County’s FY 12/13 Operating and Capital Budgets were adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 11, 2012. As part of this adopted budget, the Board approved the General Government, School Division, and Stormwater Capital Improvement funds totaling $21,624,481. DISCUSSION: In order to adhere to financial policies and procedures, capital project budgets must be officially appropriated by the Board of Supervisors before the County can enter into contracts with outside vendors. The School Division needs to enter into several contracts in May in order to complete work during the summer before students return for the 2012- 13 school year. This resolution appropriates the General Government, School Division, and Stormwater Capital Improvement funds. The remainder of the total County budget, including both general government and school operating funds, School Self-Sustaining funds, Special Revenue funds, and Debt Service funds will be appropriated on June 6, 2012 following adoption of the School Division budget by the School Board in May. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Resolution of Appropriations for FY 12/13 Capital Improvement Plan budgets (Attachment A) that allocates a total of $21,624,481 to various General Government and School Division capital improvement accounts for expenditure in FY 12/13. This appropriation is made up of the following major funds: General Fund Transfer to CIP $ 3,047,383 General Government CIP 14,720,889 School Division CIP 6,774,647 Stormwater CIP 128,945 SUBTOTAL $24,671,864 Less Interfund Transfers (3,047,383) TOTAL $21,624,481 In accordance with the Capital Budget, staff also recommends approval of the attached Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing (Attachment B). This would allow the County to use up to $16,264,589 in bond proceeds to reimburse the capital budget for expenditures as indicated in Attachment B Exhibit A. ATTACHMENTS A: Resolution of Appropriations for Capital Expenditures B: Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors: Paragraph One: CAPITAL OUTLAYS Transfer to General Government Capital Improvements Fund $1,748,760 Transfer to Schools Capital Improvements Fund $1,245,068 Transfer to Stormwater Fund $53,555 $3,047,383 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $3,047,383 GENERAL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2013:$3,047,383 Paragraph One: COURTS Court Square Maintenance/Replacement Projects $241,851 Old Jail Facility Maintenance $19,125 Sheriff's Office maintenance/Replacement Projects $18,568 $279,544 Paragraph Two: PUBLIC SAFETY ECC Emergency Telephone System $1,385,602 Fire/Rescue Apparatus Replacement - County $292,448 Fire/Rescue Apparatus Replacement - Volunteers $903,132 Fire/Rescue Apparatus - Ivy Station 14 $898,150 Fire/Rescue Lifepacks $415,698 Pantops EMS $71,817 Firearms Range $1,007,213 County 800 Mhz Radio Replacements $44,080 Police Mobile Data Computers $123,787 Police Patrol Video Cameras $137,125 $5,279,052 Paragraph Three: PUBLIC WORKS City/County Co-Owned Maintenance/Replacement $75,304 County Facilities Maintenance/Replacement $506,452 Ivy Landfill Remediation $539,507 Moores Creek Septage Receiving $112,895 Storage Facility Lease $62,000 $1,296,158 SECTION II - GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9010) RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2013 A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for necessary capital improvement expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013; to prescribe the provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with this resolution to the extent of such inconsistency. That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013: SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT (Fund 1000) That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013: Page 1 Paragraph Four: PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE Parks - Maintenance/Replacement $329,068 $329,068 Paragraph Five: LIBRARIES City/County Branch Library Repair/Maintenance $211,470 County Library Facilities Repair/Maintenance $24,757 Crozet Library $6,765,497 $7,001,724 Paragraph Six: TECHNOLOGY AND GIS County Server/Infrastructure Upgrade $417,782 Paragraph Seven: OTHER USE OF FUNDS Contingency $117,561 Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2013:$14,720,889 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer)$1,748,760 Revenue from Other Local Sources $1,458,213 Bond Proceeds $10,510,360 Use of Fund Balance $1,003,556 Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2013:$14,720,889 Paragraph One: EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION) Administrative Technology $188,776 Instructional Technology $593,148 Local Area Network Upgrade $722,093 School Maintenance/Replacement $4,309,823 State Technology Grant $810,807 Storage Facility Lease $150,000 Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2013:$6,774,647 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer)$1,245,068 Revenue from Other Local Sources $2,000 Revenue from the Commonwealth $786,000 Bond Proceeds $3,776,873 Use of Fund Balance $964,706 Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2013:$6,774,647 Paragraph One: STORM WATER PROJECTS Storm Water Control Program $128,945 Total STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2013:$128,945 That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013: SECTION III: SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9000) SECTION IV: STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9100) That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013: Page 2 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)$53,555 Use of Fund Balance $75,390 Total STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2013:$128,945 Appropriations: Section I General Fund Transfers to Capital Improvement Programs $3,047,383 Section II General Government Capital Improvements Fund $14,720,889 Section III School Division Capital Improvements Fund $6,774,647 Section IV Storm Water Capital Improvements Fund $128,945 $24,671,864 Less Inter-Fund Transfers ($3,047,383) GRAND TOTAL - ALBEMARLE COUNTY APPROPRIATIONS $21,624,481 Paragraph Three No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment, or contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required; and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual, the County Attorney, and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specifications furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual. Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be maximum, conditional, and proportionate appropriations - the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full. SECTION V All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through III are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those set forth in this section. The Director of Finance (Betty Burrell) and Clerk to the Board of Supervisors (Ella W. Jordan) are hereby designated as authorized signatories for all bank accounts. Paragraph One TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN SECTIONS I - IV OF THIS RESOLUTION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING June 30, 2013 RECAPITULATION: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation resolution. Paragraph Two All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors included or not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation. realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors. Page 3 Clerk, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd Mr. Dumler Mr. Rooker Mr. Snow Mr. Thomas Ms. Mallek Paragraph Four Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the rate established by the County Executive for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time. This resolution shall become effective on July first, two thousand and twelve. All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance. Paragraph Six All resolutions and parts of resolutions inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be and the same are hereby repealed. Paragraph Seven In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors. Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures prescribed in the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall not be considered obligations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obligations. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a vote of ______ to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on May 9, 2012. Paragraph Five Page 4 Attachment B RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES WITH PROCEEDS OF A BORROWING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Virginia (the “Borrower”), intends to acquire, construct and equip the items and projects set forth in Exhibit A hereto (collectively, the “Project”); and WHEREAS, plans for the Project have advanced and the Borrower expects to advance its own funds to pay expenditures related to the Project (the “Expenditures”) prior to incurring indebtedness and to receive reimbursement for such Expenditures from proceeds of tax-exempt bonds or taxable debt, or both; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that: 1. The Borrower intends to utilize the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds (the “Bonds”) or to incur other debt, to pay the costs of the Project in an amount not currently expected to exceed $16,264,589. 2. The Borrower intends that the proceeds of the Bonds be used to reimburse the Borrower for Expenditures with respect to the Project made on or after the date that is no more than 60 days prior to the date of this Resolution. The Borrower reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds or other debt. 3. Each Expenditure was or will be, unless otherwise approved by bond counsel, either (a) of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles (determined in each case as of the date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuanc e with respect to the Bonds, (c) a nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a grant to a party that is not related to or an agent of the Borrower so long as such grant does not impose any obligation or condition (directly or indirectly) to repay any amount to or for the benefit of the Borrower. 4. The Borrower intends to make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation by the Borrower that evidences the Borrower’s use of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the Project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the Expenditure is paid. The Borrower recognizes that exceptions are available for certain “preliminary expenditures,” costs of issuance, certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by “small issuers” (based on the year of issuance and not the year of expenditure) and expenditures for construction of at least five years. 5. The Borrower intends that the adoption of this resolution confirms the “official intent” within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a vote of ______ to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on May 9, 2012. _________________________________ Clerk, County Board of Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd ___ ___ Mr. Dumler ___ ___ Ms. Mallek ___ ___ Mr. Rooker ___ ___ Mr. Snow ___ ___ Mr. Thomas ___ ___ Attachment B Exhibit A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BONDED PROJECTS FY 2012/13 Schools Amount 1. School Maintenance Projects $3,776,873 Schools Subtotal $3,776,873 General Fund Amount 1. County Server Infrastructure Upgrade $405,000 2. Crozet Library $6,558,500 3. ECC Emergency Telephone System $556,760 4. Fire Rescue Apparatus Replacement-County $283,500 5. Fire Rescue Apparatus Replacement-Volunteer $875,500 6. Fire Rescue Apparatus-Ivy Station 14 $870,670 7. Fire Rescue Lifepacks $402,980 8. Firearms Range $424,520 9. Police Patrol Video Cameras $132,930 General Fund Subtotal $10,510,360 TOTAL DEBT ISSUE – FY 2011/12 PROJECTS $14,287,233 PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED PROJECTS TO BE BONDED General Fund Amount 1. Firearms Range $127,356 2. Ivy Fire Station $250,000 3. Crozet Library* $1,600,000 General Fund Subtotal $1,975,356 TOTAL DEBT ISSUE – ALL PROJECTS $16,264,589 *Project previously anticipated to be funded or partially funded with cash. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Housing Choice Vouchers SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Status of Commitment to The Crossings STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, and White LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2012 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: In a February 10, 2010 letter, Virginia Supportive Housing requested that Albemarle County commit nine (9) project- based Housing Choice Vouchers to The Crossings at Fourth and Preston located in the City of Charlottesville. The Crossings is a rental property consisting of sixty efficiency apartments designated for homeless and low-income individuals. The Albemarle County vouchers would go to nine homeless individuals who were determined to be Albemarle County residents or who work in Albemarle County. The Board adopted a resolution at its March 3, 2010 meeting committing up to nine vouchers contingent upon HUD providing sufficient funding to support the vouchers. The City committed twenty-one vouchers. In April 2011, the Office of Housing entered into a Project-Based Voucher Agreement to Enter into Housing Assistance Payments Contract with The Crossings. Project-Based Vouchers (PBV’s) are vouchers that are designated for specific units in a specific project, unlike tenant-based vouchers, which can be transported by tenants to any eligible unit or property. DISCUSSION: In early 2012, staff from the Office of Housing met with leasing staff from The Crossings to discuss the process of identifying eligible tenants and leasing the units. It was determined that The Crossings should take applications for the units and refer those applicants to the Office of Housing because The Crossings has stringent eligibility requirements and is working with service providers for the homeless. Nine individuals were referred through this process. Office of Housing staff conducted a group informational session and the nine individuals were processed to receive vouchers. At the same time, the City was doing much of the same work; however, contacted the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for specific guidance. HUD began looking at the process and procedures used by the City and County to award project-based vouchers to The Crossings and determined that a number of deficiencies existed. After several e-mail exchanges and a number of phone calls, HUD informed the County that several steps would have to be taken before they could approve executing the required Housing Assistance Payments Contract with The Crossings including: 1. The County’s PHA Annual Plan would have to be amended or a new one completed to address the use of project-based vouchers. The County had completed this task in its HUD approved 2004 Annual Plan; however, HUD indicated that this determination did not carry over to the County’s more recent 2010 Five-Year Plan submission. 2. The HCV Administrative Plan would have to be updated to include information on the use of project- based vouchers in accordance with requirements set forth in 24 CFR 983. 3. The County would have to submit a letter to HUD’s Richmond Field Office explaining how it believed it complied with the intent of regulations in 24 CFR 983, particularly those related to the requirements for environmental reviews and subsidy layering reviews. Staff believes it has met the intent of these requirements because the TJPDC conducted the environmental review, which was certified by the City of Charlottesville. Moreover, the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development completed a subsidy layering review for other HUD programs used by The Crossings. AGENDA TITLE: Housing Choice Vouchers May 9, 2012 Page 2 4. The County would need to ensure that sufficient funding is available to support the vouchers. Staff informed HUD that the County intends to request excess funding available at HUD specifically for Albemarle County. On December 16, 2011 HUD informed the County by letter that the portion of the County’s eligible funding, representing an offset of FY 12 reserves, would be available upon request. HUD has advised that the County’s interpretation of that letter was not exactly correct and it should discuss this matter in greater detail with HUD’s financial analyst. Through these discussions, it appears that the County is currently at maximum usage of its budgetary authority for the entire Housing Choice Voucher Program. Current housing voucher expenses exceed HUD disbursements by approximately $50,000 per month. That amount should decrease to about $40,000 per month in July. Deficits are covered by Net Restricted Assets (reserve funds already disbursed by HUD). A second level of budget review by staff examined the amount of funding used for project-based vouchers, which is limited to twenty percent (20%) of the County’s total budget authority. This analysis revealed that the County is at or slightly over this 20% target. However, if and when, the County should begin funding our outstanding commitments to The Crossings and seven additional vouchers to Treesdale, it will likely be at or near 25%. Staff is taking the following steps to address the deficiencies noted by HUD and the concern related to budget authority for the Housing Choice Voucher Program and, in particular, reducing the funding committed for project-based vouchers to no more than 20% of the County’s total budget authority at a sufficient level to fund the vouchers:  The PHA Annual Plan and Administrative Plan are under revision and are subject to a 45-day public comment period that began April 17. A required public hearing requesting input from the public and adoption of both Plans by the Board will be scheduled for the June 6, 2012 Board meeting. Upon adoption, the Plans will be sent to HUD with the Annual Plan for approval prior to implementation.  The Office of Housing has discontinued issuing any new vouchers for any purpose.  The Office of Housing will close all waiting lists for the voucher program after the required public notice is posted.  A meeting will be called inviting leasing staff and owner representatives on all properties with project- based vouchers to discuss the status of funding and the possibility of reducing the number of project - based vouchers in use. Tenants currently under project-based vouchers would not be affected but new leases may not be approved. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no budget impact to the County for the Housing Choice Voucher assistance payments unless the County exceeds its annual budget authority which is not anticipated. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff is providing this for informational purposes. Future actions will be requested as noted above. Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Review of Road Improvement Priorities for Secondary Roads and VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to receive comment on the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program Budget STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, and Benish LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2012 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The purpose of this public hearing is to receive input on the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment A), the proposed VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget (Attachment B) and a proposal by Mr. Tom Sullivan to pave the unpaved section of Blenheim Road (Attachment D) in southern Albemarle County. The County’s Priority List and the VDOT Construction Program Budget are typically reviewed annually and address the following:  The County’s Priority List establishes the priorities for improvements to roads in the State’s Secondary Road system (roads with a route number of 600 or higher).  The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget is based on the County’s Priority List and is reflective of available State road funding allocated to the County. VDOT has provided the following projected funding allocations for Albemarle County: FISCAL YEAR REG. STATE FUNDS AVAILABLE MIN. UNPAVED ROAD FUNDS FEDERAL FUNDS TOTAL FUNDS 2012-13 $318,031 $0 $0 $318,031 2013-14 $350,034 $0 $0 $350,034 2014-15 $350,034 $0 $0 $350,034 2015-16 $350,034 $0 $0 $350,034 2016-17 $350,034 $0 $0 $350,034 2017-18 $350,034 $0 $0 $350,034 On April 4, 2012, the Board held a work session to discuss the County’s Priority List and the VDOT’s Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program (also referred to as the Six Year Plan). DISCUSSION: Two documents are before the Board for review and approval: the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget. Each is discussed below: County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment A) – VDOT has determined that Doctors Crossing (Rt. 784), Midway Road (Rt. 688), Keswick Drive (Rt.731), and Gillums Ridge Rd. (Rt. 787) are now eligible for Rural Rustic Road paving. These projects had previously been identified as high priority projects on the “Regular Road Paving Priority List.” AGENDA TITLE: Review of Road Improvement Priorities for Secondary Roads and VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program May 9, 2012 Page 2 At the April 4th work session, the Board directed staff to move these projects from the Regular Road Paving Priority List to the Rural Rustic Road Paving Priority List. Staff has maintained their relative status as high priority paving projects and placed them on the Rural Rustic Road List after the six existing highest priority rural rustic road projects, which are already programmed in VDOT’s Secondary Six Year Program. All of the above-referenced roads have the highest traffic volumes of all unpaved roads not programmed for construction in the two Paving Projects Lists. The only other modifications to the County’s Priority List are non-substantive changes to project information provided on the list (project status, cost estimates, traffic counts, other corrections/typos, etc.). The Board also discussed at their work session the concept of considering pedestrian and sidewalk projects as viable projects for prioritizing for construction using secondary road funds. Because there are limited available funds over the next six years of the Six Year Plan to accomplish any new projects, staff has not included any new sidewalk related projects in this year’s proposed Priority List. Staff recommends that the priority sidewalk projects identified in the County’s Capital Improvements Program be considered for inclusion on the Priority List for next year (2013) (Attachment C). The County has requested $1.0 million in FY13 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program funding (with a $1.0 million County match) for four sidewalk improvements projects, as noted on Attachment C. VDOT Six Year Secondary System Construction Program (Attachment B) – Due to the limited amount of State funding available over the next six years, major construction projects identified on the County’s Strategic Priority List (page 1 of Attachment A) do not appear to be viable projects to include in the VDOT Six Year Secondary System Construction Program at this time. The emphasis of this year’s update is to allocate available funds over the six year planning period to complete the high priority projects currently identified in the Six Year Construction Program. As a result, there are no major changes to the proposed funding allocations shown in the Draft FY13-18 Six Year Secondary System Construction Program. The projected funds f or FY13 through FY17 are allocated to the Black Cat Road bridge replacement project and the Bear Creek Road and Pocket Lane Rural Rustic Road paving projects , as approved in last year’s VDOT Six Year Construction Program (FY12-17). Projected funds for FY18, the “new” sixth year of the Program, are allocated for the Bear Creek Road and Pocket Lane road paving projects, because all of the higher priority bridge projects are projected to be fully funded by FY17. There remains an outstanding balance to complete funding on each of these two paving projects. Should additional funding be needed in FY18 for any of the higher priority bridge projects, those funds would be reallocated to that project as required. Staff recommends approval of the Draft VDOT Six Year Secondary System Construction Program (Attachment B). Blenheim Road Paving Proposal – The County has received a proposal from Mr. Tom Sullivan, a property owner on Blenheim Road (Rt. 795), to pave the remaining one-quarter mile section of Blenheim Road (Attachment D). Mr. Sullivan is proposing to fund the cost of the paving project and has also agreed with CenturyLink to subsidize the installation of a fiber based broadband network in this area. Installation of fiber optic lines could be done in conjunction with the paving project. The road paving project could be done as a VDOT permit project by an individual; however, VDOT will not issue a permit for this paving project until the Board requests VDOT to approve the paving project. The project can be paved under the Rural Rustic Road standards, which will potentially result in limited impact to adjacent properties. Mr. Peter Kleeman submitted a letter and petition opposing the paving of Blenheim Road (Attachment E.) The Six Year Road Plan review and public hearing process is being used to receive public comment on the project and for the Board to consider and act on this request. VDOT has stated that this project does not have to be included in the VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program for this section to be paved by the property owner. Staff mailed a notice to property owners along Blenheim Road between the intersection of Jefferson Mill Road and Mount Pleasant Farm Road informing them of the opportunity to provide input on this project at the May 9th public hearing or to provide comments to staff prior to this meeting. Further information regarding this request is provided in Attachment C. Staff does not have a recommendation on this project. VDOT does not oppose the project and will issue a permit for the work if the County approves the project. BUDGET IMPACT: The Six Year Secondary Road process establishes the County’s priorities for the expenditure of State/VDOT secondary road construction funds which do not impact County funding. AGENDA TITLE: Review of Road Improvement Priorities for Secondary Roads and VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program May 9, 2012 Page 3 RECOMMENDATIONS: After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board: 1) Approve the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment A); 2) Authorize the County Executive to sign the VDOT Secondary System Construction Program Budget for Albemarle County consistent with the County’s Priority List (Attachment B); and 3) Approve or deny Mr. Sullivan’s proposal to pave the unpaved section of Blenheim Road (Attachment D). If further information is needed prior to an action, staff requests that the Board provide direction to staff on the additional information it desires. ATTACHMENTS A – Albemarle County Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements B – VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget C – Staff Summary: Blenheim Road Paving Request D – Letter from Mr. Thomas Sullivan, Re: Fiber and Road Improvement (with attached petition) E – Letter from Peter T. Kleeman, Re: Proposed Paving of Blenheim Road (with attached petition) F – CIP Sidewalk Improvements Priority List Return to agenda STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTSRecommended May 9, 2012 Strategic Priorities (Projects 1-20)VDOT's Secondary Program County's Proposed RankingRoute Number and Name Location From - ToEstimated Advertisement DateEstimated Cost Description/CommentsJustification for project/Source of Request Year Project was placed on Priority ListMost Current Traffic County and year of Count Y0 County wide County wide N/A varies County services/improvements: signs,pipe,plant mix projects, raised median, crosswalks, restripe, lighting, etc safety, maintain function/staff, public req.Y0 County wide Traffic mgmt. Program N/A varies Designated for traffic calming projects through out the County that meet requirements and sidewalk improvements.Safety/Public Request, studies-plansY0Meadow Creek PkwyMelbourne Rd to Rio Rdcomplete $33,514,741 Two lane design approved by County and Comm. Transport. Bd., includes bridge over CSX RRCapacity/ CHART 20,000-2006Y0691 Jarmans Gap RoadRt 240 to Gray Rock under construction $13,162,248 Curb &Gutter, sidewalk/crosswalk/bikelanes, turn lane improvementsCapacity,safety/Land Use Plan2,700-2006 anticpates 4,500 in future)Y0656 Georgetown RoadRt 654 to Rt 743 complete $2,504,150 Curb &Gutter, sidewalk/crosswalk, improvements to certain turn lanesCapacity,safety/G'town Rd Plan, Public17,000-2007Y (Urban Program)1Hillsdale DriveGreenbrier Dr. to Seminole Sq.designed, constr. not funded$9,800,000 Connector Rd., Greenbrier Dr to Hydraulic Rd; constr. w/ urban system funds; $15.5 M. donated ROW expected Places29 Master Plan; UnJAM 2035N/A2Berkmar Dr Ext. & Bridge End of Berkmar Dr to HTC38,000,000 New parallel road in Rt. 29 Corridor; Bridge location design first phase; ROW cost variable w/ development approvalsPlaces29 Master Plan; UnJAM 20352006 N/A3649 Proffit RoadRt 29 to 1.6 miles east $10,000,000 improve alignment, urban x-section with bikelanes/sidewalk and multi-use pathCapacity, safety/Land Use Plan 5,00-20104781 Sunset AvenueFontaine/Sunset ConnectorImprovements to Sunset Ave. and Fontaine/Sunset Ave. Connector Area B Study,Capacity/ LU Plan2007 4,600-20065631 Old Lynchburg Rd1.35 MI. S. I-64 to Rt 708Spot improvements at various locations to serve development in Southern DA/County Capacity/Land Use Plan 4,600-2006Y 6 Bridge Improvement ProjectsVarious locations (See Att. A) Improve/replace low sufficiency rated bridges based on County and VDOT priorityvaries7 726 James River Road Rt 795 to Rt 1302 Spot improvement to improve sight distance Safety/Scottsville 1,900-20068601 Old Ivy RoadIvy Rd to 250/29 Byp Widen, improve alignment , coordinate with UVA Gateway project Capacity/Land Use Plan 5,500-20109Southern ParkwayAvon St to Fifth St Extend to 5th St., with pedestrian/bike facility, and Neighborhood street design/speedCapacity/Southern City StudyN/A10 795 Blenheim Road Intersection of Rt 790 Intersection improvement. Safety/Scottsville Request 1500-201011Eastern AvenueRt 240 to Rt 250 Interconnect future neighborhood streets, includes RR underpass and bridge over Lickinghole Crk Capacity/Crozet Master PlanN/ABold‐‐ Projects in Development AreaItalics ‐‐ New ProjectsPage 1 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTSRecommended May 9, 2012 VDOT's Secondary Program County's Proposed RankingRoute Number and Name Location From - ToEstimated Advertisement DateEstimated Cost Description/CommentsJustification for project/Source of Request Year Project was placed on Priority ListMost Current Traffic County and year of Count 12631 Rio RoadMCP to Agnese Street Improve substandard intersection, add bikelanes and sidewalks Safety/pedestrian 22,000-201013 643 Polo Grounds Road Rt 29 to Rt 649 Improvement alignment, spot improvements. Safety/Public Request 2,400-200914Main Street Crozet Ave to Eastern AveNew road as recommended in the Crozet Master Plan, to be built with development of siteCapacity/Crozet Master Plan2003 N/A15743 Hydraulic RoadIntersection with Rt 29 (29H250)Improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250 Study2003 18,000-200716866 Greenbrier DriveIntersection with Rt 29 (29H250)Improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250 Study2003 8,200-200617Eastern ConnectorRt 250 to Rt 29 Initial study of new road concept completed. Further study of alignment on holdCapacity/CHART 2006 N/A18702 Reservoir RoadFontaine Ave. Ext to Dead endPaving and spot improvements, to be done as part of the reservoir reconstruction project Safety/Public Request 2003 430-200919606 Dickerson RoadN. of Rt 805 to just S. of Rt 1030Paving of unpaved road segments--no state unpaved road funds available for the foreseeable futureUnJam 2030; DA location; Rt 29 alternate route2008 480-2009Y20 Brocks Mill Road, Rural Addition Rural addition projects to be funded upt the available $250 ,000 in VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction ProgramPublic Request 2011 N/ABold‐‐ Projects in Development AreaItalics ‐‐ New ProjectsPage 2 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTSRecommended May 9, 2012[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding] Bridge Priorities - In Priority OrderVDOT's Secondary PlanRoute Number, Road Name Location From-ToSufficiency Rating**Traffic CountDescription/Comments Estimated cost/funding sourceYRoute 708, Dry Bridge Road Buckingham Branch Railroad 26 950 suff rating, high traffic count -- Advertisement Date (EAD) 5/14/13$3,399,237 / federal bridge funds YRoute 616, Black Cat Road Buckingham Branch 54.4 800 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD 3/30/14 $3,755,171 / federal bridge funds and secondary road fundsYRoute 677, Broomley Road Buckingham Branch 42.2 750 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD 12/30/14 $4,677,092 / federal bridge fundsYRoute 637, Dick Woods Road Ivy Creek 36.1 1100 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD 12/30/14 $2,458,161 / federal bridge fundsRoute 795, Presidents Road Hardware River 19.4 200 low sufficiency ratingRoute 745, Wheeler/Arrowhead Valley Rd.Norfolk Southern Railroad 20.9 90RR to reconstruct bridge in 2012 & dedicate to State/VDOT (low sufficiency rating)Route 641, Frays Mills Road Marsh Run 49.6 510 low sufficiency ratingRoute 649, Proffit Road Norfolk Southern Railroad 35.2 3800 upgraded in Summer 2007, has high traffic countYRoute 606, Dickerson Road Jacobs Run480low suff. Rating; in Devel. Area; parallel road to Rt. 29 Completed Fy 11-12YRoute 606, Dickerson Road North Fortk of Rivanna River 480 low suff. Rating; in Devel. Area; parallel road to Rt. 29 $5,075,557 / Federal bridge funds* Programmed into future allocations of federal bridge funds in Culpeper District.**Sufficiency Rating is utilitzed by VDOT to rate bridge structure.A ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, PAVING PROJECTS Recommended May 9, 2012[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTSRURAL RUSTIC ROAD PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT. Route Number, Road Name,County PriorityLocation From - To Funding StatusEstimated Cost Regular/RRRMost Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/CommentsYear Project placed on Priority ListEstimated Advertisement Date762 Rose Hill Church Ln Rt 732 to Dead End Funded, sched for paving$135,000 120-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2012704 Fortune Lane Rt 715 to Dead End Funded, sched for paving$632,717 140-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2012672 Blufton Road Rt 810 to Dead end Funded, sched for paving$745,157 170-2009 School Request in 200720032012608 Happy Creek Road Route 645 to Route 646 Funded, sched for paving$509,022 100-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2012774 Bear Creek Road NCL to dead end Not Funded $1,206,130 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date703 Pocket Lane Rt 715 to Dead end Not Funded 322964 110-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2005 no date784 Doctors Crossing Rt 600 to Rt 640 Not Funded $933,109 130-2006 School Request in 2007, public request as well no date688 Midway Road Rt 635 to Rt 824 Not Funded $155,191 310-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date731 Keswick Drive Rt 744 to Rt 22 Not Funded 362,113 230-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2005 no date787 Gillums Ridge Road Broad Axe to Dry Bridge Rd Not Funded 480,747 290-2006Public request. Ranking due to traffic count/new project in 2011.2011no date637 Dick Woods Road Rt 691 to Rt 758 Not Funded $754,377 110-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2005 no date747 Preddy Creek Road Rt 600 to Rt 640 Not Funded 110-2006 School request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles east to Rt. 231 Not Funded 100-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date769 Beam Road Rt 1484 to dead end Not Funded 60-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no dateItalics -- new projects to this list (moved from Regular Paving Projects list)Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B1 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, PAVING PROJECTS Recommended May 9, 2012[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTSRURAL RUSTIC ROAD PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT. Route Number, Road Name,County PriorityLocation From - To Funding StatusEstimated Cost Regular/RRRMost Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/CommentsYear Project placed on Priority ListEstimated Advertisement Date629/624 Browns Gap TP/Headqrters LnRt 810 to end of Rt 624 Not Funded 80/40-2009 Public request. ranking due to traffic count/new project 2010.2010no dateItalics -- new projects to this list (moved from Regular Paving Projects list)Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B2 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, PAVING PROJECTSRecommended May 9, 2012[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTSREGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) Route Number, Road Name,County PriorityLocation From - To Funding StatusEstimated Cost Regular/RRRMost Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/CommentsYear Project placed on Priority ListEstimated Advertisement Date643 Rio Mills Road Rt 29 to Rt 743 Not Funded $3,218,665 650-2003 Staff request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2003 Dec-15689 Burch's Creek Rd Rt 250 to Rt 635 Not Funded 140-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. (previously Pounding Creek Rd)no date671 Wesley Chapel Rd Rt 609 to Rt 674 Not Funded 260-2006 School transportation request 2007 no date685 Bunker Hill Road Rt 616 to Dead end Not Funded 230-2009Public request. No longer qualifies for RRR due to align-ment and utility problems, will have to be reg. paving project.720 Harris Creek Road Rt 20 to dead end Not Funded 170-2006 Public request 2007 no date736 Whites Mtn/Pughes Store RdRt 636 to dead end Not Funded (sect. btwn Rt 635 & 636 doesn't meet VDOT requirements)230-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date683 Shelton Mill Road Rt 751 to dead end Not Funded 70-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2007 no date712 North Garden Lane Rt 692 to Rt 29 Not Funded 350-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date712 Coles Crossing Rd Rt 713 to Rt 795 Not Funded 220-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date712 North Garden Lane Rt 29 to Rt 760 Not Funded 220-2006 This project will be paved as part Rt. 712 -btwn Rt. 713 to Rt. 795no date671 Wesley Chapel Rd Rt 609 to Rt 749 Not Funded 100-2006 School transportation request 2007 no date829 Horseshoe Bend Rd Rt 601 to Dead End Not Funded 210-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2004 no date645 Magnolia Rd Rt 608 to Orange CL Not Funded 190-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date637 Dick Woods Rd Rt 691 to Rt 635 Not Funded 140-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2006 no date674 Sugar Ridge Road Rt 614 to Rt 673 Not Funded 180-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no dateStaff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B2 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, PAVING PROJECTSRecommended May 9, 2012[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTSREGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) Route Number, Road Name,County PriorityLocation From - To Funding StatusEstimated Cost Regular/RRRMost Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/CommentsYear Project placed on Priority ListEstimated Advertisement Date761 Briery creek Road Rt 622 to County Line Not Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2005 no date682 Broad Axe Road Rt 637 to to current paved sectionsNot Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date678 Decca Lane Rt 676 to Rt 614 Not Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date640 Gilbert Station Road Ashleigh Way Dr to paved sectionNot Funded $1,500,000 120-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date856 Burton Lane Rt. 711 to dead end Not Funded 120-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2007 no date687 Shifflett Mill Road Rt.601 to Rt 810 Not Funded 45-2006 School Department Request 2007 no date668 Fox Mountain Trail Rt 601 to Rt 810 Not Funded 30-2006 School Department Request 2007 no date605 Durrett Ridge Road Rt 743 to Swift Run (including bridge)Not Funded 140-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date723 Sharon Road Route 6 to Route 626 Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date633 Cove Garden Rt 29 to Rt 712 Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2004 no date707 Blair Park Road Rt 691 to Dead end Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date698 Hungrytown Road Rt 633 to DE Not Funded 90-2006 School transportation request 2006 no date813 Starlight Road Rt 712 to Dead End Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2004 no date600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles west to Rt 20 Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date634 Spring Valley Road Rt 633 to Rt 635 Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2007 no date637 Dick Woods Road Rt 151 to Nelson CL Not Funded 70-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2007 no dateStaff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B3 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, PAVING PROJECTSRecommended May 9, 2012[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTSREGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) Route Number, Road Name,County PriorityLocation From - To Funding StatusEstimated Cost Regular/RRRMost Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/CommentsYear Project placed on Priority ListEstimated Advertisement Date721 Old Dominion Rd Rt 6 to Rt 630 Not Funded 70-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2006 no date776 Buck Mtn Ford Lane Rt 667 to Rt 664 Not Funded 20-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2004 no dateStaff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B4 ATTACHMENT C Blenheim Road Paving Proposal – Summary Information Proposal: The County has received a proposal from a property owner on Blenheim Road, Mr. Tom Sullivan, to pave the remaining one-quarter mile section of Blenheim Road (Rt. 795) located just north of the intersection of Glendower Road and Blenheim. This section of road is located approximately 3 miles north of the Scottsville Town limit and is in the Scottsville Magisterial District.  The road would be paved to Rural Rustic Road (RRR) standards. VDOT has verified that this project would qualify for RRR paving.  The proposed improvements can be completed within the existing right of way or prescriptive easement. No additional right of way or drainage easements are needed on adjacent properties in order to complete the project.  Mr. Sullivan is proposing to fund the cost of the paving project. Current Road conditions:  The Annual Average Daily traffic count for section of Blenheim Road, From Glendower Road to Secretary’s Road is 160 trips (2006 VDOT count).  This section of the road is flat and is relatively wide when compared with many other sections of unpaved roads in the County.  Some rutting is occurring along the unpaved road section. As with as with many unpaved roads, dust is likely a problem during long dry weather periods. History:  In 2003, approximately 3.5 miles of Blenheim Road was paved from the current unpaved section north to Secretary’s Road.  This section of the road was not paved due the inability to obtain the 50 foot right of way required at that time for the paving project.  Some residents did express opposition to the paving the original paving project and paving this gravel section of the road.  On June 1, 2005, VDOT staff provided a status report to the Board on Blenh eim Road paving project, noting that Mr. Sullivan was requesting to pave the r quarter-mile section of unpaved road. VDOT staff indicated a resolution from the Board supporting this project would be needed before VDOT would permit the project. The consensus of Board was to not approve the paving of this section of the road due public opposition to the proposal. Review Process for this Request: VDOT is requesting Board of Supervisor approval of this project before permitting this work to take place. The Board’s consideration and action on this request is being incorporated in the Board’s annual review and approval of the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program. The Board could approve the project by adding the project to the adopted County Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements or by passing a separate resolution supporting the project. VDOT has stated that this project does not have to be included in VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Co nstruction Program for this section to be paved by the property owner. The public hearing process for this annual review will provide an opportunity for individuals to comment on proposed project. Mr. Sullivan was asked to provide the following information to VDOT and County staff (Attachment D):  Verification from a register Civil Engineer that: -Roadway geometrics post-paving are generally adequate for the proposed traffic and that any increase in speeds expected after the improvement can be safely accommodated; -Roadway drainage system, post construction, will accommodate run-off created by the improvements; -Daily traffic volume will not exceed 1500 vehicles per day after paving is complete -All improvements can be completed within existing right of way or prescriptive easement Status: information was submitted and VDOT has verified the adequacy of the road’s drainage system. Status: This information has been submitted, reviewed and verified by VDOT. The road can be paved to Rural Rustic Road Program paving standards, which will minimize potential impacts to adjacent properties. VDOT does not oppose the project and, if supported by the Board, will issue a permit for this work to take place.  A petition signed by all adjoining property owners located on Blenheim Road between Jefferson Mill Road and 6903 Blenheim Road supporting the paving of this section of road. Status: A petition supporting the project has been submitted. It contains over 80 signatures (representing approximately 50 households). However, most of the signatures appear to be from addresses outside of the road segment between 6903 Blenheim Road and Jefferson Mill Road. There are 36 properties along this segment of road. Staff found signatures from 11 households/properties along this segment. all property owners along this section of the road have signed the petition supporting the project. A separate petition in opposition of the project has been submitted by Peter Kleeman, on behalf of Laura Dollard. Ms. Dollard lives along the unpaved section of road and opposes the paving project. There is a total five (5) households that have expressed opposition to the project, two of those opposing household s are located on Blenheim Road and front on the unpaved section of the road. The petitions are attachments D and E of the Executive Summary. Staff has mailed a notice to property owners along Blenheim Road between the intersection of Jefferson Mill Road and Mount Pleasant Farm Road, informing them of the opportunity to provide input on this project at the May 9th public hearing or provide comments to staff prior to this meeting.  Certification the all approved and necessary improvements will be completed at no cost to the County . Status: Mr. Sullivan has stated in his response letter that “Murcielago LLC will subsidize the entire cost of the road improvement in the event it receives a permit.” The Project’s Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: From a policy standpoint, the Comprehensive Plan does not state that roads in the Rura l Areas should not be paved. The Plan’s principles and recommendations attempt to strike a balance between providing for public safety while supporting the County’s growth management policies and minimizing the impacts of road projects to natural, scenic and historic resources (from a resource allocation perspective, priority is given to unpaved roads in the Development Area). Ideally, a road improvement that improves public safety minimizes clearing/construction activities and maintains the existing rural character of the road would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan’s vision for the road improvements in the Rural Area. This proposed project would use Rural Rustic Road design standards which would minimize the land disturbing activities. The road section would be paved in places. Staff has provided the following assessment of the favorable and unfavorable factors of this paving project. Factors Favorable:  According to VDOT, paving would reduce cost of maintenance;  Provides a safer road surface for vehicular travel (if speed limits are observed);  Would greatly reduce/eliminate dust issues. Factors unfavorable:  Opposition to the project from two property owners adjacent the unpaved section of the road;  The historic rural character of the area would be negatively impacted to some extent by the elimination of the gravel road surface;  Speeds may increase along this section of the road. Next Steps:  Receive public comments on this request at the public hearing on the County’s Priority List of Second ary Road Improvements and VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program  Vote to approve or deny this request. If further information is needed prior to an action, please provide direction to staff on the additional information desired. ATTACHMENT F FY13 REQUEST: SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM –PROJECT LIST Projects are listed in priority order: Crozet Avenue North from St. George Avenue to Ballard Drive (north of Crozet ES) — This project will provide safe pedestrian access to school by providing sidewalk repairs/improvements and installation of a crosswalk and warning lights. A VDOT Safe Routes to School Grant has been received to fund the portion of the project from Crozet Elementary School to Ballard Drive. Construction plans for the portion from St. George to Crozet ES are 90% complete. The design plans for the Safe Routes to School Grant portion will be completed January 2012. The grant-funded portion of the project (crosswalks and warning lights/signage) will proceed as the first phase of this improvement. Total Project Cost- $677,500 (current funding $314,000 ; includes $190,000 Safe Routes to School Grant) (FY13 VDOT Revenue Sharing Funds requested) South Pantops Drive from State Farm Blvd to Carriage Hill Apt. and State Farm Blvd from Rt. 250 East to South Pantops Drive – This will provide 3600 feet of sidewalk and complete the pedestrian system in this area, which will serve several residential, business, and commercial establishments. The design plans are 90% complete. Construction easements and some right-of-way need to be obtained. If fully funded this project will go to bid summer 2012. Total Cost - $720,000 (current funding $512,000) (FY13 VDOT Revenue Sharing Funds requested) Fontaine Avenue, Research Park to City line – Install sidewalks for a short distance (approximately 170 feet) between the end of the existing sidewalk at the City limits to the Stribling Avenue intersection where the Research Park asphalt path ends. The City’s sidewalk ends abruptly at the city line and pedestrians are left without any facility until they reach the Research Park. Right-of-way may need to be obtained and modification of the existing guardrail may be necessary. Total Project Cost: $87,525 (fully funded) Hollymead Drive/Powell Creek Drive – This project would complete the sidewalk connections to the school complex at three locations and would allow for crosswalks to be installed in various locations, including at the intersection of Ashwood Blvd. and Powell Creek Drive. The Forest Lakes Homeowners Association and the past principals from each school have requested these improvements. All improvements will be within existing right-of-way and new curb & gutters are not needed. Total Project Cost: $194,000 (fully funded) Barracks Road, City Limits to Barracks West Apartments [NEW] – Construct a sidewalk (approx. 1675 feet), crosswalks, and pedestrian lighting from the Barracks West apartments on the north side of Barracks Road to the existing sidewalk near the Georgetown Road intersection. Also construct crosswalks and short segments of sidewalk (where feasible) at strategic locations on the south side of Barracks Road between the Georgetown Road intersection and the City limits. This is an area with a high concentration of residents and five bus stops along, or near, Barracks Road. Many residents of the Barracks West apartments rely on transit and walk along the edge of the road to reach the bus stops on Barracks and Georgetown roads. These improvements have been requested by the Hessian Hills and Canterbury Hill Neighborhood Associations. Total Cost: $400,000 (not funded, new request) (FY13 VDOT Revenue Sharing Funds requested) Hydraulic Road, from Commonwealth Drive to Georgetown Road – This project would install 1700 feet of sidewalk on the north side of Hydraulic Road. Right-of-way will need to be acquired. This road is located in the Development Area with numerous businesses and homes/apartments in the area. There are bus stops in this area. There are also elementary, middle, and high schools in the vicinity, and this area is within walking distance of the Shops at Stonefield development (formerly known as Albemarle Place). Cost: $345,000 (not funded) (FY13 VDOT Revenue Sharing Funds requested) Ivy Road (Rt. 250 west), City limits to Kluge Center/UVA Police Offices– Sidewalks, bike lanes, curb and storm drainage system improvements, and pedestrian lighting from the former Kluge Rehab Center site/UVA Police Office area to the City line. This project will connect the commercial and surrounding residential areas along Ivy Road to the existing sidewalk system in the City. The cost estimate in prior CIP requests was based on a consultant's study procured by County Department of General Services. The cost estimate was increased based on the County Office of Facility Development estimates. The University has expressed interest in improving this western entrance to the university. Partnering with the University and the City on project development and grant opportunities will be pursued. Total Project Cost: $1,100,000 (not funded; prior funding of $422,000 was reallocated to other CIP projects) Old Lynchburg Road Asphalt Walkway upgrade – The project would provide repaving or replacement of the existing asphalt walkway on Old Lynchburg Road, from Fifth Street to the Region 10 building (750 ft). This asphalt walkway is overgrown in some locations and is in need of patching, resurfacing, or replacement. This walkway will become increasingly important as the new CAT bus route will not stop at the Region 10 building, but will provide a stop on the corner of Old Lynchburg Road and Fifth Street. A portion of the asphalt walkway along Fifth Street in the area will also need to be repaired. Cost: $100,000 (not funded) Avon Street Walkway/Crosswalks Phase 1 – Initial project is to extend existing sidewalk/asphalt walkway from Mill Creek Drive north to Peregory Lane (1950 ft) and from Stoney Creek Drive southward to Arden Drive (1000 ft), and construct crosswalks to Cale Elementary School. Total Cost: $400,000 (current funding $70,000). Avon Street Walkway Phase 2 – Construct approximately 6000 feet of sidewalk/asphalt walkway on the east side from the Southern Parkway intersection to the City limits (bridge over I-64 is not built with sidewalks). Total Cost: $800,000 (not funded) Rio Road (Rt. 631, from Meadow Creek Parkway to Stonehenge & Pen Park Lane)(0.75 miles), – When the MCP is completed, this project would connect Stonehenge, a fairly dense residential neighborhood, to the MCP and Rio Road sidewalk system. The cost estimate in prior CIP requests was based on a consultant's study procured by County Department of General Services. The cost estimate has increased (County Office of Facility Development estimates). Right-of-way will need to be acquired for most of the project. Total Project Cost: $475,000 (not funded) Fontana Neighborhood Sidewalks [NEW] – Construction of sidewalks (approximately 1700 feet) along strategic portions of Fontana Drive and Verona Drive in the Fontana development in the Pantops area. This subdivision was developed prior to regulations requiring that residential streets to be built with sidewalks. The neighborhood is experiencing speeding and cut through traffic issues and this, along with the hilly topography, is creating conflicts with residents trying to walk in the area. The sidewalks are intend to connect the existing pathway system within the development and to connect to sidewalks in adjacent developments. Total Cost: $395,000 (not funded, new request) Sunset Avenue and Old Stagecoach Road – Provide for sidewalks and bikelanes on Sunset Avenue from Moore’s Creek/City limits to Fifth Street (6800 ft) and on Country Green Road from Sunset Avenue to Old Lynchburg Road (2100 ft). This project will provide the Redfields development and five other apartment and townhouse developments access to bus stops, commercial and office developments, as well as access to parks and greenway trail areas. Improvements to Sunset may be best implemented with the proposed road improvements recommended in the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements. Total Cost: Country Green, $650,000 (not funded); Sunset Avenue, (recommended for construction as part of road improvement project) Woodbrook Drive from US 29 to Woodbrook ES – This project would install sidewalks along both sides of Woodbrook Drive from the commercial area on the corner of Woodbrook Drive and US 29 to the school (750 ft). Currently pedestrians have to share the road with cars. Right-of-way will need to be acquired for this project. Total Project Cost: $200,000 (not funded) Riverbend Drive from US 250 to Apartments – Install a sidewalk on the east side of Riverbend Drive, from US 250 to the entrance to the Riverbend Condominiums. There is a high level of traffic on this road in an area that consists of office, commercial/retail, and residential uses. The sidewalk would improve pedestrian safety, access to bus service, and would allow for crosswalks to be installed at the Riverbend/US 250 intersection and the Riverbend/South Pantops Blvd. intersection. Total Cost: $ 280,000 (not funded) Woodbrook Drive from US 29 to Berkmar Drive – This project would install sidewalk on the north (Lowes) side of Woodbrook Drive (1150 ft). Pedestrians currently have to walk along the grassed slope behind the curb. Total Project Cost: $220,000 (not funded) Route 240 from Music Today/Star Hill Building to Highland subdivision – This project would install sidewalks from the Highlands development to the Music Today/Star Hill Brewery Building (old Conagra) to where there are currently sidewalks along Rt. 240 (5500 ft). This will allow the residents to walk safely to downtown Crozet. Total Project Cost: $800,000 (not funded) Fifth Street, City limits to north of I-64 [NEW]– Install sidewalk connecting existing sidewalks in the City to an existing asphalt walkway south of the I-64 interchange (2600 ft). Repair and replace (as needed) the existing asphalt walkway from south of the interchange to Old Lynchburg Road (2000 ft). The improvement will provide access to CAT bus service, commercial, office, and residential development in the area, as well as to greenway trails in the City and County. Sections of sidewalk may be funded or constructed with future development of adjacent, undeveloped properties. Total Cost: $700,000 (not funded) Hillsdale Drive, from the JABA Building to Rio Road – This project will complete sidewalks on both sides of Hillsdale Drive between Rio Road and Branchlands Blvd. The County received a VDOT Pedestrian Safety Grant and completed construction of sidewalks and crosswalks on Hillsdale Drive; however, the grant award was insufficient to cover all of the planned sidewalk improvements. The section of sidewalk on the west side of Hillsdale Drive, from Rio Road to the JABA building was not constructed. Total Project Cost: $245,000 (not funded) Ivy Road (Rt. 250 West) from Bellair Market to Kenridge – This project would install 700 feet of sidewalk (or asphalt walkway) along the north side of US 250 west from the Kenridge residential development to the commercial/office/retail area near bypass interchange and Old Ivy Road. This will connect existing sections of pathway that were required to be built as part of more recent developments in the area. Currently pedestrians walk on the side of the road very close to vehicles. Total Project Cost: $200,000 (not funded; prior funding of $156,572 was reallocated to other CIP projects) NOTE: The following are constrained projects (right-of-way or easement will not be provided by some property owners at this time) and cannot be developed at this time. Hilltop Street from Tabor Street to Crozet Park – This project would install a permanent sidewalk/path along a road that has numerous pedestrians. Part of this road has an asphalt path that was not meant to be a permanent solution. The residents of Hilltop have to share the road with cars if they walk to the park. Some property owners will not donate right-of-way for project construction. Total Project Cost: $200,000 (full ROW not donated, prior funding has been reallocated to other CIP projects) Tabor Street from Rt. 240 to Park Road – This project would install sidewalks along a narrow road that has numerous pedestrians. The residents of Tabor Street (and surrounding area) have to share the narrow road with cars if they walk to the park or to downtown Crozet. It is likely that additional funding will be needed to cover construction cost. The cost estimate was based on a consultant's study procured by County Department of General Services. Some property owners will not donate right-of-way for project construction. Total Project Cost: $200,000 (full ROW not donated, prior funding has been reallocated to other CIP projects) Timber Pointe Drive to Tompkin Drive- This project would connect the Tompkin Drive (Jefferson Village) neighborhood to the Forest Lakes neighborhood. It is only a short section. The Forest Lakes Community Board has yet to support this project. Total Project Cost: $35,000 (not funded) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP201000042 David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Clark LEGAL REVIEW: No AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2012 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: No ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: At their meeting on February 28, 2012, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this special use permit request with conditions. They directed staff to work with the applicant’s representative to clarify the parking restrictions in conditions 9 and 10. 9. Parking of vehicles associated with the public garage shall take place only in the parking spaces depicted on the Concept Plan. 10. There shall be no more than three (3) vehicles awaiting repair or waiting to be picked up after repair parked outside the garage at any one time. The applicant’s representative was concerned that these conditions would lead to confusion, and possibly to unnecessary restrictions, on where the residents of the property and the employees of the shop could park their vehicles. DISCUSSION: The original intention of these conditions was to limit the number and location of customer vehicles on the site, so that the site’s capacity to store vehicles was not overwhelmed, and so the customer vehicles would not leak fluids in areas that might drain to the nearby stream buffer. These concerns do not apply to the resident’s vehicles, which are associated with the dwelling on the site, or to the employee’s vehicles, which would be on the site only for short periods (less than a day at a time). Applying the proposed restrictions to the non-customer vehicles would impose a restriction without a resulting benefit, and would make compliance with the conditions of the permit more difficult for the landowner. Therefore condition 9 has been revised (see below) to clarify that the depicted parking spaces may be used by residents or employees (as there are more spaces than the limit of three repair vehicles would require). Condition 10 has been revised (see below) to state the residents and employees are not required to use those spaces. 9. Parking of vehicles associated with the public garage shall take place only in the parking spaces depicted on the Concept Plan. Vehicles owned by residents of the property and employees of the repair shop may also use these spaces. 10. There shall be no more than three (3) vehicles awaiting repair or waiting to be picked up after repair parked outside the garage at any one time. This limitation shall not apply to vehicles owned by the residents of the property or by employees of the repair shop. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board approve SP2010-00042 with the conditions as amended by the Planning Commission and revised by staff as noted above. 1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Site Plan David Brown’s Body Shop,” prepared by David C. Wyant, Sr., and dated October 27, 2011 (hereafter “Concept Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Concept Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Concept Plan: o limits of disturbance o location and size of buildings and structures o location of parking areas o extent of paving o environmental features, including the stream and steep slopes on the site The Zoning Administrator may approve minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The hours of operation for the public garage shall not begin earlier than 9:00 a.m. and shall end not later than 7:30 p.m., each day, Monday through Saturday. The public garage shall not operate on Sundays. 3. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding water supply and septic system shall be verified by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoning clearance and the commencement of the special use. 4. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shall be shielded to reflect light away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval prior to issuance of a zoning clearance. 5. The following activities are prohibited anywhere on the site: a. Gasoline sales b. Installation and/or use of a paint booth c. Sale or rental of vehicles or other motorized equipment d. Storage of vehicles on the site for longer than 30 days e. Outdoor storage of inoperative vehicles, parts, equipment, machinery, and/or junk 6. All detailing and/or repairing of vehicles shall take place inside the existing garage. 7. The impervious surface, including any impervious paving, on the site shall not be expanded beyond its extent on the date of this application. (November 15, 2010). 8. The permittee shall install and thereafter maintain a minimum twenty (20)-foot deep landscaped buffer adjacent to the stream. This planting shall use native tree and shrub species listed in Appendix A of the Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Guidance Manual, published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and/or the brochure Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping, published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Trees and shrubs shall be planted at the densities specified in Appendix D, Table A of the Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Guidance Manual, published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of a zoning clearance. No vehicles may be parked or other business or earth-moving activities shall take place within this buffer. 9. Parking of vehicles associated with the public garage shall take place only in the parking spaces depicted on the Concept Plan. Vehicles owned by residents of the property and employees of the repair shop may also use these spaces. 10. There shall be no more than three (3) vehicles awaiting repair or waiting to be picked up after repair parked outside the garage at any one time. This limitation shall not apply to vehicles owned by the residents of the property or by employees of the repair shop. 11. There may be up to two additional employees other than family members who reside in the home on the site associated with this use. 12. Approval from the Department of Environmental Quality, if required, shall be required prior to issuance of the zoning clearance. 13. The use shall not lawfully commence until the Special Use Permit is approved and all applicable conditions of approval have been met. Attachments PC actions letter Staff report and attachments January 24 and February 28, 2012 PC minutes Return to agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 March 9, 2012 David M. Brown 599 Rocky Hollow Rd. Charlottesville, Va 22911 RE: SP 201000042 David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair TAX MAP/PARCEL: 062000000076A1 Dear Mr. Brown: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 28, 2012, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Site Plan David Brown’s Body Shop,” prepared by David C. Wyant, Sr., and dated October 27, 2011 (hereafter “Concept Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Concept Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Concept Plan:  limits of disturbance  location and size of buildings and structures  location of parking areas  extent of paving  environmental features, including the stream and steep slopes on the site The Zoning Administrator may approve minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The hours of operation for the public garage shall not begin earlier than 9:00 a.m. and shall end not later than 7:30 p.m., each day, Monday through Saturday. The public garage shall not operate on Sundays. 3. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding water supply and septic system shall be verified by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoning clearance and the commencement of the special use. 4. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shall be shielded to reflect light away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval prior to issuance of a zoning clearance. 5. The following activities are prohibited anywhere on the site: a. Gasoline sales b. Installation and/or use of a paint booth c. Sale or rental of vehicles or other motorized equipment d. Storage of vehicles on the site for longer than 30 days e. Outdoor storage of inoperative vehicles, parts, equipment, machinery, and/or junk 6. All detailing and/or repairing of vehicles shall take place inside the existing garage. 7. The impervious surface, including any impervious paving, on the site shall not be expanded beyond its extent on the date of this application. (November 15, 2010). 8. The permittee shall install and thereafter maintain a minimum twenty (20)-foot deep landscaped buffer adjacent to the stream. This planting shall use native tree and shrub species listed in Appendix A of the Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Guidance Manual, published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and/or the brochure Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping, published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Trees and shrubs shall be planted at the densities specified in Appendix D, Table A of the Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Guidance Manual, published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of a zoning clearance. No vehicles may be parked or other business or earth-moving activities shall take place within this buffer. 9. Parking of vehicles associated with the public garage shall take place only in the parking spaces depicted on the Concept Plan. (Staff to work with the applicant to define which spaces on the site plan is associated with the garage that is associated with the parking issue.) 10. There shall be no more than three (3) vehicles awaiting repair or waiting to be picked up after repair parked outside the garage at any one time. (Staff to work with the applicant to define which spaces on the site plan is associated with the garage that is associated with the residence.) 11. There may be up to two additional employees other than family members who reside in the home on the site associated with this use. 12. Approval from the Department of Environmental Quality, if required, shall be required prior to issuance of the zoning clearance. 13. The use shall not lawfully commence until the Special Use Permit is approved and all applicable conditions of approval have been met. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 4, 2012. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. Sincerely, Scott Clark Planner Planning Division Return to PC exec summary SP201000042 David Brown Auto Detailing & Repair PC January 24, 2012 Staff Report Page 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP201000042 David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner Planning Commission Public Hearing: October 18, 2011 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBA Owner: David M. Brown Applicant: David M. Brown Acreage: 2.23 acres Special Use Permit: 10.2.2 (37) Public garage TMP: Tax Map 62 Parcel 76A1 Location: 599 Rocky Hollow Rd. (Rt. 769); approximately two-thirds of a mile southeast of the intersection with Stony Point Rd. (Rt. 20) Existing Zoning and By-right use: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development) Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions: Yes DA (Development Area): RA (Rural Areas): X Requested # of Dwelling Units: 0 Proposal: Special Use Permit for a public garage with auto detailing and repair Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre) Character of Property: Residential Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential properties and large farm parcels. Factors Favorable: 1. Similar public garages have been approved in the past because they provide a useful service to Rural Area residents. 2. With the recommended conditions, which limit the scale of the use, the hours of operation, the storage of vehicles, and other related activities, the use would have limited impact on adjacent properties. 3. Approval of the special use permit with conditions would lead to mitigation of some of the already-created impacts of this existing, non-conforming use. Factors Unfavorable: 1. The impacts of this use could be detrimental to rural character and resources if not appropriately scaled and managed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit with conditions. SP201000042 David Brown Auto Detailing & Repair PC January 24, 2012 Staff Report Page 2 Petition: PROJECT: SP 201000042 David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for a public garage with auto detailing and repair ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Rural Areas (RA) - agricultural, forestal and fishery uses SECTION: 10.2.2 (37) Public garage COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources / density .5 units / acre of development lots ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: 599 Rocky Hollow Rd. (Rt. 769); east of Stony Point Rd. (Rt. 20) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 062000000076A1 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna Character of the Area: The property is located on the western side of the Southwest Mountains, in an area characterized by a mix of large farm and groupings of small residential lots. Specifics of the Proposal: Mr. Brown has been operating a public garage on his property without the necessary special use permit. He is requesting to continue operating the 3-bay, 1,608-square-foot repair facility. Planning & Zoning History: VIO-2011-093: On June 4, 2011, Mr Brown was notified that his existing public garage was not permitted by right in the Rural Areas zoning district, and was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The current special use permit application is intended to rectify this violation. Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: Comprehensive Plan designates the subject properties as Rural Areas, emphasizing the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources as land use options. The Rural Area Plan calls for rural commercial uses that are appropriate scaled, reversible after the use is finished, and minimal in their impacts and demands on services. Public garages are more intense than the uses suggested in the Plan, but are permitted by special use permit and have generally been approved by the Board of Supervisors in the past due to their usefulness to Rural Area residents. SP201000042 David Brown Auto Detailing & Repair PC January 24, 2012 Staff Report Page 3 STAFF COMMENT: Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance: 31.6.1 Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, Garage uses can create impacts to adjacent properties, including visual impacts, noises, odor, and contaminated run-off if not managed properly. Staff recommends conditions of approval that would limit the use’s size and hours of operation, prohibit long-term storage of vehicles and parts, and prohibit sales and rental of vehicles, in order to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and The overall character of the district is not expected to change as a result of this use. that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, This use does not directly support the farmland- and resource-protection goals of the Rural Areas zoning district. However, it is located in a part of the Rural Areas that has already been significantly converted to long-term residential uses rather than productive uses or land conservation. If appropriately managed, the use can provide a benefit to rural residents without undue impacts on its immediate surroundings. This site is approximately 3 miles from the Pantops Development Area. with uses permitted by right in the district, The use’s most significant impacts on other permitted uses would be on nearby residential uses. Limits on the scale and hours of the use in the recommended conditions of approval are intended to minimize those impacts. with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations in Section 5.0 for this use. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. This nonconforming use was built within a stream buffer area required by the Water Protection Ordinance. As the topography of the site makes it impractical to relocate the use outside the stream buffer, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the planting of a twenty-foot-wide riparian buffer to protect SP201000042 David Brown Auto Detailing & Repair PC January 24, 2012 Staff Report Page 4 the stream. The proposed conditions would also prohibit the further expansion of the paved area of the site. Auto repair facilities use lubricants and other compounds that can contaminate soil and water if disposed of improperly. The recommended conditions below would ensure that the use not operate without any necessary approvals from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (the agency responsible for pollution control in the state), and would prohibit uses that pose immediate or long-term risks of contamination (gasoline sales and long-term storage of vehicles and parts). SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application: 1. Similar public garages have been approved in the past because they provide a useful service to Rural Area residents. 2. With the recommended conditions, which limit the scale of the use, the hours of operation, the storage of vehicles, and other related activities, the use would have limited impact on adjacent properties. 3. Approval of the special use permit with conditions would lead to mitigation of some of the already-created impacts of this existing, non- conforming use. Staff has identified the following factor unfavorable to this application: 1. The impacts of this use could be detrimental to rural character and resources if not appropriately scaled and managed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP2010-00042 David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair, with the following conditions. 1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Site Plan David Brown’s Body Shop,” prepared by David C. Wyant, Sr., and dated October 27, 2011 (hereafter “Concept Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Concept Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Concept Plan:  limits of disturbance  location and size of buildings and structures  location of parking areas SP201000042 David Brown Auto Detailing & Repair PC January 24, 2012 Staff Report Page 5  extent of paving  environmental features, including the stream and steep slopes on the site The Zoning Administrator may approve minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The hours of operation for the public garage shall not begin earlier than 7:30 a.m. and shall end not later than 6:00 p.m., each day, Monday through Saturday. The public garage shall not operate on Sundays. 3. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding water supply and septic system shall be verified by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoning clearance and the commencement of the special use. 4. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shall be shielded to reflect light away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval prior to issuance of a zoning clearance. 5. The following activities are prohibited anywhere on the site: a. Gasoline sales b. Installation and/or use of a paint booth c. Sale or rental of vehicles or other motorized equipment d. Storage of vehicles on the site for longer than 30 days e. Outdoor storage of inoperative vehicles, parts, equipment, machinery, and/or junk 6. All detailing and/or repairing of vehicles shall take place inside the existing garage. 7. The impervious surface, including any impervious paving, on the site shall not be expanded beyond its extent on the date of this application. (November 15, 2010). 8. The permittee shall install and thereafter maintain a minimum twenty (20)-foot deep landscaped buffer adjacent to the stream. This planting shall use native tree and shrub species listed in Appendix A of the Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Guidance Manual, published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and/or the brochure Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping, published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Trees and shrubs shall be planted at the densities specified in Appendix D, Table A of the Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Guidance Manual, published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of a zoning clearance. No vehicles may be parked or other business or earth-moving activities shall take place within this buffer. SP201000042 David Brown Auto Detailing & Repair PC January 24, 2012 Staff Report Page 6 9. Parking of vehicles associated with the public garage shall take place only in the parking spaces depicted on the Concept Plan. 10. There shall be no more than three (3) vehicles awaiting repair or waiting to be picked up after repair parked outside the garage at any one time. 11. There shall be no employees other than family members who reside in the home on the site associated with this use. 12. Approval from the Department of Environmental Quality, if required, shall be required prior to issuance of the zoning clearance. 13. The use shall not lawfully commence until the Special Use Permit is approved and all applicable conditions of approval have been met. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit: Move to recommend approval of SP 2010-00042 David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair, subject to the conditions recommended by staff. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit: Move to recommend denial of SP 2010-00034 SP 2010-00042 David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Area Map Attachment B – Site Map Attachment C – Conceptual Plan Return to exec summary SP2010-0004 2David M. Brown 0 0.5 10.25 Miles¯ Attachment A SP2010-0004 2David M. Brown 0 0.02 0.040.01 Miles¯ Attachment B Con tour Interval: 4 Feet Attachment C ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012 FINAL MINUTES 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission January 24, 2012 Items Requesting Deferral: SP-2010-00042 David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for a public garage with auto detailing and repair ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Rural Areas (RA) - agricultural, forestal and fishery uses SECTION: 10.2.2 (37) Public garage COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources / density .5 un its / acre of development lots ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: 599 Rocky Hollow Rd. (Rt. 769); east of Stony Point Rd. (Rt. 20) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 062000000076A1 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (Scott Clark) Mr. Morris noted the applicant requests deferr al of SP-2010-00042 David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair. Mr. Cilimberg suggested the Commission open the hearing for public comment and then take an action to defer to February 28. Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed to bring the matter before the Planning Commission. Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded to approve the applicant’s request for deferral of SP- 2010-00042 David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair to February 28. The motion was passed by a vote of 6:0. Mr. Morris noted that SP-2010-00042, David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair was deferred to February 28. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR SUBMITTED TO BOS 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission February 28, 2012 Deferred Items: SP-2010-00042 David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for a public garage with auto detailing and repair ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Rural Areas (RA) - agricultural, forestal and fishery uses SECTION: 10.2.2 (37) Public garage COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources / density.5 units / acre of development lots ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: 599 Rocky Hollow Rd. (Rt. 769); east of Stony Point Rd. (Rt. 20) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 062000000076A1 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (Scott Clark) DEFERRED FROM THE JANUARY 24, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Scott Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. This is a special use permit request for a public garage, auto detailing and repair in the rural areas zoning district. As mentioned in the staff report Mr. Brown has been operating a public garage on his property without the necessary special use permit. He is requesting to continue operating the 3 -bay, 1,608-square- foot repair facility. On June 4, 2011, Mr. Brown was notified that his existing public garage was not permitted by right in the Rural Areas zoning district, and was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. (VIO- 2011-093) Since then the applicant has been working with staff in conjunction with t he current special use permit application to turn this into a permitted use and try to rectify this violation. He reviewed the conceptual plan for the special use permit noting the dwelling was not part of the permit request and the location of the stream. A lot of the parking area and part of the structure is included in th e Water Protection Ordinance stream buffer as noted on the plan. There have already been some impacts to the stream buffer on the property. Factors Favorable: 1. Similar public garages have been approved in the past because they provide a useful service t o Rural Area residents. 2. With the recommended conditions, which limit the scale of the use, the hours of operation, the storage of vehicles, and other related activities, the use would have limited impact on adjacent properties. 3. Approval of the special use permit with conditions would lead to mitigation of some of the already- created impacts of this existing, non-conforming use. Factors Unfavorable: 1. The impacts of this use could be detrimental to rural character and resources if not appropriately scaled and managed. Potential Impacts Addressed in Proposed Conditions of Approval: • Noise • Light • Water Impacts (chemical and septic) • Development within stream buffer • Scale of commercial use in the Rural Areas RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of SP-2010-00042 David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair, with the 13 conditions recommended by staff as listed in the staff report. Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR SUBMITTED TO BOS 2 Mr. Randolph asked if the permittee violates any of the terms that staff has set out here, which he thought were very thorough, what are the consequences. Mr. Clark replied that becomes a zoning enforcement matter. The terms of the violation can be rectified and go back to what is permitted. If it goes on for a long term, then t here are civil penalties and other means that can be used to encourage the land owner to get back to what is permitted. Mr. Smith asked if he is in operation now. Mr. Clark replied the applicant is not in operation at the moment. Mr. Smith questioned how he makes a living. Mr. Clark replied that he did not know and he did not ask. Mr. Dotson asked if the owner is the resident of the house that is adjacent. Mr. Clark replied yes, the owner lives in the house on that same site. Mr. Dotson asked if by any stretch this could be considered a home occupation in any of the tiers the County has. Mr. Clark replied no. Even in a Class B, Home Occupation the use has to be contained in the extra structure, which this could not because there is parking outside. Mr. Smith asked how they would police condition 11. Mr. Clark replied essentially it would be only through a complaint. If someone was to come in and tell the zoning department Mr. Brown has three persons working on the site or coming in from outside, then staff would investigate it. They don’t have the staff to be there every week looking to see who works there. Mr. Cilimberg noted that all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance are essentially handled through complaint. It includes conditions of special use permits and other zoning regulations. Mr. Morris asked if they have received any concerns from neighbors regarding this. Mr. Clark replied there was one email, which the Commission received from Mike Miller who owns one of the adjacent properties. Mr. Miller was concerned about the noise and the impacts on property values of the surrounding land. Mr. Morris noted that email was received in January. As he recalled that gentleman is not currently a resident in that area. Mr. Clark replied that was correct in that Mr. Miller owns the property but lives in another state. Mr. Morris asked if there were any others. Mr. Clark replied that he had one call from a nearby resident who was concerned about the level of traffic on the site. He responded by telling her what they were doing to manage that, which is the number of cars and hours of operation. He could not tell the Commission whether that satisfied her concerns. There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR SUBMITTED TO BOS 3 David Wyant, representative for the applicant, said that he would answer a couple of the questions. Mr. Brown is unemployed. He used to do deliveries and everything around to convenience stores. Since he has been unemployed he is trying to start back up his repair work and body shop. He is familiar with garages and has been before the Commission on several others. He said the conditions are acceptable, except for the following suggestions. - Regarding employees, he asked the Commission to consider allowing Mr. Brown one or two employees. When Mr. Brown was hurt in order to keep the business going he would need somebody to help him do the work. There is a fellow that helped him part time. In the Class B, Home Occupation some are allowed one or two employees. They don’t want a lot of traffic so only want one or two employees working. He asked that they allow something like that so Mr. Brown would not end up in violation of the conditions. . - They have three parking spaces for vehicles that are waiting to be repaired. It would be helpful to staff and the applicant to define that. In the past he has used basketball analogy in that once they get beyond a certain point that is the garage. All the garage activit y and everything associated with it had to be behind that. The rest of it is his residence just like the rest of the residents in the county. The reason he brought that up was the inoperable automobiles. On a parcel of land they are now allowed two inoperable vehicles if it is not personally involved in the business That have to distinguish that because otherwise he gets calls back from staff to go help these folks understand what they have as a condition. He would suggest they work it out with Amelia or someone in the zoning department how they would define the three parking places that he uses for the garage. It would be helpful to Mr. Brown as well as to the staff in policing this kind of operation. Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant. Mr. Dotson said he was curious about the applicant’s story. He asked if the garage was pre-existing when Mr. Brown bought the house and the garage. He noted Mr. Brown was unemployed. However, he was imaging this as something somebody might do in the evening or on weekends to supplement an off- site job. Mr. Wyant replied that he was not sure exactly about all the details. It has been a long time ago since he went over a lot of this with the Commission and the applicant is not here tonight. He recalled that the garage was built on sometime afterwards. The work was done on the side at night. It was one of the trades Mr. Brown has been doing through his life. Then he kind of shut the business down. It is one of those one horse operations where he maybe just works weekends and night time. However, he has not been doing anything. He has been on Mr. Brown to make sure they stay clean until they get through this and meet all of the conditions. They could then get a clearance to be ready to go. Mr. Dotson noted one of the reasons he was curious about that is condition #2 says the work shall end at 6 p.m. He was picturing somebody who was off the day job coming home and working a couple hours after dark. Mr. Wyant said that has been an issue in the past with garages because folks have worked part time. However, at this time Mr. Brown is not employed and his intent is just to run the garage operation as his livelihood. As far as he knows he is collecting unemployment right now. Mr. Dotson noticed that the business title is David Brown’s Auto Detailing and Repair yet what they are asked to approve is a public garage. It sounds like a much bigger door than detailing and repair. Mr. Wyant replied they went over that earlier, which is why they have some of these conditions to keep it to detailing. If they noticed before it came in with a large paint booth. What Mr. Brown is doing is mostly parts, replacement and some touch up paint within that small garage. There are three bays in the garage. He does not have the heated booth and everything like that. It is just a small auto repair business, which is why these conditions are recommended. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR SUBMITTED TO BOS 4 Mr. Randolph asked if permitted what is his goal in terms of the number of people that would be working in this facility. Mr. Wyant replied that he did not think Mr. Brown anticipates having over one or maybe two at the most. He had run into the limit of two employees before with the Class B licensing out in the rural areas. They need to make sure that Mr. Brown clearly understands if employing people they can’t have but X n umber. He just needs a helper sometimes in doing some of this work. He does not work by himself. Mr. Randolph said it would be unusual for this kind of work for him to be working alone and also doing the bookkeeping and billing. Mr. Wyant replied that Mr. Brown had a lady that helps a lot with the bookkeeping and other things. As far as putting parts on that is not a one person job. Therefore, he thought they ought to be realistic in what they are probably going to encounter out there. He was glad somebody asked a bout the time because he would ask to move the start time up to 9:00 a.m. to be more reasonable and make the quitting time later, but not too late into the night. Mr. Randolph said in a normal operating garage there are a fair number of inf lammable toxics that are going to be on site. If he is doing any auto body work that is even an extra level of toxics. Does he already have installed in this garage exhaust fans to accommodate the type of work where there is toxic exposure for the employees. Mr. Wyant replied that he was not sure about that. He did not remember seeing the exhaust fan. He has his compressors and things out back. The one thing they have had in the other garages is storage of any fluids. Some of those garages were more like a real garage and not just a detailing shop. All that has to stay inside of the structure and it cannot be put outside. Parts cannot be stored outside in order to have a good appearance. Mr. Dotson asked how he would go about attracting customers. Does he advertise or have affiliation with an in town garage that sends him work. Mr. Wyant replied that he had an affiliation with two other garages that send him work. Since he had been down he has not been able to do any operation. However, he has one or two service stations or public garages that send him work. It is amazing when someone lives out in the rural area how these relationships go on and where they get their work . Mr. Lafferty asked if that is the way he gets the vehicles to the site when inoperative. Mr. Wyant replied most of the time that is correct. In the times he has been at the site and talked to him about it people can drive the vehicles up for minor repairs. Of course, they will use tow trucks. Regarding the noise issues, he noted the compressors now have been silenced. He was not sure where the neighbor lives that was asking that. However, that is part of the conditions for a garage. Mr. Morris asked if there are any plans for signage out at the road. Mr. Wyant replied that he had not heard Mr. Brown mention a thing about signs. It is by word of mouth. Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed to bring the matter before the Planning Commission. Mr. Franco asked staff to comment on the outside employee aspect. It seemed pretty reasonable that somebody from the outside might come and help them occasionally. He asked if there was a problem rewording the condition. Mr. Clark replied it makes sense if the condition was reworded to permit a small number of employees. Having no restriction on that would lead to a lot of concern for the zoning department. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR SUBMITTED TO BOS 5 Mr. Kamptner noted as a point of reference major home occupations in the rural areas allow up to two additional persons to work in permitted home occupations. Mr. Franco asked if staff could support putting that condition in as it is with home occupations. Mr. Clark replied yes that he could support adding that condition. The overall concern is to keep the level of travel down. Each person coming in theoretically is two trips a day coming and going. So that is not a large number of trips on the road being added. Mr. Franco noted if it were a home occupation it could generate that many trips as well. He assumed this request was going for a special use permit because it was considered more intense. However, it seems like they ought to at least allow for that impact because it seems pretty re asonable. The hours of operation was also designed to limit the traffic impacts as well. With the realization that some of this work may want to be conducted in the evening is the noise ordinance enough to take care of the concerns about sound for the impacts to the adjacent properties. They have a rural noise ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg replied from the standpoint of noise it would regulate based on the hours that the noise is being created and it would not deal with traffic. Mr. Franco asked if he saw a way of allowing for work to take place in the evenings but not have the traffic. Mr. Cilimberg replied that would be hard even on a complaint basis to regulate. He suggested that they just adjust the hours that are allowed for operation to be in accord with what is reasonable for the circumstance. It would probably be more about adjusting what is now listed as between 7:30 am and 6:00 p.m. Mr. Franco noted that it was suggested they use 9:00 a.m. He asked if staff was comfortable if they use 9:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Mr. Clark replied there is a condition that says the actual work has to occur inside the building. If the garage was run according to the conditions the only activity outside are the arriving and departing of vehicles and vehicles being shuffled around. He thought with the combination of that condition and the noise ordinance it would take care of the noise concerns. Neighbors may or may not appreciate the late hour of traffic like that. Since this is a small use limited to a three -bay garage the amount of traffic added during those hours is probably not going to compare to that already created by the residential uses on the road. Mr. Loach said to some extent staff had answered the questions about the noise. The potential for t he noise and traffic seemed to be the biggest complaint from the letters and emails staff received. As far as the garage concerning the exhaust and storage of solvents does the county handle that. Mr. Clark replied no, those are all state level regulations. Mr. Cilimberg noted those are also building code regulations, which are county administered in addition to whatever the state regulations would be. Mr. Lafferty said he appreciates how much staff has bent over backwards to try to accommodate this. Obviously, from his standpoint if this was a new project it would never go through. He thought staff has tried to work with the owner to make it possible. Mr. Morris agreed. It is right next door and he did not know it existed. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR SUBMITTED TO BOS 6 Mr. Smith noted realistically Mr. Brown only has three bays and he is a man operating by himself. He questioned how many cars can be coming and going. He felt that the traffic would be negligible with three bays Mr. Franco said even if this was a new use it is regulated by a special use permit, which means they ought to be looking at it. He did not think the use should be prohibited just in general. It is a reasonable use in the rural areas. It is very low impact. It is the kind of thing seen in the rural area. He did not have a problem with the use in there even if it was a new use. Mr. Morris noted that it was located back up in the woods. Mr. Loach pointed out that it was similar to the garage approved in Earlysville. Mr. Lafferty pointed out this was within the stream buffer. Mr. Franco said that made him a little nervous. However, it is an existing disturbance. He was not sure how the residential disturbances occur any way. It looked like other than some of the parking spaces they would have been coming in for mitigation. It looks like mitigation has been conditioned as part of this, and he was comfortable with that. Mr. Dotson said these are the kind of issues he hates. It is sort of a head/heart issue with the economy and a person’s livelihood affected being the heart issue. The head issue is he would never put a public garage in this location and never put structures in the stream buffer. However, the structures are already there. He thought that mitigates it. If instead of repairing cars he was repairing tractors and farm equipment it probably would be the same impact. However, he would be more comfortable because it would seem more appropriate in the rural area. He was trying to get over the fact that it was cars and simply think of it being repairing things. Mr. Randolph echoed that sentiment. If they were not presented with the existing structure he totally agreed with Mr. Lafferty that if it was a new application he thought they would be unanimous in disapproval. He really wrestles with the issues here similarly. He was not so sure if it was going to be a local service or whether it was really a service for some dealerships in town that are going to farm out automobile to have specialized work done at a lower overhead cost. In that case he thought they need to watch that very closely because they may see more of this happening as dealerships are restricted in terms of their square footage and their ability to expand. There is going to be more urgency to utilize spaces like this in the rural areas. However, as long as they are covering the noise considerations that the neighbor from out of state raised, then he did not think they could do much else with it. Mr. Kamptner noted the other issue Mr. Wyant raised regarding condition 10 was if there co uld be more specificity with respect to where the vehicles would be parked outdoors. He did not know if staff could craft a condition right now. He was not sure if zoning goes out to the site and work with the applicant to be able to describe the area so that can be placed in the condition when it reaches the Board of Supervisors. He asked that the motion acknowledge the parking delineation since zoning staff was shaking their heads in agreement with that. Mr. Cilimberg noted the plan in attachment C does show parking spaces. Mr. Wyant brought this up and he also worked on this plan. It does appear that there are more than three locations where those three vehicles could be parked. Mr. Franco said the issue Mr. Wyant was bringing to light was that without the special use permit he is allowed to have two non-functioning or inoperative vehicles on his property. With the special use permit he would now be limited to not having any on his property outside the garage. What they are trying to do is allow two personal disabled vehicles to be on the property. That is a question for the Commission regarding when the home occupations came through there were conditions where someone lost some of the rights that they might have by right so to speak when they got a home occupation. He asked if the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR SUBMITTED TO BOS 7 Commission would be comfortable allowing that. He was comfortable with it and unless someone objects he would make that part of the motion. Mr. Loach asked if there is a duration factor with the disabled vehicles. Mr. Clark pointed out there are two other conditions that address this issue. Condition 9 says the parking will only take place in the designated or depicted parking spaces shown on the plan in attachment C. Condition 5d requires the vehicles not be stored on the site for more that 30 days. Mr. Franco said what they were going to be asking zoning staff to do is to meet with the applicant to take the submitted site plan and designate which spaces are associated with the garage. T hese conditions would apply to those spaces and not to the rest of the site. Mr. Loach asked if he was saying the garage itself can have two disabled vehicles and the detached house itself could have an additional two. Mr. Franco said the garage has to store disabled vehicles in the garage itself. Mr. Cilimberg said the permit is applicable to the operation for which the permit was requested as a special use permit. He thought what Mr. W yant was speaking of and the Commission noted was the clarification if they had their own two inoperative vehicles parked in one of these spaces that are designated for the three associated with the garage are they going to run into trouble because of that. That is a zoning question. Staff can work on that between now and the Board meeting to see if further clarification is necessary. Ron Higgins is here from zoning and he can certainly think about this. If the Commission just wants to make sure they have that opportunity to clarify, staff can do that between now and the Board meeting. Mr. Kamptner said the current regulations require the inoperative vehicles be screened from view. Staff has been looking at and may be coming forward with a proposed ordinance amendment submitting not only the regulations pertaining to inoperative vehicles in the zoning ordinance, but in another part of the County Code. They can’t regulate inoperative vehicles to the extent that they would like to. However, they may be coming forward with something that will do a little more than they do right now. Mr. Loach noted it was mentioned in the 29 rezoning the Commission heard not too long ago that disabled vehicles seemed to be more prone to leakage of fluid, which was what the Commission was concerned about. That is the only concern he has with that factor. Mr. Franco asked how he would like to address that. Mr. Loach replied that if zoning can take care of it and if they are already addressing it that he had no problem with it. He thought that screening was one thing. However, if they were putting the inope rative vehicles inside the garage they have much better control over it. Mr. Clark noted there is also the 30 day limit on the storage of a vehicle. Mr. Loach said that 30 days is a long time for leakage particularly near the s tream buffer. Mr. Franco noted the Commission dealt with that issue on 29 north and on Route 20 south. The question came up about leaking fluids, and t he answer was if it was really damaged to that extent most of the fluid loses was at the accident site. There was very little leakage once the car had been towed from the wreck site. Mr. Smith said the only problem he had was with condition 5d. If anyone had done repair work they know someone cannot always get the parts they need in 30 days. He was not saying give him 60 days or 90 days, but to say they have to be realistic that it just does not happen. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR SUBMITTED TO BOS 8 Mr. Franco said that was reasonable. He asked does the storage apply to in the garage. Mr. Clark replied that condition 5 reads anywhere on the site. Mr. Randolph suggested that 45 days would more appropriate. Mr. Loach suggested using 30 days as the standard guide. Staff could use common sense with the enforcement if the ordered parts were not available. Mr. Morris said he was hearing him say that they at least have proof that action has been taken to order the parts. Mr. Loach agreed if they have a receipt that says the part is back ordered it seems that it is reasonable. He did not think they need to change the 30 days in the condition since it was probably not that common. He did not think 30 days was the magic number and 45 days would not be a big difference in the enforcement of it. Mr. Franco said that is not how the zoning ordinance was written. He thought that 30 or 45 days means 30 or 45 days. Mr. Loach said they need to have some standard that they can follow so they can handle those who would abuse it. He did not think in this condition that is the case. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that Mr. Higgins could speak to this. However, the reality is the violation does not exist until it is 31 days. If it was complaint driven then they are going to hear at 31 days that somebody exceeded their 30 day limitation. Then zoning will go out within a few days and talk to them about it and ask for information and tell them that they need to comply. It is going to end up being 45 days before it probably ends up getting fixed anyway. The reality is that is the time that is going to past before real enforcement action is taking place beyond them being told they need to ge t this vehicle repaired because it is beyond 30 days. Mr. Randolph said the reason for 5d is to ensure that the vehicles don’t just sit there parked leaking fluids into the nearby adjacent stream. Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of SP-2010-00042, David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair, with the conditions as noted in staff’s report with an amendment to the following conditions: - condition 2 to allow the hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; - condition 10 to have staff work with the applicant to define which spaces on the site plan are associated with the garage and which are associated with the residence, - condition 9 to be addressed as well for the parking issue; and - condition 11 to amend it to be consistent with the home occupation allowing two outside employees. Mr. Kamptner suggested that condition to read, “There may be up to two additional employees other than family members who reside in the home on the site associated with this use.” Mr. Dotson noted as an observation that had there been neighbors to voice concerns he might vote differently. However, he was prepared to support the request. The motion was passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Morris noted that SP-2010-00042 David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair would go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval with the following conditions as amended. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR SUBMITTED TO BOS 9 1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Site Plan David Brown’s Body Shop,” prepared by David C. Wyant, Sr., and dated October 27, 2011 (hereafter “Concept Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Concept Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Concept Plan:  limits of disturbance  location and size of buildings and structures  location of parking areas  extent of paving  environmental features, including the stream and steep slopes on the site The Zoning Administrator may approve minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The hours of operation for the public garage shall not begin earlier than 9:00 a.m. and shall end not later than 7:30 p.m., each day, Monday through Saturday. The public garage shall not operate on Sundays. 3. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding water supply and septic system shall be verified by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoning clearance and the commencement of the special use. 4. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shall be shielded to reflect light away f rom all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval prior to issuance of a zoning clearance. 5. The following activities are prohibited anywhere on the site: a. Gasoline sales b. Installation and/or use of a paint booth c. Sale or rental of vehicles or other motorized equipment d. Storage of vehicles on the site for longer than 30 days e. Outdoor storage of inoperative vehicles, parts, equipment, machinery, and/or junk 6. All detailing and/or repairing of vehicles shall take place inside the existing garage. 7. The impervious surface, including any impervious paving, on the site shall not be expanded beyond its extent on the date of this application. (November 15, 2010). 8. The permittee shall install and thereafter maintain a minimum twenty (20)-foot deep landscaped buffer adjacent to the stream. This planting shall use native tree and shrub species listed in Appendix A of the Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Guidance Manual, published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and/or the brochure Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping, published by the Virginia Department of Conservatio n and Recreation. Trees and shrubs shall be planted at the densities specified in Appendix D, Table A of the Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Guidance Manual, published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of a zoning clearance. No vehicles may be parked or other business or earth -moving activities shall take place within this buffer. 9. Parking of vehicles associated with the public garage shall take place only in the parking spaces depicted on the Concept Plan. (Staff to work with the applicant to define which spaces on the site plan is associated with the garage that is associated with the parking issue.) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR SUBMITTED TO BOS 10 10. There shall be no more than three (3) vehicles awaiting repair or waiting to be picked up after repair parked outside the garage at any one time. (Staff to work with the applicant to define which spaces on the site plan is associated with the garage that is associated with the residence.) 11. There may be up to two additional employees other than family members who reside in the home on the site associated with this use. 12. Approval from the Department of Environmental Quality, if required, shall be required prior to issuance of the zoning clearance. 13. The use shall not lawfull y commence until the Special Use Permit is approved and all applicable conditions of approval have been met. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Water Protection Ordinance Amendment - WPTA2012- 001, Stream Buffers SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing and adoption of an ordinance to allow disturbance of the outer 50 feet of buffer on an intermittent stream in a water supply protection area located in a Development Area and with an approved mitigation plan STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and Brooks LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2012 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On April 4, 2012, the Board heard an appeal of a Water Protection Ordinance (WPO) requirement for stream buffers (Attachment A). In hearing the appeal, the Board confirmed that staff had properly interpreted the ordinance language in denying the applicant’s request, but concluded that a modified ordinance requirement should be considered to provide the relief requested and to address similar requests anticipated to occur. The Board instructed staff to draft an ordinance amendment that would allow disturbance of the outer fifty feet (50’) of a stream buffer for an intermittent stream in a water supply protection area provided there is an appropriate mitigation plan and it is within a Development Area. The Board requested that the ordinance amendment be set for public hearing as soon as practicable. The proposed ordinance amendment is provided as Attachment B. DISCUSSION: The ordinance amendment makes one substantive change to the WPO requirements for protection of stream buffers. The current ordinance allows disturbance of the outer 50’ of the protected buffer only where improvements are considered necessary to establish a reasonable use of the property and provided an acceptable mitigation plan is approved by the Program Authority (the Community Development Department). The proposed ordinance would allow improvements in the outer 50’ of a protected stream buffer for an intermittent stream in a water supply protection area if the property is located within a Development Area. All other ordinance requirements would remain the same and an acceptable mitigation plan will still be required before this disturbance can be permitted. This change only affects intermittent streams in Crozet because the WPO does not require intermittent stream buffers except in rural areas and water supply protection areas, and Crozet is the only development area that is also a water supply protection area. Accordingly, Crozet requires a higher stream buffer standard as it drains into the municipal drinking water supply. With this change, the Crozet Development Area will continue to have a higher standard than other Development Areas in the County because the inner 50’ of intermittent stream buffers will be required to remain undisturbed from development that may be authorized by the Program Authority under County Code § 17-321. BUDGET IMPACT: Staff does not anticipate budget impacts associated with this ordinance change. It is possible that this change will result in a need for staff to review additional mitigation plans, but the fee for review of mitigation plans is set to provide cost recovery. RECOMMENDATIONS: After the public hearing, staff recommends the Board adopt the proposed ordinance (Attachment B). ATTACHMENTS A – Beard Appeal of Stream Buffer Determination in Crozet B – Proposed Water Protection Ordinance Amendment Return to agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: W ater Protection Odinance – Appeal of Decision by the Program Authority Under County Code § 17-321 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Appeal of Decision by the Program Authority Under County Code § 17-321 to Not Authorize Parking Spaces to be Located in a Stream Buffer STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham and Brooks LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: April 4, 2012 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND Beard Enterprises LLC (“Beard”) requested that the Department of Community Development, which administers the Water Protection Ordinance (County Code Chapter 17) as its “Program Authority,” authorize it to establish parking spaces and a stormwater management facility in the stream buffer on Tax Map and Parcel Number 056A1-01-00- 12200 (the “Parcel”) as provided under County Code § 17-321 (Attachment A). The Parcel is 0.64 acres in size, zoned Downtown Crozet District (DCD) and currently has no improvements on it. The Parcel is subject to a portion of a 100- foot stream buffer that originates from an off -site stream behind the Parcel. The Program Authority authorized the stormwater management facility, but not the parking spaces, to be established in the stream buffer (Attachment B). The Program Authority’s reason to not authorize the parking spaces was because those spaces that would be located in the stream buffer were in excess of the number of spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance, and therefore, were not necessary to allow a reasonable use of the lot. Beard has appealed the Program Authority’s decision regarding the parking spaces under County Code § 17-311 (Attachment C). County Code § 17-311(B) provides that, on an appeal, “the board of supervisors shall consider evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person, the program authority, and such other persons as shall be deemed by the board to be necessary for a complete review of the matter.” County Code § 17-311(B) also provides that the board “may affirm, reverse or modify the program authority's action.” DISCUSSION County Code § 17-319 declares that stream buffers retard runoff, prevent erosion, filter nonpoint source pollution from runoff, moderate stream temperature, and provide for the ecological integrity of stream corridors and networks. County Code § 17-317(D) provides that each “stream buffer shall be maintained and incorporated into the design of the land development to the fullest extent possible.” County Code § 17-321 allows the Program Authority to authorize development in a stream buffer for limited purposes, and it provides in relevant part: Development in a stream buffer may be authorized by the program authority in the circumstances described below, provided that a mitigation plan is submitted to, and approved, by the program authority pursuant to section 17-322: 1. on a lot within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the m ost landward (furthest from the stream) for necessary infrastructure to allow reasonable use of the lot. In all cases under this paragraph, any new building site and sewage disposal system shall be located outside the stream buffer; (boldface added) The terms “necessary” and “reasonable” are fundamental to the Program Authority’s decision. In the context of County Code § 17-321 and this appeal, “necessary” means “that which cannot be done without,” “essential” or “indispensable” and “reasonable” means “not excessive.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (2002). Because Beard could provide sufficient parking for its proposed use to satisfy the Zoning Ordinance without locating additional parking spaces within the stream buffer, the Program Authority determined that the additional parking spaces were not necessary “to allow reasonable use of the Parcel.” AGENDA TITLE: Water Protection Odinance – Appeal of Decision by the Program Authority Under County Code § 17-321 April 4, 2012 Page 2 The Program Authority’s decision as to what is reasonable in this case is consistent with its longstanding interpretation of County Code § 17-321(1). The Program Authority’s decision is also consistent with the directive in County Code § 17-103 in that, because the Water Protection Ordinance “protects paramount public interests,” it is to be “liberally construed to effectuate its several purposes.” As relevant to stream buffers, those purposes include inhibiting “the deterioration of state waters and waterways resulting from land disturbing activities,” controlling “nonpoint source pollution, erosion and sedimentation, and stream channel erosion,” maintaining “the integrity of existing stream channels and networks for their biological functions, drainage, and natural recharge of groundwater,” and protecting “the condition of state waters for all reasonable public uses and ecological functions.” County Code § 17-102(1), (4) and (6). While it is true that the Program Authority’s decision does not allow Beard’s Parcel to be developed as intensively as it desires, the excess parking spaces are not necessary to Beard’s proposed use. BUDGET IMPACT None RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board affirm the decision of the Program Authority. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant’s Initial Request B. Response letter C. Beard’s Appeal Request D. Beard Appeal Map Draft: 04/27/12 1 ORDINANCE NO. 12-17( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 17, WATER PROTECTION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE III, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND WATER QUALITY BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 17, Water Protection, Article III, Stormwater Management and Water Quality, is amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 17-321 Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority Chapter 17. Water Protection Article III. Stormwater Management and Water Quality Sec. 17-321 Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority. Development in a stream buffer may be authorized by the program authority in the circumstances described below, provided that a mitigation plan is submitted to, and approved, by the program authority pursuant to section 17-322: 1. on a lot within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward (furthest from the stream) if the development either: (i) would be for necessary infrastructure to allow reasonable use of the lot; or (ii) would be on a lot that is within a water supply protection area where the stream buffer protects an intermittent stream and the lot is within a development area. In all cases under this paragraph, any new building site and sewage disposal system shall be located outside the stream buffer; 2. on a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of a lake, pond, or ecological/wetland restoration project; 3. on a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction and maintenance of a road, street or driveway that would not satisfy the requirements of section 17-320(D) and the program authority determines that the stream buffer would prohibit access to the lot necessary for the lot to be used and developed as permitted in the underlying zoning district and under the applicable regulations of the subdivision ordinance, or to establish more than one stream crossing; 4. on a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction, installation and maintenance of water and sewer facilities or sewage disposal systems, and the program authority determines that the stream buffer would prohibit the practicable development of such facilities or systems. Any such sewage disposal system must comply with all applicable state laws; and 5. on a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, if the stream buffer would result in the loss of a building site, and there are no other available building sites outside the stream buffer on the lot, or to allow redevelopment as permitted in the underlying zoning district. (§ 19.3-45, 2-11-98; § 19.2-8, 6-19-91, § 8; Code 1988, § § 19.2-8, 19.3-45; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-17(1), 2-6-08; Ord. 08-17(2), 5-7-08; Ord. 11-17(1), 10-5-11) State law reference--Va. Code § 10.1-2108. Draft: 04/27/12 2 I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________. __________________________________ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd ____ ____ Mr. Dumler ____ ____ Ms. Mallek ____ ____ Mr. Rooker ____ ____ Mr. Snow ____ ____ Mr. Thomas ____ ____ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer DATE: April 2, 2012 RE: ZTA201200002 & STA201200001 Water/Sewer Regulations The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 20, 2012, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of the above-noted Zoning Text Amendment & Subdivision Text Amendment to the Board of Supervisors. The Board is scheduled to hold a public hearing on this item at its May 2nd meeting. Attachments Recommended Ordinance Staff Report and Attachments PC minutes of February 28 and March 20, 2012 Return to agenda ZTA-2012-00002 Water/Sewer Regulations – Recommended Revisions to Zoning Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 12-18( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Regulations, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Definitions Sec. 4.2 Critical slopes Sec. 4.2.1 Building site required Sec. 4.2.2 Building site area and dimensions Sec. 4.2.3 Location of structures and improvements Sec. 4.2.4 Location of septic systems Sec. 4.7 Open space Sec. 5.1.43 Special events Sec. 5.1.44 Farm worker housing Sec. 10.5.2 Where permitted by special use permit By Amending and Renaming: Current New Sec. 4.1 Area and health regulations related to utilities Water supplies and sewer systems By Repealing: Sec. 4.1.1 Untitled Sec. 4.1.2 Untitled Sec. 4.1.3 Untitled Sec. 4.1.4 Untitled Sec. 4.1.5 Untitled Sec. 4.1.6 Untitled Sec. 4.1.7 Untitled Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Regulations Sec. 3.1 Definitions . . . Alternative onsite sewage system: A treatment works approved by the Virginia Department of Health that is not a conventional onsite sewage system and does not result in a point source discharge. . . . Central Sewerage System: A sewerage system consisting of pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, force mains or sewerage treatment plants, including, but not limited to, septic tanks and/or drain fields, or any of them, designed to serve three (3) or more connections, used for conducting or treating sewage which is required to be approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to Title 15.2, Chapter 21, Article 4 of the Code. . . . Central Water Supply: A water supply consisting of a well, springs or other source and the necessary pipes, conduits, mains, pumping stations and other facilities in connection therewith, to serve or to be capable of serving three (3) or more connections which is required to be approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to Title 15.2, Chapter 21, Article 6 of the Code. . . . Conventional onsite sewage system: A treatment works approved by the Virginia Department of Health consisting of one or more septic tanks with gravity, pumped, or siphoned conveyance to a gravity distributed subsurface drainfield. . . . Critical slopes: Slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater as determined by reference to either current topographic mapping available from the county or a more accurate field survey certified by a professional surveyor or engineer. . . . Onsite sewage system: A conventional onsite sewage system or an alternative onsite sewage system. . . . Subsurface drainfield: A system installed within the soil and designed to accommodate treated sewage from a treatment works. . . . Treatment works: Any device or system used in the storage, treatment, disposal or reclamation of sewage or combinations of sewage and industrial wastes, including but not limited to pumping, power and other equipment and appurtenances, septic tanks, and any works, including land, that are or will be (i) an integral part of the treatment process or (ii) used for ultimate disposal of residues or effluents resulting from such treatment. Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.1 Area and health regulations related to utilities Water supplies and sewer systems (Amended 6-3-81) The following regulations shall apply to all districts: It is specifically intended that the public water supply and public sewerage system be utilized within the service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Within such service areas, provisions of section 6.0 and other provisions of section 4.1 notwithstanding, no building permit shall be issued for any building or structure, including mobile homes, the use of which requires increased water consumption and/or sewage disposal, unless the building or structure shall be provided with public water and/or public sewerage system service. This requirement, however, shall not apply to the following situations and circumstances: a. Whenever a structure is damaged as a result of factors beyond the control of the owner and/or occupant thereof, such structure may be repaired and/or reconstructed provided that such repair and/or reconstruction shall be commenced within twelve (12) months a nd completed within twenty- four (24) months from the date of such damage; and provided further that such structure shall not be repaired and/or reconstructed in such manner as to reasonably cause an increase in water usage and/or sewage disposal demand; or b. The director of planning and community development in consultation with the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the cost of connecting the proposed development to the public water and/or sewerage system, exclusive of connection fees, exceeds the cost of installing an on-site well and/or septic system; or c. The director of planning and community development in consultation with the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the capacity of the public water and/or sewerage system is inadeq uate to serve the proposed development. Except for (a) above, the foregoing provisions shall not provide relief from §§ 4.1.1 through 4.1.7. (Added 1-3-96) 4.1.1 For a parcel served by both a central water supply and a central sewer system, the minimum area requirements of the district in which such parcel is located shall apply. 4.1.2 For a parcel served by either a central water supply or a central sewer system, there shall be provided a minimum area of forty thousand (40,000) square feet per commercial or industrial establishment or per dwelling unit as the case may be. 4.1.3 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 indu strial establishment or per dwelling unit as the case may be. 4.1.4 The provisions of sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 notwithstanding, in such cases where a greater minimum area is required by the regulations of the district in which the parcel is located, said district regulations shall apply. 4.1.5 In the case of unusual soil conditions or other physical factors which may impair the health and safety of the neighborhood, upon the recommendation of the Virginia Department of Health, the commission may increase the area requirements for uses utilizing other than a public sewer system. 4.1.6 For lots not served by a central sewer system, no building permit shall be issued for any building or structure, the use of which involves sewage disposal, without written ap proval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health of the location and area for both original and future replacement septic disposal fields adequate to serve such use. For residential usage, at a minimum, each septic disposal field shall consist of suitable soils of adequate area to accommodate sewage disposal from a three (3) bedroom dwelling as determined by current regulations of the Virginia Department of Health. (Amended 11-15-89) 4.1.7 In a cluster development, open space may be used for septic field location only after the septic field locations on such lot are determined to be inadequate by the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. (Added 6-3-81) The water supply and sewer system serving either a development or any ind ividual lot shall comply with the following: a. Public water supply and public sewer system within the services areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Within the services areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority (the “service areas”), each development and each lot shall be served by the public water supply and the public sewer system. Within the service areas, no building permit shall be issued for any structure if its use requires increased water consumption and/or sewage disposal, unless the structure will be connected to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system. Connection to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system is not required in the following circumstances: 1. Existing structure damaged. When an existing structure is damaged as a result of factors beyond the control of its owner and/or occupant, the structure may be repaired or reconstructed provided that the repair or reconstruction is commenced within twelve (12) months and completed within twenty-four (24) months after the date of the damage, and further provided that the structure is not repaired or reconstructed so as to increase the number of water supply or sewage fixtures. 2. Cost of connection to public water supply or public sewer system ex ceeds cost of onsite sewage system. When the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the cost of connecting the proposed development or lot to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system, exclusive of connection fees, exceeds the cost of installing an on-site well and/or an onsite sewage system. 3. Capacity of public water supply or public sewer system is inadequate . When the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the capacity of the public water supply and/or the public sewer system is inadequate to serve the proposed development or lot. 4. Nonconforming use or structure. The structure is used for a nonconforming use and satisfies the requirements of section 6.2(C) or the structure is nonconforming and satisfies the requirements of section 6.3. b. Water supply and sewer system when development or lot not connected to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system. When a development or a lot is not or will not be connected to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system, the following shall apply, except when an existing structure is damaged as provided in section 4.1(a)(1): 1. Lots served by an alternative onsite sewage system. On any lot served by an alternative onsite sewage system, no building permit shall be issued for any structure, the use of which requires sewage disposal, without the Virginia Department of Health’s approval of the location and area for the alternative onsite sewage system. 2. Lots served by a conventional onsite sewage system. On any lot served by a conventional onsite sewage system, no building permit shall be issued for any structure, the use of which requires sewage disposal, without the Virginia Department of Health’s approval of the location and area for both an original and a replacement subsurface drainfield that is adequate to serve the use. For residential uses, each subsurface drainfield shall have suitable soils of adequate area to accommodate sewage disposal from a three (3) bedroom dwelling as determined by the current regulations of the Virginia Department of Health. Sec. 4.2 Critical slopes These provisions in this section through section 4.2.5 are created to implement the comprehensive plan by protecting and conserving steep hillsides together with public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas and in recognition of because of the increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal sewage disposal problems associated with the development disturbance of those areas described in the comprehensive plan as critical slopes. It is hereby recognized that such development of The disturbance of critical slopes may result in: rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock; excessive stormwater run-off; siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource; and in the event of septic system onsite sewage system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, all of which constitute potential dangers to the public health, safety and/or welfare. These provisions The regulations in sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 are intended to direct building and septic system onsite sewage system locations to terrain more suitable to development and to discourage development on critical slopes, and to supplement other regulations regarding the protection of public water supplies and the encroachment of development into flood plains. (Amended 11-15-89) Where modification of regulations is sought pursuant to section 4.2.5, such request shall address each concern specified in section 4.2. Each request to waive or modify any requirement of sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 or 4.2.4 under section 4.2.5 shall be by special exception under section 31.8. (Added 11-15- 89) Sec. 4.2.1 Building site required No lot or parcel shall have less than one (1) building site, subject to the following:. a. Composition of building site. A building site shall be composed of a contiguous area of land and may not contain any area of land that is: (i) in critical slopes; (ii) withi n the flood hazard overlay district; (iii) under water during normal hydrological conditions; (iv) within two hundred (200) horizontal feet of the one hundred year flood plain of any public water supply reservoir; and (v) within a stream buffer under chapter 17 of the Code, provided that nothing contained herein shall be deemed to prohibit or impair the program authority from exercising its discretion as authorized in chapter 17. For purposes of this section, the term “building site” shall mean a contiguou s area of land in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent as determined by reference to either topographic quadrangle maps of the Geological Survey - U. S. Department of Interior (contour interval twenty [20] feet) or a source determined by the county engineer to be of superior accuracy, exclusive of: -Such area as may be located in the flood hazard overlay district or which is located under water; -Such area as may be located within two hundred (200) horizontal feet of the one hundred year flood plain of any public drinking water impoundment or within one hundred (100) horizontal feet of the edge of any tributary stream to such impoundment; (Amended 11-11-87) -Such area as may be designated as resource protection areas on the resource protection areas map adopted pursuant to chapter 17 of the Code of Albemarle; provided that nothing contained herein shall be deemed to prevent or impair the water resources manager from exercise of discretion as set forth in that ordinance. (Added 9-9-92) b. Special exception. Notwithstanding section 4.2.5, any requirement of section 4.2.1(a) may be waived or modified by special exception under section 31.8 upon the board of supervisors’ consideration of whether (i) the parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical condition; or (ii) development in a stream buffer on the parcel was authorized as provided in section 17-321 of the Code. Sec. 4.2.2 Building site area and dimensions Each building site shall be subject to the following minimum area and dimension requirements: (Amended 10-17-01) a. Uses not served by a public or central sewerage sewage system. Building sites for uses not served by a public or central sewerage sewage system shall be subject to the following: (Amended 11-15-89; 10-17-01) 1. Dwelling units. Each building site for a dwelling unit shall have an area of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet or greater and shall be of such dimensions that no one dimension exceeds any other by a ratio of more than five (5) to one (1) as described by a rectangle inscribed within the building site. The building site shall have adequate area for locating two (2) septic drain fields subsurface drainfields approved by the Virginia Department of Health pursuant to section 4.1 of this chapter if the lot will be served by a conventional onsite sewage system . (Amended 11-15-89; 10-17-01) 2. Development subject to section 32 of this chapter. Each building site in a development subject to section 32 of this chapter shall have an area of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet or greater and shall be of such dimensions that no one dimension exceeds any other by a ratio of more than five (5) to one (1) as described by a rectangle inscribed within the building site. The building site shall have adequate area for all buildings and structures, two (2) septic drain fields subsurface drainfields approved by the Virginia Department of Health pursuant to section 4.1 of this chapter if the lot will be served by a conventional onsite sewage system , parking and loading areas, storage yards and other improvements, and all earth disturbing activity related to the improvements. (Added 11- 15-89; Amended 10-17-01) 3. Modification or waiver Special exception. Notwithstanding section 4.2.5 of this chapter, the director of planning and community development may modify or waive the rectangular shape required by subsections (1) and (2) if, may be waived or modified by special exception under section 31.8 if, after receiving the recommendation from the Virginia Department of Health, the director of planning and community development finds, upon the board of supervisors’ consideration of the recommendation from the Virginia Department of Health and based on information provided by the developer showing, that: (i) the parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical condition; (ii) no reasonable alternative building site exists; and (iii) modifying or waiving the rectangular shape would result in less degradation of the parcel or adjacent parcels than if those dimensions were adhered to. (Added 10-17-01) 4. Appeal. A developer may appeal the denial of a modification or waiver to the planning commission and, thereafter, to the board of supervisors, pursuant to section 4.2.5. (Added 10-17-01) b. Uses served by a central sewerage sewage system. Building sites for uses served by a central sewerage sewage system shall be demonstrated by the applicant to have adequate area, as follows: (Amended 10-17-01) 1. Residential development. Each building site in a residential development shall have adequate area for all dwelling unit(s) together with an area equivalent to the sum of the applicable required yard areas for the applicable zoning district and, if parking is provided in bays, the parking area. (Added 11-15-89; Amended 10-17-01) 2. Development subject to section 32 of this chapter. Each building site in a development subject to section 32 of this chapter shall have adequate area for all structures, parking and loading areas, storage yards and other improvements, and all earth disturbing activity related to the improvements. (Added 11-15-89; Amended 10-17-01) (§ (4.2.2, 12-10-80; § 4.2.2, 4.2.2.1, 11-15-89; Ord. 01-18(7), 10-17-01) Sec. 4.2.3 Location of structures and improvements Except as otherwise permitted pursuant to provided in section 4.2.2, the provisions of this section shall apply applies to the location of any structure for which a permit is required under the Uniform Statewide Building Code and to any improvement shown on a site development plan pursuant to section 32.0 of this chapter. (Amended 11-15-89; 10-17-01) (§ 4.2.3, 12-10-80, 11-15-89; Ord. 01-18(7), 10-17-01) 4.2.3.1a. No structure or improvement shall be located on any lot or parcel in any area other than a building site. (Amended 11-15-89) 4.2.3.2b. No structure or improvement nor earth No structure, improvement, or land disturbing activity to establish such the structure or improvement shall be located on critical slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater except as otherwise permitted under sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6 and 4.3.01. Sec. 4.2.4 Location of septic systems onsite sewage systems (Amended 11-11-87) In the review for and issuance of a permit for the installation of a septic system an onsite sewage system, the Virginia Department of Health shall should be mindful of the intent of this section 4.2, and particularly mindful of the intent to discourage location of septic tanks and/or drain fields onsite sewage systems on slopes of twenty (20) percent or greater. Septic system location shall be restricted to Any onsite sewage system shall be located within the approved a building site. (Amended 11-1-87; 9-9-92) Sec. 4.7 Open space Open space shall be established, used, designed and maintained as follows: a. Intent. Open space is intended to provide active and passive recreation, protect areas sensitive to development, buffer dissimilar uses from one another and preserve agricultural activities. The commission and the board of supervisors shall consider the establishment, use, design and maintenance of open space in their review and approval of zoning map amendments. The subdivision agent and the site plan agent (hereinafter, collectively referred to as the “agent”) shall apply the following principles when reviewing open space provided on a subdivision plat or site plan. b. Uses permitted. Open space shall be maintained in a natural state and shall not be developed with any improvements, provided that the agent may authorize the open space to be used and improved for the following purposes: (i) agriculture, forestry and fisheries, including appropriate structures; (ii) game preserves, wildlife sanctuaries and similar uses; (iii) noncommercial recreational uses and structures; (iv) public utilities; (v) individual wells and treatment works with subsurface drainfields (reference section 4.1.7) (vi) in a cluster development, onsite sewage systems if the Department of Health determines that there are no suitable locations for a subsurface drainfield on a development lot; and (vii) stormwater management facilities and flood control devices. c. Design. Open space shall be designed as follows: 1. Lands that may be required. The agent may require that open space include: (i) areas deemed inappropriate for or prohibited to development including, but not limited to, land in the one-hundred year flood plain and significant drainage swales, land in slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater, public utility easements for transmission lines, stormwater management facilities and flood control devices, and lands having permanent or seasonally high water tables; (ii) areas to satisfy section 4.16, and (iii) areas to provide reasonable buffering between dissimilar uses within the development and between the development and adjoining properties. 2. Redesign during review. The agent may require the redesign of a proposed development to accommodate open space areas as may be required under this section 4.7, provided that the redesign shall not reduce the number of dwelling units permitted under the applicable zoning district. 3. Limitation on certain elements. If open space is required by this chapter, not more than eighty (80) percent of the minimum required open space shall consist of the foll owing: (i) land located within the one-hundred year flood plain; (ii) land subject to occasional, common or frequent flooding as defined in Table 16 Soil and Water Features of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia, August, 1985; (iii) land in slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater critical slopes; and (iv) land devoted to stormwater management facilities or flood control devices, except where the facility or feature is incorporated into a permanent pond, lake or other water feature deemed by the agent to constitute a desirable open space amenity. d. Ownership of open space. Open space may be privately owned or dedicated to public use. Open space in private ownership shall be subject to a legal instrument ensuring the maintenance and preservation of the open space that is approved by the agent and the county attorney in conjunction with the approval of the subdivision plat or site plan. Open space dedicated to public use shall be dedicated to the county in the manner provided by law. Open space dedicated to public use shall count toward the minimum required open space. (12-10-80, §§ 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4; 6-3-81, 11-15-89; Ord. 09-18(1), 1-14-09, § 4.7) Sec. 5.1.43 Special events Each special event authorized by section 10.2.2(50) shall be subject to the following: a. Eligibility and applicability. Special events may be authorized on those parcels in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district on which there is an existing and ongoing by-right (section 10.2.1) primary use. A special event special use permit issued under section 10.2.2(50) and this section shall not be required for special events associated with farm wineries or historical centers, or for events determined by the zoning administrator to be accessory to a primary use of the parcel. b. Information to be submitted with application for special use permit. In addition to any information otherwise required to be submitted for a special use permit, each app lication for a special use permit shall include the following: 1. Concept plan. A preliminary schematic plan (the “concept plan”) satisfying section 32.4.1. The concept plan shall identify the structure(s) to be used for the special event, include the area of the structure(s) in which the proposed special events will be conducted, the parking area, and the entrance to the site from the street. The concept plan shall address, in particular, provisions for safe and convenient access to and from the street, the location of the parking area, the location of portable toilets if they may be required, proposed screening as required by this section for parking areas and portable toilets, and information regarding the exterior appearance of the proposed site. Ba sed on the concept plan and other information submitted, the board of supervisors may then waive the requirement for a site plan in a particular case, upon a finding that the requirement of a site plan would not forward the purposes of this chapter or othe rwise serve the public interest. 2. Information from the Virginia Department of Health. The applicant shall submit written comments from the Virginia Department of Health regarding the private water supply and the septic disposal system onsite sewage system that will serve the proposed special event site, the ability of the water supply and the septic disposal system onsite sewage system to handle the proposed events, and the need to improve the supply or the system in order to handle the proposed events. 3. Building and fire safety. The building official and the county department of fire and rescue shall review and comment on the application, identifying all Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code issues and requirements. c. Zoning compliance clearance. The applicant shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance under section 31.5 prior to conducting a special event. A single zoning clearance may be obtained for one (1) or more such special events in a calendar year as follows: 1. The zoning administrator may issue a single zoning compliance clearance for more than one (1) special event if: (i) the application submitted by the applicant includes the required information in subsection 5.1.43(c)(3) for each special event to be covered by the zoning compliance clearance: (ii) the zoning administrator determines that each special event is substantially similar in nature and size; and (iii) the zoning administrator determines that a single set of conditions that would apply to each such special event may be imposed with the zoning compliance clearance. 2. The applicant shall apply for a zoning compliance clearance at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the first special event to be authorized by the zoning compliance clearance. The application shall be submitted to the zoning administrator, who shall forward copies of the application to the county police department, the county building official, the county department of fire and rescue, and the local offic e of the Virginia Department of Health. As part of his review, the building official shall determine whether the structure(s) proposed to be used for the special events satisfies the requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code for that use. 3. The application shall describe the nature of each special event to be authorized by the zoning compliance clearance, the date or dates and hours of operation of each such special event, the facilities, structures to be used, and the number of participants and support staff expect to attend each special event. 4. Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance and all conditions of the special use permit are satisfied, and imposing all conditions of such approval required by the offices identified in subsection 5.1.43(c)(2), the zoning administrator shall issue a zoning compliance clearance for one or more special events. The validity of the zoning compliance clearance shall be conditional upon the applicant’s compliance with all requirements of the zoning ordinance, all conditions of the approved special use permit, the approved concept plan or site plan, and all conditions imposed by the zoning compliance clearance. d. Special events sites and structures. In addition to all other applicable requirements of this chapter, special events sites and structures shall be subject to the following: 1. Structures used for special events. Each structure used for a special event shall satisfy the following: (i) the structure shall have been in existence on the date of adoption of this section 5.1.43, provided that this requirement shall not apply to accessory structures less than one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size; (ii) the structure shall be a lawful conforming structure and shall support or have supported a lawful use of the property; and (iii) modifications to farm buildings or farm structures as those terms are defined in Virginia Code § 36-97 shall allow the structure to revert to an agricultural use, as determined by the building official. 2. Minimum yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum front yard shall be seventy-five (75) feet. The minimum side yard shall be twenty-five feet (25) feet. The minimum rear yard shall be thirty-five (35) feet. All yards shall be measured from structures and off-street parking areas. These minimum yard requirements shall apply to all accessory structures established after the effective date of this section 5.1.43 and all tents, parking areas and portable toilets used in whole or in part to serve special events. 3. Parking. The number of off-street parking spaces for a special event shall be as required in section 4.12.6. Notwithstanding section 4.12.15(a) through (g), the additional parking area(s) for special events shall consist of or be constructed of pervious materials including, but not limited to stabilized turf, approved by the county engineer. Asphalt and impervious materials are prohibited. If the parking area is on grass or in a field, the applicant shall reseed and restore the parking area site as required by the zoning administrator. In addition to the requirements of section 4.12.5, the parking area shall be onsite and screened from abutting parcels by topography, structures or new or existing landscaping. Notwithstanding section 4.12.16(d) and (e), the delineation of parking spaces and the provision of bumper blocks shall not be required. 4. Water and sewer. The private water supply and septic disposal system onsite sewage system serving a special event shall be approved by the Virginia Department of Health. 5. Streets and access. Streets serving the site shall be adequate for anticipated traffic volume for a special event. Access from the street onto the site shall be a dequate to provide safe and convenient access to the site, and applicant shall install all required improvements and provide adequate sight distance in order to provide safe and convenient access. e. Special events operations. In addition to all other applicable requirements of this chapter, special events operations shall be subject to the following: 1. Number of participants. The number of participants at a special event at any one time shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) persons 2. Number of special events per year. The special use permit shall identify the number of approved special events per calendar year, which number shall not exceed twenty -four (24). 3. Signs. Permanent and temporary signs advertising a special event shall be permitted as provided in sections 4.15.4, 4.15.4A and 4.15.8. 4. Food service. No kitchen facility permitted by the Virginia Department of Health as a commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the site. A kitchen may be used by licensed caterers for the handling, warming and distribution of food, but not for cooking food, to be served at a special event. 5. Portable toilets. If required, portable toilets are permitted on the site, provided that they comply with the yard requirements in section 5.1.43(d)(2) and shall be screened from that parcel and any street by topography, structures or new or existing landscaping. f. Prohibition of development to a more intensive use. A parcel subject to a special events special use permit shall not be subdivided so as to create one or more parcels, including the parent parcel, of less than twenty-one acres in size without first amending the special use permit to expressly authorize the subdivision. If a parcel is so subdivided without first amending the special use permit, special events shall thereafter be prohibited on the resulting parcels unless a new special use permit is obtained. (Ord. 05-18(8), 7-13-05) Sec. 5.1.44 Farm worker housing Each farm worker housing facility shall be subject to the following: a. Concept plan to be submitted with application for farm worker housing. Before applying for the first building permit for a farm worker housing, Class A, facility, or in addition to any other information required to be submitted for a farm worker housing, Class B, special use permit, the applicant shall submit a concept plan meeting the requirements of section 5.1.44(b). b. Contents of concept plan. The concept plan shall show the following: (i) the boundary lines of the farm (may be shown on an inset map if necessary); (ii) the location and general layout of the proposed structures at a scale of not more than one (1) inch equals forty (40) feet; (iii) vehicular access, travelways and parking for the facility; (iv) topography (with a contour interval of no greater than ten (10) feet); (v) critical slopes; (vi) streams, stream buffers and floodplains; (vii) source(s) of water for fire suppression; (viii) building setback lines as provided in subsection 5.1.44(g) below; and (ix) outdoor lighting. The concept plan also shall include a written description of each structure’s construction and materials used, and the number of persons to be housed in the farm worker housing facility. c. Notice of receipt of concept plan to abutting owners . The zoning administrator shall send notice of the receipt of a concept plan as follows: 1. Farm worker housing, Class A, facility: For each concept plan received for a farm worker housing, Class A, facility, the zoning administrator shall send notice to the owner of e ach lot abutting the parcel for which a concept plan has been received within ten (10) days after submittal of the concept plan deemed by the zoning administrator to be complete. The notice shall include a copy of the concept plan and shall advise each re cipient of the right to submit written comments within ten (10) days of the date of the notice and the right to request planning commission review as provided in section 5.1.44(d). Notice mailed to the abutting owner shall be mailed to the last known address of the owner, and mailing the notice to the address shown on the current real estate tax assessment records of the county shall be deemed compliance with this requirement. The failure of an abutting owner to receive the notice required by this section shall not affect the validity of an approved concept plan or zoning compliance clearance. 2. Farm worker housing, Class B, facility: For each concept plan received for a farm worker housing, Class B, facility, notice to the owner of each lot abutting the parcel for which a concept plan has been received shall be provided in conjunction with the notice required for the special use permit. d. Request for planning commission review and action on farm worker housing, Class A, facility concept plan. An abutting owner to whom notice for a farm worker housing, Class A, facility concept plan under section 5.1.44(c)(1) and who submitted timely written comments about the concept plan as provided therein may request that the planning commission review and act on the concept plan. The request shall be in writing, state the reasons why the commission should review the concept plan, and be filed with the director of planning within ten (10) days after the date of the notice from the zoning administrator. ed. Review and action on concept plan. A concept plan shall be reviewed and acted upon as follows: 1. Farm worker housing, Class A, facility. For a farm worker housing, Class A, facility, the concept plan shall be approved by the zoning administrator or the planning commission, as the case may be, before any building permit is issued for the facility. The concept plan shall be approved by the zoning administrator or the commission if it satisfies all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance and the design is determined to not be a substantial detriment to abutting parcels this chapter. In approving the concept plan, the zoning administrator or the commission may impose reasonable conditions to mitigate impacts on abutting parcels arising from facility. The commission shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the zoning administrator, the director of planning and other officials. In addition, the commission may consider such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application. 2. Farm worker housing, Class B, facility. For a farm worker housing, Class B, facility, the concept plan shall be reviewed and acted upon in conjunction with the special use permit. fe. Farm worker housing facilities; permissible structures. Farm worker housing facilities shall not use motor vehicles or major recreational equipment, as that term is defined in section 4.12.3(b)(1) of this chapter, to provide for sleeping, eating, food preparation, or sanitation (bathing and/or toilets). gf. Minimum yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum front yard shall be seventy-five (75) feet. The minimum side and rear yards shall be fifty (50) feet. All yards shall be measured from the farm worker housing struct ures. hg. Zoning compliance clearance. The owner shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance from the zoning administrator as provided in section 31.2.3.2 31.5 of this chapter before a farm worker housing facility is occupied, subject to the following additional requirements: 1. The applicant shall apply for a zoning compliance clearance at least thirty (30) days prior to the first expected occupation of the farm worker housing facility. The application shall be submitted to the zoning administrator. 2. The zoning compliance clearance application shall include all of the following information: a. Written approval of the farm worker housing facility as a migrant labor camp under 12 VAC 5-501-10 et seq., the food preparation area, the private water supply, and the septic disposal system onsite sewage system by the Virginia Department of Health. b. Approval of the access to the site from a public street by the Virginia Department of Transportation; provided that nothing herein shall be deemed to require that a commercial entrance be constructed unless such an entrance is required by the Virginia Department of Transportation. c. Written approval of the adequacy of the access to the site for emergency vehicles by the fire marshal. d. Written approval of the adequacy of the structures intended for human habitation by the building official. 3. Upon the zoning administrator’s determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance are satisfied, that all conditions of the special use permit authorizing a farm worker housing, Class B, facility, are satisfied, and upon receipt of the approvals and documents required in section 5.1.44(hg)(2), the zoning administrator shall issue a zoning compliance clearance for the facility. ih. Use of farm worker housing facility by workers and their families only. A farm worker housing facility shall be occupied only by persons employed to work on the farm on which the structures are located for seasonal agriculture work and their immediate families as provided herein. For purposes of this section 5.1.44, the term “immediate families” means the natural or legally defined off-spring, grandchild, grandparent, or parent of the farm worker. ji. Use of farm worker housing facility when not occupied. When not occupied by seasonal farm workers, farm worker housing facilities may be used for any use accessory to a primary agriculture use. (Ord. 06-18(2), 12-13-06) Article III. District Regulations Sec. 10.5.2 Where permitted by special use permit 10.5.2.1 The board of supervisors may authorize the issuance of issue a special use permit for more lots than the total number permitted under sections 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2; provided that no such permit shall be issued for property within the boundaries for the watershed of an y public drinking water supply impoundment water supply reservoir, and further provided that no such permit shall be issued to allow more development lots within a proposed rural preservation development than that permitted by right under section 10.3.3.3(b). (Added 11-8-89; Amended 5-5-04 effective 7-1-04) The board of supervisors shall determine that such division is compatible with the neighborhood as set forth in section 31.2.4.1 31.6.1 of this chapter, with reference to consideration of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan relating to rural areas including the type of division proposed and , specifically, as to this section only, with reference to consideration of the following: (Amended 11-8-89) 1. The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Natural Resources Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry. 2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same shall be is shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Natural Resources Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Natural Resources Conservation Service. 3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent that is reasonably available. 4. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed development on the character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be in an agricultural or forestal area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the border of such property has been in commercial agricultural or forestal use within five (5) years of the date of the application for special use permit. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. 5. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the boundary of such property was in parcels of record of five (5) acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. 6. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers, services and employment centers. A property within areas described below shall be deemed in proximity to the area or use described: a. Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary as described in the comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89) b. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as described in the comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89) c. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a village as described in the comprehensive plan. (Amended 11-8-89) 7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming in regard to increased provision of services. 8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the Virginia Department of Transportation: (Amended 11-8-89) a. Occasion the need for road improvement; b. Cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable road; c. Increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road. 9. With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying wholly or partially within the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water impoundment, the following additional factors shall be considered: a. The amount and quality of existing vegetative cover as related to filtration of sediment, phosphorous, heavy metals, nitrogen and other substances determined harmful to water quality for human consumption; b. The extent to which existing vegetative cover would be removed or disturbed during the construction phase of any development; c. The amount of impervious cover which will exist after development; d. The proximity of any paved (pervious or impervious) area, structure, or drain field to any perennial or intermittent stream or impoundment; or during the construction phase, the proximity of any disturbed area to any such stream or impoundment; e. The type and characteristics of soils including suitability for septic fields and erodability; [ f. The percentage and length of all slopes subject to disturbance during construction or upon which any structure, paved area (pervious or impervious) or active recreational area shall exist after development; g. The estimated duration and timing of the construction phase of any proposed development and extent to which such duration and timing are unpredictable; h. The degree to which original topography or vegetative cover have been altered in anticipation of filing for any permit hereunder; i. The extent to which the standards of Chapter 17 et seq. of the Code of Albemarle can only be met through the creation of artificial devices, which devices will: 1. Require periodic inspection and/or maintenance; 2. Are susceptible to failure or overflow for run-off associated with any one hundred year or more intense storm. (§ 20-10.5.2.1, 12-10-80; 11-8-89; §18-10.5.2.1, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-18(1), 5-5-04 effective 7-1- 04) I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________. __________________________________ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd ____ ____ Mr. Dumler ____ ____ Ms. Mallek ____ ____ Mr. Rooker ____ ____ Mr. Snow ____ ____ Mr. Thomas ____ ____ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA-2012-00002 Water/Sewer SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing to amend the Zoning Regulations Relating to Private Water and Sewer Systems STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Greg Kampter, Assistant County Attorney Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning LEGAL REVIEW: AGENDA DATE: March 20, 2012 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Alternative Onsite Sewage System Regulations (12 VAC 5-613) became effective December 7, 2011. These State regulations, together with improved technologies in drainfields and sewage treatement, made related County Zoning Ordinance sections obsolete. The advanced treatment with an alternative system requires less land area and can utilize soils and locations not previously suitable for conventional septic systems. In addition, the Board’s adopted Economic Development Policy has necessitated a re-examination of the requirements for central water and sewer systems, and their associated area requirements. Industrial parcels exist outside the service authority jurisdictional area (SAJA) that can be served by private water and sewer systems under the new Health Department regulations. However, these properties are in a position in which they cannot meet Zoning Ordinance lot area requirements This item was deferred on the February 28th Planning Commission meeting to incorporate additional changes and to prepare a corresponding Subdivision Text Amendment. DISCUSSION: This ordinance would amend the regulations pertaining to building sites, critical slopes, and water supplies and sewer systems serving developments and individual lots by adding and deleting definitions (3.1), restating and clarifying the standards for developments and lots to be served by public or private water supplies and sewer systems (4.1), updating the terminology for provisions pertaining to critical slopes (4.2), clarifying the minimum standards for building sites (4.2.1), restat ing the minimum standards for building site area and dimensions for uses not served by public sewer systems, and providing for special exceptions from those standards and for alternative onsite sewer systems (4.2.2), eliminating an ambiguity as to whether special use permits for additional development rights are permitted in the watershed of a public water supply reservoir (not allowed) (10.5.2), and making corresponding technical changes and nonsubstantive changes updating terminology to other related sections (4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.7, 5.1.43, 5.1.44, 10.5.2). BUDGET IMPACT: No budget impact is anticipated. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Commission recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors. ATTACHMENTS A. Zoning Ordinance text amendment Return to PC actions Draft: 03/05/12 1 ORDINANCE NO. 12-18( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Regulations, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Definitions Sec. 4.2 Critical slopes Sec. 4.2.1 Building site required Sec. 4.2.2 Building site area and dimensions Sec. 4.2.3 Location of structures and improvements Sec. 4.2.4 Location of septic systems Sec. 4.7 Open space Sec. 5.1.43 Special events Sec. 5.1.44 Farm worker housing Sec. 10.5.2 Where permitted by special use permit By Amending and Renaming: Current New Sec. 4.1 Area and health regulations related to utilities Water supplies and sewer systems By Repealing: Sec. 4.1.1 Untitled Sec. 4.1.2 Untitled Sec. 4.1.3 Untitled Sec. 4.1.4 Untitled Sec. 4.1.5 Untitled Sec. 4.1.6 Untitled Sec. 4.1.7 Untitled Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Regulations Sec. 3.1 Definitions . . . Alternative onsite sewage system: A treatment works approved by the Virginia Department of Health that is not a conventional onsite sewage system and does not result in a point source discharge. . . . Central Sewerage System: A sewerage system consisting of pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, force mains or sewerage treatment plants, including, but not limited to, septic tanks and/or drain fields, or any of them, Draft: 03/05/12 2 designed to serve three (3) or more connections, used for conducting or treating sewage which is required to be approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to Title 15.2, Chapter 21, Article 4 of the Code. . . . Central Water Supply: A water supply consisting of a well, springs or other source and the necessary pipes, conduits, mains, pumping stations and other facilities in connection therewith, to serve or to be capable of serving three (3) or more connections which is required to be approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to Title 15.2, Chapter 21, Article 6 of the Code. . . . Conventional onsite sewage system: A treatment works approved by the Virginia Department of Health consisting of one or more septic tanks with gravity, pumped, or siphoned conveyance to a gravity distributed subsurface drainfield. . . . Critical slopes: Slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater as determined by reference to either current topographic mapping available from the county or a more accurate field survey certified by a professional surveyor or engineer. . . . Onsite sewage system: A conventional onsite sewage system or an alternative onsite sewage system. . . . Subsurface drainfield: A system installed within the soil and designed to accommodate treated sewage from a treatment works. . . . Treatment works: Any device or system used in the storage, treatment, disposal or reclamation of sewage or combinations of sewage and industrial wastes, including but not limited to pumping, power and other equipment and appurtenances, septic tanks, and any works, including land, that are or will be (i) an integral part of the treatment process or (ii) used for ultimate disposal of residues or effluents resulting from such treatment. Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.1 Area and health regulations related to utilities Water supplies and sewer systems (Amended 6-3- 81) The following regulations shall apply to all districts: It is specifically intended that the public water supply and public sewerage system be utilized within the service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Within such service areas, provisions of section 6.0 and other provisions of section 4.1 notwithstanding, no building permit shall be issued for any building or structure, including mobile homes, the use of which requires increased water consumption and/or sewage disposal, unless the building or structure shall be provided with public water and/or public sewerage system service. This requirement, however, shall not apply to the following situations and circumstances: Draft: 03/05/12 3 a. Whenever a structure is damaged as a result of factors beyond the control of the owner and/or occupant thereof, such structure may be repaired and/or reconstructed provided that such repair and/or reconstruction shall be commenced within twelve (12) months and completed within twenty-four (24) months from the date of such damage; and provided further that such structure shall not be repaired and/or reconstructed in such manner as to reasonably cause an increase in water usage and/or sewage disposal demand; or b. The director of planning and community development in consultation with the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the cost of connecting the proposed development to the public water and/or sewerage system, exclusive of connection fees, exceeds the cost of installing an on-site well and/or septic system; or c. The director of planning and community development in consultation with the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the capacity of the public water and/or sewerage system is inadequate to serve the proposed development. Except for (a) above, the foregoing provisions shall not provide relief from §§ 4.1.1 through 4.1.7. (Added 1-3- 96) 4.1.1 For a parcel served by both a central water supply and a central sewer system, the minimum area requirements of the district in which such parcel is located shall apply. 4.1.2 For a parcel served by either a central water supply or a central sewer system, there shall be provided a minimum area of forty thousand (40,000) square feet per commercial or industrial establishment or per dwelling unit as the case may be. 4.1.3 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. 4.1.4 The provisions of sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 notwithstanding, in such cases where a greater minimum area is required by the regulations of the district in which the parcel is located, said district regulations shall apply. 4.1.5 In the case of unusual soil conditions or other physical factors which may impair the health and safety of the neighborhood, upon the recommendation of the Virginia Department of Health, the commission may increase the area requirements for uses utilizing other than a public sewer system. 4.1.6 For lots not served by a central sewer system, no building permit shall be issued for any building or structure, the use of which involves sewage disposal, without written approval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health of the location an d area for both original and future replacement septic disposal fields adequate to serve such use. For residential usage, at a minimum, each septic disposal field shall consist of suitable soils of adequate area to accommodate sewage disposal from a three (3) bedroom dwelling as determined by current regulations of the Virginia Department of Health. (Amended 11-15-89) 4.1.7 In a cluster development, open space may be used for septic field location only after the septic field locations on such lot are determined to be inadequate by the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. (Added 6-3-81) The water supply and sewer system serving either a development or any individual lot shall comply with the following: a. Public water supply and public sewer system within the services areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Within the services areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority (the “service areas”), each development and each lot shall be served by the public water supply and the public sewer system. Draft: 03/05/12 4 Within the service areas, no building permit shall be issued for any structure if its use requires increased water consumption and/or sewage disposal, unless the structure will be connected to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system. Connection to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system is not required in the following circumstances: 1. Existing structure damaged. When an existing structure is damaged as a result of factors beyond the control of its owner and/or occupant, the structure may be repaired or reconstructed provided that the repair or reconstruction is commenced within twelve (12) months and completed within twenty-four (24) months after the date of the damage, and further provided that the structure is not repaired or reconstructed so as to increase the number of water supply or sewage fixtures. 2. Cost of connection to public water supply or public sewer system exceeds cost of onsite sewage system. When the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the cost of connecting the proposed development or lot to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system, exclusive of connection fees, exceeds the cost of installing an on-site well and/or an onsite sewage system. 3. Capacity of public water supply or public sewer system is inadequate. When the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the capacity of the public water supply and/or the public sewer system is inadequate to serve the proposed development or lot. 4. Nonconforming use or structure. The structure is used for a nonconforming use and satisfies the requirements of section 6.2(C) or the structure is nonconforming and satisfies the requirements of section 6.3. b. Water supply and sewer system when development or lot not connected to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system. When a development or a lot is not or will not be connected to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system, the following shall apply, except when an existing structure is damaged as provided in section 4.1(a)(1): 1. Lots served by an alternative onsite sewage system. On any lot served by an alternative onsite sewage system, no building permit shall be issued for any structure, the use of which requires sewage disposal, without the Virginia Department of Health’s approval of the location and area for the alternative onsite sewage system. 2. Lots served by a conventional onsite sewage system. On any lot served by a conventional onsite sewage system, no building permit shall be issued for any structure, the use of which requires sewage disposal, without the Virginia Department of Health’s approval of the location and area for both an original and a replacement subsurface drainfield that is adequate to serve the use. For residential uses, each subsurface drainfield shall have suitable soils of adequate area to accommodate sewage disposal from a three (3) bedroom dwelling as determined by the current regulations of the Virginia Department of Health. Sec. 4.2 Critical slopes These provisions in this section through section 4.2.5 are created to implement the comprehensive plan by protecting and conserving steep hillsides together with public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas and in recognition of because of the increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal sewage disposal problems associated with the development disturbance of those areas described in the comprehensive plan as critical slopes. It is hereby recognized that such development of The disturbance of critical slopes may result in: rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock; excessive stormwater run-off; siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource; and in the event of septic system onsite sewage system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, all of which constitute potential dangers Draft: 03/05/12 5 to the public health, safety and/or welfare. These provisions The regulations in sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 are intended to direct building and septic system onsite sewage system locations to terrain more suitable to development and to discourage development on critical slopes, and to supplement other regulations regarding the protection of public water supplies and the encroachment of development into flood plains. (Amended 11- 15-89) Where modification of regulations is sought pursuant to section 4.2.5, such request shall address each concern specified in section 4.2. Each request to waive or modify any requirement of sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 or 4.2.4 under section 4.2.5 shall be by special exception under section 31.8. (Added 11-15-89) Sec. 4.2.1 Building site required No lot or parcel shall have less than one (1) building site, subject to the following:. a. Composition of building site. A building site shall be composed of a contiguous area of land and may not contain any area of land that is: (i) in critical slopes; (ii) within the flood hazard overlay district; (iii) under water during normal hydrological conditions; (iv) within two hundred (200) horizontal feet of the one hundred year flood plain of any public water supply reservoir; and (v) within a stream buffer under chapter 17 of the Code, provided that nothing contained herein shall be deemed to prohibit or impair the program authority from exercising its discretion as authorized in chapter 17. For purposes of this section, the term “building site” shall mean a contiguous area of land in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent as determined by reference to either topographic quadrangle maps of the Geological Survey - U. S. Department of Interior (contour interval twenty [20] feet) or a source determined by the county engineer to be of superior accuracy, exclusive of: -Such area as may be located in the flood hazard overlay district or which is located under water; -Such area as may be located within two hundred (200) horizontal feet of the one hundred year flood plain of any public drinking water impoundment or within one hundred (100) horizontal feet of the edge of any tributary stream to such impoundment; (Amended 11-11-87) -Such area as may be designated as resource protection areas on the resource protection areas map adopted pursuant to chapter 17 of the Code of Albemarle; provided that nothing contained herein shall be deemed to prevent or impair the water resources manager from exercise of discretion as set forth in that ordinance. (Added 9-9-92) b. Special exception. Notwithstanding section 4.2.5, any requirement of section 4.2.1(a) may be waived or modified by special exception under section 31.8 upon the board of supervisors’ consideration of whether (i) the parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical condition; or (ii) development in a stream buffer on the parcel was authorized as provided in section 17- 321 of the Code. Sec. 4.2.2 Building site area and dimensions Each building site shall be subject to the following minimum area and dimension requirements: (Amended 10- 17-01) a. Uses not served by a public or central sewerage sewage system. Building sites for uses not served by a public or central sewerage sewage system shall be subject to the following: (Amended 11-15-89; 10-17- 01) 1. Dwelling units. Each building site for a dwelling unit shall have an area of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet or greater and shall be of such dimensions that no one dimension exceeds any other by a ratio of more than five (5) to one (1) as described by a rectangle inscribed within Draft: 03/05/12 6 the building site. The building site shall have adequate area for locating two (2) septic drain fields subsurface drainfields approved by the Virginia Department of Health pursuant to section 4.1 of this chapter if the lot will be served by a conventional onsite sewage system. (Amended 11-15-89; 10-17-01) 2. Development subject to section 32 of this chapter. Each building site in a development subject to section 32 of this chapter shall have an area of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet or greater and shall be of such dimensions that no one dimension exceeds any other by a ratio of more than five (5) to one (1) as described by a rectangle inscribed within the building site. The building site shall have adequate area for all buildings and structures, two (2) septic drain fields subsurface drainfields approved by the Virginia Department of Health pursuant to section 4.1 of this chapter if the lot will be served by a conventional onsite sewage system, parking and loading areas, storage yards and other improvements, and all earth disturbing activity related to the improvements. (Added 11-15-89; Amended 10-17-01) 3. Modification or waiver Special exception. Notwithstanding section 4.2.5 of this chapter, the director of planning and community development may modify or waive the rectangular shape required by subsections (1) and (2) if, may be waived or modified by special exception under section 31.8 if, after receiving the recommendation from the Virginia Department of Health, the director of planning and community development finds, upon the board of supervisors’ consideration of the recommendation from the Virginia Department of Health and based on information provided by the developer showing, that: (i) the parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical condition; (ii) no reasonable alternative building site exists; and (iii) modifying or waiving the rectangular shape would result in less degradation of the parcel or adjacent parcels than if those dimensions were adhered to. (Added 10-17-01) 4. Appeal. A developer may appeal the denial of a modification or waiver to the planning commission and, thereafter, to the board of supervisors, pursuant to section 4.2.5. (Added 10- 17-01) b. Uses served by a central sewerage sewage system. Building sites for uses served by a central sewerage sewage system shall be demonstrated by the applicant to have adequate area, as follows: (Amended 10- 17-01) 1. Residential development. Each building site in a residential development shall have adequate area for all dwelling unit(s) together with an area equivalent to the sum of the applicable required yard areas for the applicable zoning district and, if parking is provided in bays, the parking area. (Added 11-15-89; Amended 10-17-01) 2. Development subject to section 32 of this chapter. Each building site in a development subject to section 32 of this chapter shall have adequate area for all structures, parking and loading areas, storage yards and other improvements, and all earth disturbing activity related to the improvements. (Added 11-15-89; Amended 10-17-01) (§ (4.2.2, 12-10-80; § 4.2.2, 4.2.2.1, 11-15-89; Ord. 01-18(7), 10-17-01) Sec. 4.2.3 Location of structures and improvements Except as otherwise permitted pursuant to provided in section 4.2.2, the provisions of this section shall apply applies to the location of any structure for which a permit is required under the Uniform Statewide Building Code and to any improvement shown on a site development plan pursuant to section 32.0 of this chapter. (Amended 11-15-89; 10-17-01) Draft: 03/05/12 7 (§ 4.2.3, 12-10-80, 11-15-89; Ord. 01-18(7), 10-17-01) 4.2.3.1a. No structure or improvement shall be located on any lot or parcel in any area other than a building site. (Amended 11-15-89) 4.2.3.2b. No structure or improvement nor earth No structure, improvement, or land disturbing activity to establish such the structure or improvement shall be located on critical slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater except as otherwise permitted under sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6 and 4.3.01. Sec. 4.2.4 Location of septic systems onsite sewage systems (Amended 11-11-87) In the review for and issuance of a permit for the installation of a septic system an onsite sewage system, the Virginia Department of Health shall should be mindful of the intent of this section 4.2, and particularly mindful of the intent to discourage location of septic tanks and/or drain fields onsite sewage systems on slopes of twenty (20) percent or greater. Septic system location shall be restricted to Any onsite sewage system shall be located within the approved a building site. (Amended 11-1-87; 9-9-92) Sec. 4.7 Open space Open space shall be established, used, designed and maintained as follows: a. Intent. Open space is intended to provide active and passive recreation, protect areas sensitive to development, buffer dissimilar uses from one another and preserve agricultural activities. The commission and the board of supervisors shall consider the establishment, use, design and maintenance of open space in their review and approval of zoning map amendments. The subdivision agent and the site plan agent (hereinafter, collectively referred to as the “agent”) shall apply the following principles when reviewing open space provided on a subdivision plat or site plan. b. Uses permitted. Open space shall be maintained in a natural state and shall not be developed with any improvements, provided that the agent may authorize the open space to be used and improved for the following purposes: (i) agriculture, forestry and fisheries, including appropriate structures; (ii) game preserves, wildlife sanctuaries and similar uses; (iii) noncommercial recreational uses and structures; (iv) public utilities; (v) individual wells and treatment works with subsurface drainfields (reference section 4.1.7) (vi) in a cluster development, onsite sewage systems if the Department of Health determines that there are no suitable locations for a subsurface drainfield on a development lot; and (vii) stormwater management facilities and flood control devices. c. Design. Open space shall be designed as follows: 1. Lands that may be required. The agent may require that open space include: (i) areas deemed inappropriate for or prohibited to development including, but not limited to, land in the one- hundred year flood plain and significant drainage swales, land in slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater, public utility easements for transmission lines, stormwater management facilities and flood control devices, and lands having permanent or seasonally high water tables; (ii) areas to satisfy section 4.16, and (iii) areas to provide reasonable buffering between dissimilar uses within the development and between the development and adjoining properties. 2. Redesign during review. The agent may require the redesign of a proposed development to accommodate open space areas as may be required under this section 4.7, provided that the redesign shall not reduce the number of dwelling units permitted under the applicable zoning district. 3. Limitation on certain elements. If open space is required by this chapter, not more than eighty (80) percent of the minimum required open space shall consist of the following: (i) land located Draft: 03/05/12 8 within the one-hundred year flood plain; (ii) land subject to occasional, common or frequent flooding as defined in Table 16 Soil and Water Features of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia, August, 1985; (iii) land in slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater critical slopes; and (iv) land devoted to stormwater management facilities or flood control devices, except where the facility or feature is incorporated into a permanent pond, lake or other water feature deemed by the agent to constitute a desirable open space amenity. d. Ownership of open space. Open space may be privately owned or dedicated to public use. Open space in private ownership shall be subject to a legal instrument ensuring the maintenance and preservation of the open space that is approved by the agent and the county attorney in conjunction with the approval of the subdivision plat or site plan. Open space dedicated to public use shall be dedicated to the county in the manner provided by law. Open space dedicated to public use shall count toward the minimum required open space. (12-10-80, §§ 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4; 6-3-81, 11-15-89; Ord. 09-18(1), 1-14-09, § 4.7) Sec. 5.1.43 Special events Each special event authorized by section 10.2.2(50) shall be subject to the following: a. Eligibility and applicability. Special events may be authorized on those parcels in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district on which there is an existing and ongoing by-right (section 10.2.1) primary use. A special event special use permit issued under section 10.2.2(50) and this section shall not be required for special events associated with farm wineries or historical centers, or for events determined by the zoning administrator to be accessory to a primary use of the parcel. b. Information to be submitted with application for special use permit. In addition to any information otherwise required to be submitted for a special use permit, each application for a special use permit shall include the following: 1. Concept plan. A preliminary schematic plan (the “concept plan”) satisfying section 32.4.1. The concept plan shall identify the structure(s) to be used for the special event, include the area of the structure(s) in which the proposed special events will be conducted, the parking area, and the entrance to the site from the street. The concept plan shall address, in particular, provisions for safe and convenient access to and from the street, the location of the parking area, the location of portable toilets if they may be required, proposed screening as required by this section for parking areas and portable toilets, and information regarding the exterior appearance of the proposed site. Based on the concept plan and other information submitted, the board of supervisors may then waive the requirement for a site plan in a particular case, upon a finding that the requirement of a site plan would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest. 2. Information from the Virginia Department of Health. The applicant shall submit written comments from the Virginia Department of Health regarding the private water supply and the septic disposal system onsite sewage system that will serve the proposed special event site, the ability of the water supply and the septic disposal system onsite sewage system to handle the proposed events, and the need to improve the supply or the system in order to handle the proposed events. 3. Building and fire safety. The building official and the county department of fire and rescue shall review and comment on the application, identifying all Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code issues and requirements. Draft: 03/05/12 9 c. Zoning compliance clearance. The applicant shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance under section 31.5 prior to conducting a special event. A single zoning clearance may be obtained for one (1) or more such special events in a calendar year as follows: 1. The zoning administrator may issue a single zoning compliance clearance for more than one (1) special event if: (i) the application submitted by the applicant includes the required information in subsection 5.1.43(c)(3) for each special event to be covered by the zoning compliance clearance: (ii) the zoning administrator determines that each special event is substantially similar in nature and size; and (iii) the zoning administrator determines that a single set of conditions that would apply to each such special event may be imposed with the zoning compliance clearance. 2. The applicant shall apply for a zoning compliance clearance at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the first special event to be authorized by the zoning compliance clearance. The application shall be submitted to the zoning administrator, who shall forward copies of the application to the county police department, the county building official, the county department of fire and rescue, and the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. As part of his review, the building official shall determine whether the structure(s) proposed to be used for the special events satisfies the requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code for that use. 3. The application shall describe the nature of each special event to be authorized by the zoning compliance clearance, the date or dates and hours of operation of each such special event, the facilities, structures to be used, and the number of participants and support staff expect to attend each special event. 4. Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance and all conditions of the special use permit are satisfied, and imposing all conditions of such approval required by the offices identified in subsection 5.1.43(c)(2), the zoning administrator shall issue a zoning compliance clearance for one or more special events. The validity of the zoning compliance clearance shall be conditional upon the applicant’s compliance with all requirements of the zoning ordinance, all conditions of the approved special use permit, the approved concept plan or site plan, and all conditions imposed by the zoning compliance clearance. d. Special events sites and structures. In addition to all other applicable requirements of this chapter, special events sites and structures shall be subject to the following: 1. Structures used for special events. Each structure used for a special event shall satisfy the following: (i) the structure shall have been in existence on the date of adoption of this section 5.1.43, provided that this requirement shall not apply to accessory structures less than one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size; (ii) the structure shall be a lawful conforming structure and shall support or have supported a lawful use of the property; and (iii) modifications to farm buildings or farm structures as those terms are defined in Virginia Code § 36-97 shall allow the structure to revert to an agricultural use, as determined by the building official. 2. Minimum yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum front yard shall be seventy-five (75) feet. The minimum side yard shall be twenty-five feet (25) feet. The minimum rear yard shall be thirty-five (35) feet. All yards shall be measured from structures and off-street parking areas. These minimum yard requirements shall apply to all accessory structures established after the effective date of this section 5.1.43 and all tents, parking areas and portable toilets used in whole or in part to serve special events. 3. Parking. The number of off-street parking spaces for a special event shall be as required in section 4.12.6. Notwithstanding section 4.12.15(a) through (g), the additional parking area(s) Draft: 03/05/12 10 for special events shall consist of or be constructed of pervious materials including, but not limited to stabilized turf, approved by the county engineer. Asphalt and impervious materials are prohibited. If the parking area is on grass or in a field, the applicant shall reseed and restore the parking area site as required by the zoning administrator. In addition to the requirements of section 4.12.5, the parking area shall be onsite and screened from abutting parcels by topography, structures or new or existing landscaping. Notwithstanding section 4.12.16(d) and (e), the delineation of parking spaces and the provision of bumper blocks shall not be required. 4. Water and sewer. The private water supply and septic disposal system onsite sewage system serving a special event shall be approved by the Virginia Department of Health. 5. Streets and access. Streets serving the site shall be adequate for anticipated traffic volume for a special event. Access from the street onto the site shall be adequate to provide safe and convenient access to the site, and applicant shall install all required improvements and provide adequate sight distance in order to provide safe and convenient access. e. Special events operations. In addition to all other applicable requirements of this chapter, special events operations shall be subject to the following: 1. Number of participants. The number of participants at a special event at any one time shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) persons 2. Number of special events per year. The special use permit shall identify the number of approved special events per calendar year, which number shall not exceed twenty-four (24). 3. Signs. Permanent and temporary signs advertising a special event shall be permitted as provided in sections 4.15.4, 4.15.4A and 4.15.8. 4. Food service. No kitchen facility permitted by the Virginia Department of Health as a commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the site. A kitchen may be used by licensed caterers for the handling, warming and distribution of food, but not for cooking food, to be served at a special event. 5. Portable toilets. If required, portable toilets are permitted on the site, provided that they comply with the yard requirements in section 5.1.43(d)(2) and shall be screened from that parcel and any street by topography, structures or new or existing landscaping. f. Prohibition of development to a more intensive use. A parcel subject to a special events special use permit shall not be subdivided so as to create one or more parcels, including the parent parcel, of less than twenty-one acres in size without first amending the special use permit to expressly authorize the subdivision. If a parcel is so subdivided without first amending the special use permit, special events shall thereafter be prohibited on the resulting parcels unless a new special use permit is obtained. (Ord. 05-18(8), 7-13-05) Sec. 5.1.44 Farm worker housing Each farm worker housing facility shall be subject to the following: a. Concept plan to be submitted with application for farm worker housing. Before applying for the first building permit for a farm worker housing, Class A, facility, or in addition to any other information required to be submitted for a farm worker housing, Class B, special use permit, the applicant shall submit a concept plan meeting the requirements of section 5.1.44(b). Draft: 03/05/12 11 b. Contents of concept plan. The concept plan shall show the following: (i) the boundary lines of the farm (may be shown on an inset map if necessary); (ii) the location and general layout of the proposed structures at a scale of not more than one (1) inch equals forty (40) feet; (iii) vehicular access, travelways and parking for the facility; (iv) topography (with a contour interval of no greater than ten (10) feet); (v) critical slopes; (vi) streams, stream buffers and floodplains; (vii) source(s) of water for fire suppression; (viii) building setback lines as provided in subsection 5.1.44(g) below; and (ix) outdoor lighting. The concept plan also shall include a written description of each structure’s construction and materials used, and the number of persons to be housed in the farm worker housing facility. c. Notice of receipt of concept plan to abutting owners. The zoning administrator shall send notice of the receipt of a concept plan as follows: 1. Farm worker housing, Class A, facility: For each concept plan received for a farm worker housing, Class A, facility, the zoning administrator shall send notice to the owner of each lot abutting the parcel for which a concept plan has been received within ten (10) days after submittal of the concept plan deemed by the zoning administrator to be complete. The notice shall include a copy of the concept plan and shall advise each recipient of the right to submit written comments within ten (10) days of the date of the notice and the right to request planning commission review as provided in section 5.1.44(d). Notice mailed to the abutting owner shall be mailed to the last known address of the owner, and mailing the notice to the address shown on the current real estate tax assessment records of the county shall be deemed compliance with this requirement. The failure of an abutting owner to receive the notice required by this section shall not affect the validity of an approved concept plan or zoning compliance clearance. 2. Farm worker housing, Class B, facility: For each concept plan received for a farm worker housing, Class B, facility, notice to the owner of each lot abutting the parcel for which a concept plan has been received shall be provided in conjunction with the notice required for the special use permit. d. Request for planning commission review and action on farm worker housing, Class A, facility concept plan. An abutting owner to whom notice for a farm worker housing, Class A, facility concept plan under section 5.1.44(c)(1) and who submitted timely written comments about the concept plan as provided therein may request that the planning commission review and act on the concept plan. The request shall be in writing, state the reasons why the commission should review the concept plan, and be filed with the director of planning within ten (10) days after the date of the notice from the zoning administrator. ed. Review and action on concept plan. A concept plan shall be reviewed and acted upon as follows: 1. Farm worker housing, Class A, facility. For a farm worker housing, Class A, facility, the concept plan shall be approved by the zoning administrator or the planning commission, as the case may be, before any building permit is issued for the facility. The concept plan shall be approved by the zoning administrator or the commission if it satisfies all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance and the design is determined to not be a substantial detriment to abutting parcels this chapter. In approving the concept plan, the zoning administrator or the commission may impose reasonable conditions to mitigate impacts on abutting parcels arising from facility. The commission shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the zoning administrator, the director of planning and other officials. In addition, the commission may consider such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application. 2. Farm worker housing, Class B, facility. For a farm worker housing, Class B, facility, the concept plan shall be reviewed and acted upon in conjunction with the special use permit. Draft: 03/05/12 12 fe. Farm worker housing facilities; permissible structures. Farm worker housing facilities shall not use motor vehicles or major recreational equipment, as that term is defined in section 4.12.3(b)(1) of this chapter, to provide for sleeping, eating, food preparation, or sanitation (bathing and/or toilets). gf. Minimum yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum front yard shall be seventy-five (75) feet. The minimum side and rear yards shall be fifty (50) feet. All yards shall be measured from the farm worker housing structures. hg. Zoning compliance clearance. The owner shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance from the zoning administrator as provided in section 31.2.3.2 31.5 of this chapter before a farm worker housing facility is occupied, subject to the following additional requirements: 1. The applicant shall apply for a zoning compliance clearance at least thirty (30) days prior to the first expected occupation of the farm worker housing facility. The application shall be submitted to the zoning administrator. 2. The zoning compliance clearance application shall include all of the following information: a. Written approval of the farm worker housing facility as a migrant labor camp under 12 VAC 5-501-10 et seq., the food preparation area, the private water supply, and the septic disposal system onsite sewage system by the Virginia Department of Health. b. Approval of the access to the site from a public street by the Virginia Department of Transportation; provided that nothing herein shall be deemed to require that a commercial entrance be constructed unless such an entrance is required by the Virginia Department of Transportation. c. Written approval of the adequacy of the access to the site for emergency vehicles by the fire marshal. d. Written approval of the adequacy of the structures intended for human habitation by the building official. 3. Upon the zoning administrator’s determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance are satisfied, that all conditions of the special use permit authorizing a farm worker housing, Class B, facility, are satisfied, and upon receipt of the approvals and documents required in section 5.1.44(hg)(2), the zoning administrator shall issue a zoning compliance clearance for the facility. ih. Use of farm worker housing facility by workers and their families only. A farm worker housing facility shall be occupied only by persons employed to work on the farm on which the structures are located for seasonal agriculture work and their immediate families as provided herein. For purposes of this section 5.1.44, the term “immediate families” means the natural or legally defined off-spring, grandchild, grandparent, or parent of the farm worker. ji. Use of farm worker housing facility when not occupied. When not occupied by seasonal farm workers, farm worker housing facilities may be used for any use accessory to a primary agriculture use. (Ord. 06-18(2), 12-13-06) Draft: 03/05/12 13 Article III. District Regulations Sec. 10.5.2 Where permitted by special use permit 10.5.2.1 The board of supervisors may authorize the issuance of issue a special use permit for more lots than the total number permitted under sections 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2; provided that no such permit shall be issued for property within the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water supply impoundment water supply reservoir, and further provided that no such permit shall be issued to allow more development lots within a proposed rural preservation development than that permitted by right under section 10.3.3.3(b). (Added 11-8- 89; Amended 5-5-04 effective 7-1-04) The board of supervisors shall determine that such division is compatible with the neighborhood as set forth in section 31.2.4.1 31.6.1 of this chapter, with reference to consideration of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan relating to rural areas including the type of division proposed and, specifically, as to this section only, with reference to consideration of the following: (Amended 11-8-89) 1. The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Natural Resources Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry. 2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same shall be is shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Natural Resources Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Natural Resources Conservation Service. 3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent that is reasonably available. 4. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed development on the character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be in an agricultural or forestal area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the border of such property has been in commercial agricultural or forestal use within five (5) years of the date of the application for special use permit. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. 5. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the boundary of such property was in parcels of record of five (5) acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. 6. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers, services and employment centers. A property within areas described below shall be deemed in proximity to the area or use described: a. Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary as described in the comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89) b. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as described in the comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89) c. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a village as described in the comprehensive plan. (Amended 11-8-89) Draft: 03/05/12 14 7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming in regard to increased provision of services. 8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the Virginia Department of Transportation: (Amended 11-8-89) a. Occasion the need for road improvement; b. Cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable road; c. Increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road. 9. With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying wholly or partially within the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water impoundment, the following additional factors shall be considered: a. The amount and quality of existing vegetative cover as related to filtration of sediment, phosphorous, heavy metals, nitrogen and other substances determined harmful to water quality for human consumption; b. The extent to which existing vegetative cover would be removed or disturbed during the construction phase of any development; c. The amount of impervious cover which will exist after development; d. The proximity of any paved (pervious or impervious) area, structure, or drain field to any perennial or intermittent stream or impoundment; or during the construction phase, the proximity of any disturbed area to any such stream or impoundment; e. The type and characteristics of soils including suitability for septic fields and erodability; [ f. The percentage and length of all slopes subject to disturbance during construction or upon which any structure, paved area (pervious or impervious) or active recreational area shall exist after development; g. The estimated duration and timing of the construction phase of any proposed development and extent to which such duration and timing are unpredictable; h. The degree to which original topography or vegetative cover have been altered in anticipation of filing for any permit hereunder; i. The extent to which the standards of Chapter 17 et seq. of the Code of Albemarle can only be met through the creation of artificial devices, which devices will: 1. Require periodic inspection and/or maintenance; 2. Are susceptible to failure or overflow for run-off associated with any one hundred year or more intense storm. (§ 20-10.5.2.1, 12-10-80; 11-8-89; §18-10.5.2.1, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-18(1), 5-5-04 effective 7-1-04) Draft: 03/05/12 15 I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________. __________________________________ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd ____ ____ Mr. Dumler ____ ____ Ms. Mallek ____ ____ Mr. Rooker ____ ____ Mr. Snow ____ ____ Mr. Thomas ____ ____ ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012 FINAL MNUTES 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission February 28, 2012 ZTA-2012-00002 Water/Sewer Regulations Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.1, Area and health regulations related to utilities, 4.2, Critical slopes, 4.2.1, Building site required, 4.2.2, Building site area and dimensions, 4.2.3, Location of structures and improvements, 4.2.4, Location of septic systems, 4.7, Open space, 5.1.43, Special events, 5.1.44, Farm worker housing, and 10.5.2, Where permitted by special use permit; and repeal Secs. 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6 and 4.1.7 (all untitled), of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend the regulations pertaining to building sites, critical slopes, and water supplies and sewer systems serving developments and individual lots by adding and deleting definitions (3.1), restating and clarifying the standards for developments and lots to be served by public or private water supplies and sewer systems (4.1), updating the terminology for provisions pertaining to crit ical slopes (4.2), clarifying the minimum standards for building sites (4.2.1), restating the minimum standards for building site area and dimensions for uses not served by public sewer systems, and providing for special exceptions from those standards and for alternative onsite sewer systems (4.2.2), eliminating an ambiguity as to whether special use permits for additional development rights are permitted in the watershed of a public water supply reservoir (not allowed) (10.5.2), and making corresponding t echnical changes and non-substantive changes updating terminology to other related sections (4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.7, 5.1.43, 5.1.44, 10.5.2). A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Glenn Brooks) Mr. Brooks noted he was bringing forth a zoning text amendment to change Section 4 on Water and Sewer regulations in the zoning ordinance. Mainly it is to update the ordinance language to reflect state regulations that changed in December, 2011 to allow on site alternative sewer systems by right, which the current zoning ordinance does not. It is also to do away with the area requiremen ts for septic drainfields, which go along with that. There are some other small changes, which Greg Kamptner can detail, to update the definitions to agree with the State Code, the various titles of the sections, and some other smaller details, names and conventions in latter parts of the ordinance. Most of the revisions have to do with Section 4.1, which have to do with the Water and Sewer regulations and the area requirements. If there are further questions, Ron Higgins is here from zoning and Greg Kam ptner can talk to details. Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. Mr. Loach asked if staff recalled the rezoning by Bellair that had the odd shaped parcels and there were some questions. Mr. Cilimberg noted there was a subdivision plat in Bellair and it was a building site issue. Mr. Franco said it was about having the buildable area. Mr. Brooks pointed out this request would not have affected that issue directly. But a latter subdivision text amendment may affect that. What has to follow this, of course, is that the subdivision ordinance has to be amended so that those same septic field area requirements are not the requirements of a subdivision plat. Those were subdivision plats. Mr. Morris asked if that will be coming down the road in the future. Mr. Kamptner replied yes. He asked to provide the Commission some details about what is here and what will be coming down the road. - First, they will notice there are a number of definitions that have been added or deleted. The new definitions that deal with all of the sewage related issues are from either the state statute or the new state regulations. They are incorporating the terminology that is used at the state level and changing various regulations throughout the zoning ordinance so that consistent terminology is ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012 FINAL MNUTES 2 used. If they look at the current regulations various terms have been used when referring to septic systems. However, all of those are being changed. - The definitions of central water supply and central sewer systems are being deleted from the zoning ordinance. Those regulations are already covered in another part of the County Code. It is much easier to maintain a single set of regulations that deal with a particular regulation. One of the key changes in Section 4.1 is eliminating the area requirements for central water and central sewage systems. He highlighted that the ordinance staff is recommending will come back to the Commission in about three weeks with the subdivision text amendment. Section 4.1(b).1 deals with the new regulations in regards to alternative onsite sewage systems. It also includes Sections 4.2.2(a).1 & 4.2.2(a).2. Staff started working on this several months ago. There have been tweaks to the amendments to the draft language. What they realized is that 4.1(b).1 goes beyond the state enabling authority. So they need to pull that back a little bit. They need to allow for alternative onsite sewage systems without the additional obligation for the subdivider or the land owner to be able to demonstrate that they have a reserve drainfield, which is something th at would be required in conjunction with a conventional onsite sewage system. - With respect to the other sections that were included, 4.1 and 4.2 were the two core sections of the ordinance. In Section 4.7 and the remaining sections in the ordinance those were all recommended for changes also because they all had references to septic systems, septic drainfields and things like that. So they needed to make the corresponding changes to the terminology. Along with those changes they did some housekeeping things because some state agency names have changed or responsibilities have changed. The county’s own department names have changes. Those were also just housekeeping measures that were dragged along. - In Section 10.5.2 the Commission will note that there is a large elimination of subsection 9. Section 10.5.2 was included because of the references to individual sewage. They were correcting the terminology. When they looked at that they realized that subsection 9 is directly inconsistent with the introductory paragraph to Section 10.5.2, which states that no special use permit is permitted within the boundaries of a watershed to obtain additional development rights. Subsection 9 imposes additional standards for that very type of special use permit. They think that was related to an individual application in which there was a law suit probably back in the late 1980’s. Staff thinks it was related to a law suit for a particular applicant back then. However, staff can look at that to find out what was the origin of Subsection 9. Those are all of the changes. - With respect to the subdivision ordinance they identified a Section that does need to be changed, Section 14-4-16. It requires that lots that are being served by individual sewage disposal systems have to have a conventional type system. With the new law they need to revise that so it accommodates alternative onsite sewage system s. Once they get to new business tonight he will ask the Commission to consider a resolution of intent. The goal is to have that subdivision text amendment and this zoning text amendment with the revisions that he has described come back to the Commission on March 20th. That will keep us on schedule for the consideration of both items by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Morris thanked Mr. Kamptner for the update. Mr. Cilimberg said he would assume after the hearing tonight that they could just defer this matter to March 20th and he would have the resolution for the other matter that also goes on March 20th. The Commission could rehear it all on that date. Mr. Kamptner replied yes, and that it may be that they will need to readvertise and to look at the scope and extent of the changes that need to be made to Sect ions 4.1 and 4.2. However, the public would have an opportunity to comment again on March 20th. Mr. Cilimberg noted that they need to send the ads to the newspaper this week for the March 20 th meeting. He did not want to cut it short, and if so they would need to shoot for an April date. Mr. Kamptner replied no, that is fine. There would just be minor adjustments to the existing advertisement. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012 FINAL MNUTES 3 Mr. Randolph noted on page 15 he would recommend that Professor Slus hy is no longer on the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Kamptner thanked him for the correction. Mr. Dotson noted a question for Mr. Kamptner on page 3. They are eliminating 4.1.4 that says that the regulations of the zoning district in which the parcel is located take precedence in terms of the minimum area. He asked if that is right that they are eliminating that. Does it just go away or do they pick it up in some new wording. Mr. Kamptner replied that he would look it up, but asked Mr. Higgins or Mr. Brooks to jump in if they knew the answer. Ron Higgins replied that is actually just pointing out that they have a number of districts whose minimum area for the lot is larger than 60,000 square feet. So in that case it would prevail over the 60,000 square feet or the 40,000 square feet. There are two different standards there. They want to make sure that they don’t let that standard if they were to keep it supersede our actual lot size standard in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Dotson said they use to say that. It strikes him that it is still use ful to make that point. Mr. Higgins noted it is in the current draft. Mr. Dotson questioned if they don’t need to take the time to look for it. He knew that some of the work that took place over the last three or four years in Richmond to generate t his new state law was in part motivated by being able to open up lands to development that had not been previously available. He just wants to make sure they don’t inadvertently have some unintended consequences that they don’t anticipate. So he particularly focused on that and would feel better if they have a statement that the zoning takes precedence. Mr. Higgins said he was almost certain that it is still in there. However, he needs to find it. Mr. Kamptner said that he did not think it is. What th ey can do when this comes back is give the Commission a detailed explanation as to why. He was looking at the earlier drafts. In the earlier drafts of this he provides his commentary that incorporates and explains what they are doing to staff. It also explains the comments that he has received. His notes from the September 7 th draft and December draft state that current sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.4 are deleted as unnecessary. It may be that there are other regulations that are now taking the place of 4.1.4. However, staff will have an answer for him when this comes back. Mr. Cilimberg said he thought at the time it was intended that it would clarify that even if they did qualify under 4.1.2 or 4.1.3 for the lesser lot size by having one utility that they still had to meet the minimum requirement of the district. Now that is all going away. It is basically going to be the minimum requirement of the district in that now. In some ways it is a given even without saying. Mr. Dotson said it was a given worth emphasizing he would argue. Mr. Franco noted he had a whole list of question along the way. - On page 4 in the top part where it talks about increased water consumption, he raised the question of how they deal with geo-thermal and irrigation in those cases. That would increase the water consumption of the structure, but he was not sure that either one of those is something that would necessarily require connection to the public water. He asked staff to answer that question next time. - In b1 regarding the conventional onsite sewage system, one of the questions was why not just recommend Department of Health approval of the system versus all these other definitions. He also raised the question of the way this reads if he chooses to use an alternative system but he is ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012 FINAL MNUTES 4 not required to, the Health Department would allow him to do that. This seems to say he could not unless he had unusual soils or conditions. Mr. Kamptner replied that is the section that is being significantly revised. What happened was that t he reference to the unusual soil conditions was a carryover from the current regulations and then the alternative onsite sewage system provisions got melted into that particular regulation. Mr. Franco asked if it was the same thing further down with the three bedrooms. Mr. Kamptner replied that is for conventional onsite system. That is just a carryover of the current regulations. Mr. Franco noted on page 5 at the top regarding critical slopes, the policy has changed over time and he thought that man made slopes are not regulated as critical slopes. Ron Higgins replied that until January 13 the man made slopes were eligible for an administrative waiver or variation. They are now part of the whole variation process that goes directly to the Board of Supervisors. He did not think they were automatic. There are ordinance amendments being discussed right now that will redefine what critical slopes are. He believes the man made slopes are among those on an approved plan that would automatically not be considered critical slopes. Mr. Franco noted that he did not know as long as they are in this section whether they should codify some of our practices from the past. He questioned if they should add words about the man-made slopes because it might be easier. Mr. Kamptner replied because that is getting more directly into the regulation of critical slopes, which is something staff is working on right now, they deferred addressing that issue in this ordinance making only the changes necessary to make sure they are in compliance with St. Clair. Mr. Franco noted on page 7 in Section 4.7.b VI it talks about improvements in a cluster development . He had one question dealing with the open space requirements. He asked about a single use in there where they are not talking about a community drainfield but a club or bathroom in an open space or something like that. He did not see how that fit into the permitted uses. Ron Higgins replied that noncommercial recreational uses and other uses are outlined in that s ection, which he believed would cover what he was talking about. Mr. Franco said the way he read it that it was talking about more of the cluster drainfields versus a single use like a single drainfield. Ron Higgins replied actually they were talking abo ut within the open space that was part of the cluster development. He was not sure what Mr. Franco was saying. This is simply what you are allowed to put in your open space. They would not have other single uses. Mr. Franco said what he was talking about is if he was permitted to put a septic system in the open space in a cluster development when there was no suitable location for drainfields on a development lot. What if his open space has a use such as a club or a bathroom in the open space. Mr. Kamptner replied that the onsite sewage is just an additional use that is allowed within open space. Mr. Franco asked if because it was a part of that lot it was allowed. Ron Higgins replied yes. Mr. Brooks said he thought it was intended to be a stand -alone use in the open space. If they had a club or a recreational use or structure, then the sewage system would be ancillary to that structure and would ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012 FINAL MNUTES 5 be allowed. It has not been stated. If they could not get a septic on some lot and wanted to move jus t the septic field to the open space he thinks this allows it. Mr. Franco said he understood why that was in there. If they say it is covered, it is covered. On page 10 in C1, he asked if they have been using 200 people as kind of a standard for most of these special use permits for wineries and so on. He asked if they should consider standardizing the150 listed here. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the 200 persons are only used with the wineries and 150 are used in some other sections. That is all going to be revisited as part of what they are working on with the Comp Plan for rural uses. Mr. Kamptner asked to answer Mr. Franco’s first question regarding the introductory language on the top of page 4. That is a carryover of the existing regulations. Where there is an increase in consumption that is a current standard as well. Mr. Franco asked if it was outside the resolution to address the concern of a use geothermal or some of these other technologies triggering that need to connect to public wat er. Mr. Kamptner replied that while they are looking at it that is something they can look at. It may be something they will decide is beyond the scope of this resolution of intent. Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission. Mr. Cilimberg noted staff recommends the Planning Commission defer ZTA -2012-00002 Water/Sewer Regulations to the March 20th meeting. Mr. Kamptner suggested the Commission direct staff to put this on the March 20 agenda. Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to defer ZTA-2012-00002 Water/Sewer Regulations to the March 20th agenda as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Morris noted that ZTA-2012-00002 Water/Sewer Regulations was deferred to the Planning Commission’s meeting on March 20th. New Business Mr. Franco noted that a proposed resolution of intent had been passed out for the Commission’s consideration. Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded for approval of the resolution of intent to amend Section 14-4-1-6 of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Morris invited discussion. Mr. Dotson asked what it is about. Mr. Franco replied that the resolution of intent was about what they just talked about, but adding it to the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Kamptner said this was related to the water and sewer regulation and they need to amend Section 14-4-1-6 because it requires that lots that are served by individual sewage systems have septic systems with conventional drainfields. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012 FINAL MNUTES 6 Mr. Dotson asked if this is what staff is bringing to the Planning Commission on the 20th of March. Mr. Kamptner replied yes. They need to incorporate the new laws pertaining to alternative onsite sewage systems. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0 to amend Section 14-4-1-6 of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance as outlined in the following resolution of intent . The Planning Commission public hearing will be held on March 20th. ZTA-2012-00002 Water/Sewer Regulations – Resolution of Intent for Revision of Subdivision Ordinance WHEREAS, in County Code § 14-416, the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance establishes the minimum standards for subdivisions whose lots will be served by individual private wells and sewage systems and requires that lots be served by “septic systems having adequate conventional drainfields”; and WHEREAS, since the County’s subdivision regulations pertaining to indivi dual sewage systems were last amended, the General Assembly has mandated that alternative onsite sewage systems be allowed upon approval by the Virginia Department of Health, subject to regulations adopted by the Virginia Department of Health; and WHEREAS, as defined by State law, alternative onsite sewage systems may be established without conventional drainfields; and WHEREAS, in order to incorporate the State requirements pertaining to alternative onsite sewage systems and to improve the administration of the Subdivision Ordinance, it may be desirable to amend County Code § 14-416. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good land development practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commis sion hereby adopts a resolution of intent to consider amending County Code § 14 -416 and any other regulations of the Subdivision Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MARCH 20, 2012 - DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES ZTA-2012-2 AND STA-2012-1 WATER/SEWER REGS Albemarle County Planning Commission March 20, 2012 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, March 20, 2012, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Richard Randolph, Bruce Dotson, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Don Franco, Calvin Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present. Other officials present were Lee Catlin, Assistant to the County Executive for Community and Business Partnerships, Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Phil Custer, Engineer; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Ron White, Director of Housing; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Francis MacCall, Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Deferred Item: ZTA-2012-00002 Water/Sewer Regulations Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.1, Area and health regulations related to utilities, 4.2, Critical slopes, 4.2.1, Building site required, 4.2.2, Building site area and dimensions, 4.2.3, Location of structures and improvements, 4.2.4, Location of septic systems, 4.7, Open space, 5.1.43, Special events, 5.1.44, Farm worker housing, and 10.5.2, Where permitted by special use permit; and repeal Secs. 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6 and 4.1.7 (all untitled), of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend the regulations pertaining to building sites, critical slopes, and water supplies and sewer systems serving developments and individual lots by adding and deleting definitions (3.1), restating and clarifying the standards for developments and lots to be served by public or private water supplies and sewer systems (4.1), updating the terminology for provisions pertaining to critical slopes (4.2), clarifying the minimum standards for building sites (4.2.1), restating the minimum standards for building site area and dimensions for uses not served by public sewer systems, and providing for special exceptions from those standards and for alternative onsite sewer systems (4.2.2), eliminating an ambiguity as to whether special use permits for additional development rights are permitted in the watershed of a public water supply reservoir (not allowed) (10.5.2), and m aking corresponding technical changes and non-substantive changes updating terminology to other related sections (4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.7, 5.1.43, 5.1.44, 10.5.2). A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Glenn Brooks) DEFERRED FROM THE FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Brooks summarized ZTA-2012-0002, Water/Sewer Regulations. This item was deferred on the February 28th Planning Commission meeting to incorporate additional changes and to prepare a corresponding Subdivision Text Amendment. It is an update of the zoning ordinance to accommodate alternative onsite sewage systems for individual lots. It also made some corrections to other parts of the ordinance and clarifications, which staff could review, that were written in the advertisement and the staff report. The subjective change made since February 28th is staff removed item 1 from the ordinance section on display for alternative onsite sewage systems, which took out the requirement for a reserve drainfield. It remains in for conventional onsite sewage systems. The zoning text amendment was deferred to accompany the subdivision text amendment, which will follow this. The subdivision text amendment is doing the same in updating the ordinance to reflect recent state laws changed as of last year to allow onsite sewer systems by right. Mr. Morris invited questions. Mr. Dotson asked what was the rationale and reasoning behind the change about the reserve drainfield. Mr. Brooks replied that the state does not allow localities to require a reserve drainfield for an alternative system. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2 MARCH 20, 2012 - DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES ZTA-2012-2 AND STA-2012-1 WATER/SEWER REGS Mr. Kamptner added that staff did not think there was any other reasonable basis upon which to require the reserve drainfield in that case. Mr. Dotson said if an alternative system failed, then the homeowner would install a new alternative system. Mr. Kamptner agreed that the owner would install another alternative system. He noted when land is being subdivided the subdivider will essentially be making the choice for a particular lot may it be served by either type of system or served only by an alternative system. It will depend on how that lot is configured and the soils that are on that particular lot. Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being no public comment, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to the Planning Commission. He asked staff what action they were recommending. Mr. Brooks replied staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for approval of ZTA-2012-00002 to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Kamptner added for the record that the Planning Commission did open and close the public hearing for ZTA-2012-00002 on February 28th. Therefore, this was the second public hearing on this matter. Mr. Dotson said there were a couple of things he would like to hear staff’s response on. If this ZTA is approved will it have any impact on rural density or the rate of rural development. Mr. Brooks replied no, not that he was aware of since this is related to the area/lot requirements. The ordinance requires a 30,000 square foot area on a lot for buildable area. That has not changed. What they can subdivide is essentially the same. Mr. Dotson asked are there any changes here that they don’t have to make or have elected to do. Mr. Brooks replied yes. Mr. Dotson asked if the changes are editorial and housekeeping. Mr. Brooks replied that the changes that are voluntary are editorial and housekeeping. Staff has updated terminology and minimum standards for building site area and dimensions. In addition, the changes are eliminating ambiguity as to whether special use permits for additional development rights are permitted in the watershed of the public water shed. There are some other small changes in the other parts of the ordinance. Mr. Dotson pointed out the reason he was nervous about these systems is because they require very careful maintenance and upkeep. He knows the state has the responsibility for looking after that and the county does not. None the less he just wants them to go into this with their eyes open. Mr. Brooks agreed. However, he did not think the county has much choice since the state has been very clear that they are not to add on any requirements for maintenance. Mr. Kamptner noted there was an opinion from the Attorney General on March 9th that reinforced the fact that localities have no authority to impose maintenance requirements on these systems. Mr. Morris invited further comments. Mr. Randolph said he had questions about the special events. His understanding was the proposal was just for changes in the existing policy for the county. He noticed, however, that there was no mention of any noise restrictions on special events. He asked if that is already codified elsewhere so it need not have been cited here. Mr. Morris pointed out the noise ordinance is codified elsewhere. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 3 MARCH 20, 2012 - DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES ZTA-2012-2 AND STA-2012-1 WATER/SEWER REGS Mr. Kamptner agreed since that would be regulated under the noise regulation in Section 4.18. These events are subject to special use permits and it would also be covered under the special use permit conditions. He was not sure if they have actually had any special events come in under this particular section since it was adopted. Mr. Brooks noted that most of those requests staff sees are with wineries, which come in under special use permit provisions. Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to recommend approval of ZTA-2012-00002, Water/Sewer Regulations. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Morris said that ZTA-2012-00002, Water Sewer Regulations, will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval at a date to be determined. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer DATE: April 2, 2012 RE: ZTA201200002 & STA201200001 Water/Sewer Regulations The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 20, 2012, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of the above-noted Zoning Text Amendment & Subdivision Text Amendment to the Board of Supervisors. The Board is scheduled to hold a public hearing on this item at its May 2nd meeting. Attachments: Recommended Revisions to Ordinance Staff report and attachment PC minutes Return to agenda ZTA-2012-00002 Water/Sewer Regulations – Recommended Revisions to Zoning Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 12-18( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Regulations, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Definitions Sec. 4.2 Critical slopes Sec. 4.2.1 Building site required Sec. 4.2.2 Building site area and dimensions Sec. 4.2.3 Location of structures and improvements Sec. 4.2.4 Location of septic systems Sec. 4.7 Open space Sec. 5.1.43 Special events Sec. 5.1.44 Farm worker housing Sec. 10.5.2 Where permitted by special use permit By Amending and Renaming: Current New Sec. 4.1 Area and health regulations related to utilities Water supplies and sewer systems By Repealing: Sec. 4.1.1 Untitled Sec. 4.1.2 Untitled Sec. 4.1.3 Untitled Sec. 4.1.4 Untitled Sec. 4.1.5 Untitled Sec. 4.1.6 Untitled Sec. 4.1.7 Untitled Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Regulations Sec. 3.1 Definitions . . . Alternative onsite sewage system: A treatment works approved by the Virginia Department of Health that is not a conventional onsite sewage system and does not result in a point source discharge. . . . Central Sewerage System: A sewerage system consisting of pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, force mains or sewerage treatment plants, including, but not limited to, septic tanks and/or drain fields, or any of them, designed to serve three (3) or more connections, used for conducting or treating sewage which is required to be approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to Title 15.2, Chapter 21, Article 4 of the Code. . . . Central Water Supply: A water supply consisting of a well, springs or other source and the necessary pipes, conduits, mains, pumping stations and other facilities in connection therewith, to serve or to be capable of serving three (3) or more connections which is required to be approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to Title 15.2, Chapter 21, Article 6 of the Code. . . . Conventional onsite sewage system: A treatment works approved by the Virginia Department of Health consisting of one or more septic tanks with gravity, pumped, or siphoned conveyance to a gravity distributed subsurface drainfield. . . . Critical slopes: Slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater as determined by reference to either current topographic mapping available from the county or a more accurate field survey certified by a professional surveyor or engineer. . . . Onsite sewage system: A conventional onsite sewage system or an alternative onsite sewage system. . . . Subsurface drainfield: A system installed within the soil and designed to accommodate treated sewage from a treatment works. . . . Treatment works: Any device or system used in the storage, treatment, disposal or reclamation of sewage or combinations of sewage and industrial wastes, including but not limited to pumping, power and other equipment and appurtenances, septic tanks, and any works, including land, that are or will be (i) an integral part of the treatment process or (ii) used for ultimate disposal of residues or effluents resulting from such treatment. Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.1 Area and health regulations related to utilities Water supplies and sewer systems (Amended 6-3-81) The following regulations shall apply to all districts: It is specifically intended that the public water supply and public sewerage system be utilized within the service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Within such service areas, provisi ons of section 6.0 and other provisions of section 4.1 notwithstanding, no building permit shall be issued for any building or structure, including mobile homes, the use of which requires increased water consumption and/or sewage disposal, unless the building or structure shall be provided with public water and/or public sewerage system service. This requirement, however, shall not apply to the following situations and circumstances: a. Whenever a structure is damaged as a result of factors beyond the co ntrol of the owner and/or occupant thereof, such structure may be repaired and/or reconstructed provided that such repair and/or reconstruction shall be commenced within twelve (12) months and completed within twenty - four (24) months from the date of such damage; and provided further that such structure shall not be repaired and/or reconstructed in such manner as to reasonably cause an increase in water usage and/or sewage disposal demand; or b. The director of planning and community development in consultation with the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the cost of connecting the proposed development to the public water and/or sewerage system, exclusive of connection fees, exceeds the cost of installing an on -site well and/or septic system; or c. The director of planning and community development in consultation with the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the capacity of the public water and/or sewerage system is inadequate to serve the proposed development. Except for (a) above, the foregoing provisions shall not provide relief from §§ 4.1.1 through 4.1.7. (Added 1-3-96) 4.1.1 For a parcel served by both a central water supply and a central sewer system, the minimum area requirements of the district in which such parcel is located shall apply. 4.1.2 For a parcel served by either a central water supply or a central sewer system, there shall be provided a minimum area of forty thousand (40,000) square feet per commercial or industrial establishment or per dwelling unit as the case may be. 4.1.3 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. 4.1.4 The provisions of sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 notwithstanding, in such cases where a greater minimum area is required by the regulations of the district in which the parcel is located, said district regulations shall apply. 4.1.5 In the case of unusual so il conditions or other physical factors which may impair the health and safety of the neighborhood, upon the recommendation of the Virginia Department of Health, the commission may increase the area requirements for uses utilizing other than a public sewer system. 4.1.6 For lots not served by a central sewer system, no building permit shall be issued for any building or structure, the use of which involves sewage disposal, without written approval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health of the location and area for both original and future replacement septic disposal fields adequate to serve such use. For residential usage, at a minimum, each septic disposal field shall consist of suitable soils of adequate area to accommodate sewage disposal from a three (3) bedroom dwelling as determined by current regulations of the Virginia Department of Health. (Amended 11-15-89) 4.1.7 In a cluster development, open space may be used for septic field location only after the septic field locations on such lot are determined to be inadequate by the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. (Added 6-3-81) The water supply and sewer system serving either a development or any individual lot shall comply with the following: a. Public water supply and public sewer system within the services areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Within the services areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority (the “service areas”), each development and each lot shall be served by the public water sup ply and the public sewer system. Within the service areas, no building permit shall be issued for any structure if its use requires increased water consumption and/or sewage disposal, unless the structure will be connected to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system. Connection to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system is not required in the following circumstances: 1. Existing structure damaged. When an existing structure is damaged as a result of factors beyond the control of its owner and/or occupant, the structure may be repaired or reconstructed provided that the repair or reconstruction is commenced within twelve (12) months and completed within twenty-four (24) months after the date of the damage, and further provided that the structure is not repaired or reconstructed so as to increase the number of water supply or sewage fixtures. 2. Cost of connection to public water supply or public sewer system exceeds cost of onsite sewage system. When the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the cost of connecting the proposed development or lot to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system, exclusive of connection fees, exceeds the cost of installing an on-site well and/or an onsite sewage system. 3. Capacity of public water supply or public sewer system is inadequate . When the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the capacity of the public water supply and/or the public sewer system is inadequate to serve the proposed development or lot. 4. Nonconforming use or structure. The structure is used for a nonconforming use and satisfies the requirements of section 6.2(C) or the structure is nonconforming and satisfies the requirements of section 6.3. b. Water supply and sewer system when development or lot not connected to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system. When a development or a lot is not or will not be connected to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system, the following shall apply, except when an existing structure is damaged as provided in section 4.1(a)(1): 1. Lots served by an alternative onsite sewage system. On any lot served by an alternative onsite sewage system, no building permit shall be issued for any structure, the use of which requires sewage disposal, without the Virginia Department of Health’s approval of the location and area for the alternative onsite sewage system. 2. Lots served by a conventional onsite sewage system. On any lot served by a conventional onsite sewage system, no building permit shall be issued for any structure, the use of which requires sewage disposal, without the Virginia Department of Health’s approval of the location and area for both an original and a replacement subsurface drainfield that is adequate to serve the use. For residential uses, each subsurface drainfield shall have suitable soils of adequate area to accommodate sewage disposal from a three (3) bedroom dwelling as determined by the current regulations of the Virginia Department of Health. Sec. 4.2 Critical slopes These provisions in this section through section 4.2.5 are created to implement the comprehensive plan by protecting and conserving steep hillsides together with public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas and in recognition of because of the increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal sewage disposal problems associated with the development disturbance of those areas described in the comprehensive plan as critical slopes. It is hereby recognized that such development of The disturbance of critical slopes may result in: rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock; excessive stormwater run-off; siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource; and in the event of septic system onsite sewage system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, all of which constitute potential dangers to the public health, safety and/or welfare. These provisions The regulations in sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 are intended to direct building and septic system onsite sewage system locations to terrain more suitable to development and to discourage development on critical slopes, and to supplement other regulations regarding the protection of public water supplies and the encroachment of development into flood plains. (Amended 11-15-89) Where modification of regulations is sought pursuant to section 4.2.5, such request shall address each concern specified in section 4.2. Each request to waive or modify any requirement of sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 or 4.2.4 under section 4.2.5 shall be by special exception under section 31.8. (Added 11-15- 89) Sec. 4.2.1 Building site required No lot or parcel shall have less than one (1) building site, subject to the following:. a. Composition of building site. A building site shall be composed of a contiguous area of land and may not contain any area of land that is: (i) in critical slopes; (ii) within the flood hazard overlay district; (iii) under water during norm al hydrological conditions; (iv) within two hundred (200) horizontal feet of the one hundred year flood plain of any public water supply reservoir; and (v) within a stream buffer under chapter 17 of the Code, provided that nothing contained herein shall be deemed to prohibit or impair the program authority from exercising its discretion as authorized in chapter 17. For purposes of this section, the term “building site” shall mean a contiguous area of land in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent as determined by reference to either topographic quadrangle maps of the Geological Survey - U. S. Department of Interior (contour interval twenty [20] feet) or a source determined by the county engineer to be of superior accuracy, exclusive of: -Such area as may be located in the flood hazard overlay district or which is located under water; -Such area as may be located within two hundred (200) horizontal feet of the one hundred year flood plain of any public drinking water impoundment or within one hundred (100) horizontal feet of the edge of any tributary stream to such impoundment; (Amended 11-11-87) -Such area as may be designated as resource protection areas on the resource protection areas map adopted pursuant to chapter 17 of the Code of Albemarle; provided that nothing contained herein shall be deemed to prevent or impair the water resources manager from exercise of discretion as set forth in that ordinance. (Added 9-9-92) b. Special exception. Notwithstanding section 4.2.5, any requirement of section 4.2.1(a) may be waived or modified by special exception under section 31.8 upon the board of supervisors’ consideration of whether (i) the parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical condition; or (ii) development in a stream buffer on the parcel was authorized as provided in section 17-321 of the Code. Sec. 4.2.2 Building site area and dimensions Each building site shall be subject to the following minimum area and dimension requirements: (Amended 10-17-01) a. Uses not served by a public or central sewerage sewage system. Building sites for uses not served by a public or central sewerage sewage system shall be subject to the following: (Amended 11-15-89; 10-17-01) 1. Dwelling units. Each building site for a dwelling unit shall have an area of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet or greater and shall be of such dimensions that no one dimension exceeds any other by a ratio of more than five (5) to one (1) as described by a rectangle inscribed within the building site. The building site shall have adequate area for locating two (2) septic drain fields subsurface drainfields approved by the Virginia Department of Health pursuant to section 4.1 of this chapter if the lot will be served by a conventional onsite sewage system. (Amended 11-15-89; 10-17-01) 2. Development subject to section 32 of this chapter. Each building site in a development subject to section 32 of this chapter shall have an area of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet or greater and shall be of such dimensions that no one dimension exceeds any other by a ratio of more than five (5) to one (1) as described by a rectangle inscribed within the building site. The building site shall have adequate area for all buildings and structures, two (2) septic drain fields subsurface drainfields approved by the Virginia Department of Health pursuant to section 4.1 of this chapter if the lot will be served by a conventional onsite sewage system , parking and loading areas, storage yards and other improvements, and all earth disturbing activity related to the improvements. (Added 11- 15-89; Amended 10-17-01) 3. Modification or waiver Special exception. Notwithstanding section 4.2.5 of this chapter, the director of planning and community development may modify or waive the rectangular shape required by subsections (1) and (2) if, may be waived or modified by special exception under section 31.8 if, after receiving the recommendation from the Virginia Department of Health, the director of planning and community development finds, upon the board of supervisors’ consideration of the recommendation from the Virginia Department of Health and based on information provided by the developer showing, that: (i) the parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or ot her unusual physical condition; (ii) no reasonable alternative building site exists; and (iii) modifying or waiving the rectangular shape would result in less degradation of the parcel or adjacent parcels than if those dimensions were adhered to. (Added 10-17-01) 4. Appeal. A developer may appeal the denial of a modification or waiver to the planning commission and, thereafter, to the board of supervisors, pursuant to section 4.2.5. (Added 10-17-01) b. Uses served by a central sewerage sewage system. Building sites for uses served by a central sewerage sewage system shall be demonstrated by the applicant to have adequate area, as follows: (Amended 10-17-01) 1. Residential development. Each building site in a residential development shall have adequate area for all dwelling unit(s) together with an area equivalent to the sum of the applicable required yard areas for the applicable zoning district and, if parking is provided in bays, the parking area. (Added 11-15-89; Amended 10-17-01) 2. Development subject to section 32 of this chapter. Each building site in a development subject to section 32 of this chapter shall have adequate area for all structures, parking and loading areas, storage yards and other improvements, and all earth disturbing activity related to the improvements. (Added 11-15-89; Amended 10-17-01) (§ (4.2.2, 12-10-80; § 4.2.2, 4.2.2.1, 11-15-89; Ord. 01-18(7), 10-17-01) Sec. 4.2.3 Location of structures and improvements Except as otherwise permitted pursuant to provided in section 4.2.2, the provisions of this section shall apply applies to the location of any structure for which a permit is required under the Uniform Statewide Building Code and to any improvement shown on a site development plan pursuant to section 32.0 of this chapter. (Amended 11-15-89; 10-17-01) (§ 4.2.3, 12-10-80, 11-15-89; Ord. 01-18(7), 10-17-01) 4.2.3.1a. No structure or improvement shall be located on any lot or parcel in any area other than a building site. (Amended 11-15-89) 4.2.3.2b. No structure or improvement nor earth No structure, improvement, or land disturbing activity to establish such the structure or improvement shall be located on critical slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater except as otherwise permitted under sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6 and 4.3.01. Sec. 4.2.4 Location of septic systems onsite sewage systems (Amended 11-11-87) In the review for and issuance of a permit for the installation of a septic system an onsite sewage system, the Virginia Department of Health shall should be mindful of the intent of this section 4.2, and particularly mindful of the intent to discourage location of septic tanks and/or drain fields onsite sewage systems on slopes of twenty (20) percent or greater. Septic system location shall be restricted to Any onsite sewage system shall be located within the approved a building site. (Amended 11-1-87; 9-9-92) Sec. 4.7 Open space Open space shall be established, used, designed and maintained as follows: a. Intent. Open space is intended to provide active and passive recreation, protect areas sensitive to development, buffer dissimilar uses from one another and preserve agricultural activities. The commission and the board of supervisors shall consider the establishment, use, design and maintenance of open space in their review and approval of zoning map amendments. The subdivision agent and the site plan agent (hereinafter, collectively referred to as the “agent”) shall apply the following principles when reviewing open space provided on a subdivi sion plat or site plan. b. Uses permitted. Open space shall be maintained in a natural state and shall not be developed with any improvements, provided that the agent may authorize the open space to be used and improved for the following purposes: (i) agriculture, forestry and fisheries, including appropriate structures; (ii) game preserves, wildlife sanctuaries and similar uses; (iii) noncommercial recreational uses and structures; (iv) public utilities; (v) individual wells and treatment works with subsurface drainfields (reference section 4.1.7) (vi) in a cluster development, onsite sewage systems if the Department of Health determines that there are no suitable locations for a subsurface drainfield on a development lot ; and (vii) stormwater management facilities and flood control devices. c. Design. Open space shall be designed as follows: 1. Lands that may be required. The agent may require that open space include: (i) areas deemed inappropriate for or prohibited to development including, but not limited to, land in the one-hundred year flood plain and significant drainage swales, land in slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater, public utility easements for transmission lines, stormwater management facilities and flood control devices, and lands having permanent or seasonally high water tables; (ii) areas to satisfy section 4.16, and (iii) areas to provide reasonable buffering between dissimilar uses within the development and between the development and adjoining properties. 2. Redesign during review. The agent may require the redesign of a proposed development to accommodate open space areas as may be required under this section 4.7, provided that the redesign shall not reduce the number of dwelling units permitted under the applicable zoning district. 3. Limitation on certain elements. If open space is required by this chapter, not more than eighty (80) percent of the minimum required open space shall consist of the following: (i) land located within the one-hundred year flood plain; (ii) land subject to occasional, common or frequent flooding as defined in Table 16 Soil and Water Features of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia, August, 1985; (iii) land in slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater critical slopes; and (iv) land devoted to stormwater management facilities or flood control devices, except where the facility or feature is incorporated into a permanent pond, lake or other water feature deemed by the agent to constitute a desirable open space amenity. d. Ownership of open space. Open space may be privately owned or dedicated to public use. Open space in private ownership shall be subject to a legal instrument ensuring the maintenance and preservation of the open space that is approved by the agent and the county attorney in conjunction with the approval of the subdivision plat or site plan. Open space dedicated to public use shall be dedicated to the county in the manner provided by law. Open space dedicated to public use shall count toward the minimum required open space. (12-10-80, §§ 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4; 6-3-81, 11-15-89; Ord. 09-18(1), 1-14-09, § 4.7) Sec. 5.1.43 Special events Each special event authorized by section 10.2.2(50) shall be subject to the following: a. Eligibility and applicability. Special events may be authorized on those parcels in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district on which there is an existing and ongoing by-right (section 10.2.1) primary use. A special event special use permit issued under section 10.2.2(50) and this section shall not be required for special events associated with farm wineries or historical centers, or for events determined by the zoning administrator to be accessory to a primary use of the parcel. b. Information to be submitted with application for special use permit. In addition to any information otherwise required to be submitted for a special use permit, each application for a special use permit shall include the following: 1. Concept plan. A preliminary schematic plan (the “concept plan”) satisfying section 32.4.1. The concept plan shall identify the structure(s) to be used for the special event, include the area of the structure(s) in which the proposed special events will be conducted, the parking area, and the entrance to the site from the street. The concept plan shall address, in particular, provisions for safe and convenient access to and from the street, the location of the parking area, the location of portable toilets if they may be required, proposed screening as required by this section for parking areas and portable toilets, and information regarding the exterior appearance of the proposed site. Based on the concept plan and other information submitted, the board of supervisors may then waive the requirement for a site plan in a particular case, upon a finding that the requirement of a site plan would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest. 2. Information from the Virginia Department of Health. The applicant shall submit written comments from the Virginia Department of Health regarding the private water supply and the septic disposal system onsite sewage system that will serve the proposed special event site, the ability of the water supply and the septic disposal system onsite sewage system to handle the proposed events, and the need to improve the supply or the system in order to handle the proposed events. 3. Building and fire safety. The building official and the county department of fire and rescue shall review and comment on the application, identifying all Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code issues and requirements. c. Zoning compliance clearance. The applicant shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance under section 31.5 prior to conducting a special event. A single zoning clearance may be obtained for one (1) or more such special events in a calendar year as follows: 1. The zoning administrator may issue a single zoning compliance clearance for more than one (1) special event if: (i) the application submitted by the applicant includes the required information in subsection 5.1.43(c)(3) for each special event to be covered by the zoning compliance clearance: (ii) the zoning administrator determines that each special event is substantially similar in nature and size; and (iii) the zoning administrator determines that a single set of conditions that would apply to each such special event may be imposed with the zoning compliance clearance. 2. The applicant shall apply for a zoning compliance clearance at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the first special event to be authorized by the zoning compliance clearance. The application shall be submitted to the zoning administrator, who shall forward copies of the application to the county police department, the county building official, the county department of fire and rescue, and the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. As part of his review, the building official shall determine whether the structure(s) proposed to be used for the special events satisfies the requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code for that use. 3. The application shall describe the nature of each special event to be authorized by the zoning compliance clearance, the date or dates and hours of operation of each such special event, the facilities, structures to be used, and the number of participants and support staff expect to attend each special event. 4. Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance and all conditions of the special use permit are satisfied, and imposing all conditions of such approval required by the offices identified in subsection 5.1.43(c)(2), the zoning administrator shall issue a zoning compliance clearance for one or more special events. The validity of the zoning compliance clearance shall be conditional upon the applicant’s compliance with all requirements of the zoning ordinance, all conditions of the appro ved special use permit, the approved concept plan or site plan, and all conditions imposed by the zoning compliance clearance. d. Special events sites and structures. In addition to all other applicable requirements of this chapter, special events sites and structures shall be subject to the following: 1. Structures used for special events. Each structure used for a special event shall satisfy the following: (i) the structure shall have been in existence on the date of adoption of this section 5.1.43, provided that this requirement shall not apply to accessory structures less than one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size; (ii) the structure shall be a lawful conforming structure and shall support or have supported a lawful use of the property; and (iii) modifications to farm buildings or farm structures as those terms are defined in Virginia Code § 36-97 shall allow the structure to revert to an agricultural use, as determined by the building official. 2. Minimum yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum front yard shall be seventy-five (75) feet. The minimum side yard shall be twenty-five feet (25) feet. The minimum rear yard shall be thirty-five (35) feet. All yards shall be measured from structures and off-street parking areas. These minimum yard requirements shall apply to all accessory structures established after the effective date of this section 5.1.43 and all tents, parking areas and portable toilets used in whole or in part to serve special events. 3. Parking. The number of off-street parking spaces for a special event shall be as required in section 4.12.6. Notwithstanding section 4.12.15(a) through (g), the additional parking area(s) for special events shall consist of or be constructed of pervious materials including, but not limited to stabilized turf, approved by the county engineer. Asphalt and impervious materials are prohibited. If the parking area is on grass or in a field, the applicant shall reseed and restore the parking area site as required by the zoning administrator. In addition to the requirements of section 4.12.5, the parking area shall be onsite and screened from abutting parcels by topography, structures or new or existing landscaping. Notwithstanding section 4.12.16(d) and (e), the delineation of parking spaces and the provision of bumper blocks shall not be required. 4. Water and sewer. The private water supply and septic disposal system onsite sewage system serving a special event shall be approved by the Virginia Department of Health. 5. Streets and access. Streets serving the site shall be adequate for anticipated traffic volume for a special event. Access from the street onto the site shall be adequate to provide safe and convenient access to the site, and applicant shall install all required improvements and provide adequate sight distance in order to provide safe and convenient access. e. Special events operations. In addition to all other applicable requirements of this chapter, special events operations shall be subject to the following: 1. Number of participants. The number of participants at a special event at any one time shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) persons 2. Number of special events per year. The special use permit shall identify the number of approved special events per calendar year, which number shall not exceed twenty -four (24). 3. Signs. Permanent and temporary signs advertising a special event shall be permitted as provided in sections 4.15.4, 4.15.4A and 4.15.8. 4. Food service. No kitchen facility permitted by the Virginia Department of Health as a commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the site. A kitchen may be used by licensed caterers for the handling, warming and distribution of food, but not for cooking f ood, to be served at a special event. 5. Portable toilets. If required, portable toilets are permitted on the site, provided that they comply with the yard requirements in section 5.1.43(d)(2) and shall be screened from that parcel and any street by topography, structures or new or existing landscaping. f. Prohibition of development to a more intensive use. A parcel subject to a special events special use permit shall not be subdivided so as to create one or more parcels, including the parent parcel, of less than twenty-one acres in size without first amending the special use permit to expressly authorize the subdivision. If a parcel is so subdivided without first amending the special use permit, special events shall thereafter be prohibited on the resulting parcels unless a new special use permit is obtained. (Ord. 05-18(8), 7-13-05) Sec. 5.1.44 Farm worker housing Each farm worker housing facility shall be subject to the following: a. Concept plan to be submitted with application for farm worker housing. Before applying for the first building permit for a farm worker housing, Class A, facility, or in addition to any other information required to be submitted for a farm worker housing, Class B, special use permit, the applicant shall submit a concept plan meeting the requirements of section 5.1.44(b). b. Contents of concept plan. The concept plan shall show the following: (i) the boundary lines of the farm (may be shown on an inset map if necessary); (ii) the location and general layout of the proposed structures at a scale of not more than one (1) inch equals forty (40) feet; (iii) vehicular access, travelways and parking for the facility; (iv) topography (with a contour interval of no greater than ten (10) feet); (v) critical slopes; (vi) streams, stream buffers and floodplains; (vii) source(s) of water for fire suppression; (viii) building setback lines as provided in subsection 5.1.44(g) below; and (ix) outdoor lighting. The concept plan also shall include a written description of each structure’s construction and materials used, and the number of persons to be housed in the farm worker housing facility. c. Notice of receipt of concept plan to abutting owners . The zoning administrator shall send notice of the receipt of a concept plan as follows: 1. Farm worker housing, Class A, facility: For each concept plan received for a farm worker housing, Class A, facility, the zoning administrator shall send notice to the owner of each lot abutting the parcel for which a concept plan has been received within ten (10) days after submittal of the concept plan deemed by the zoning administrator to be complete. The notice shall include a copy of the concept plan and shall advise each recipient of the right to submit written comments within ten (10) da ys of the date of the notice and the right to request planning commission review as provided in section 5.1.44(d). Notice mailed to the abutting owner shall be mailed to the last known address of the owner, and mailing the notice to the address shown on the current real estate tax assessment records of the county shall be deemed compliance with this requirement. The failure of an abutting owner to receive the notice required by this section shall not affect the validity of an approved concept plan or zoning compliance clearance. 2. Farm worker housing, Class B, facility: For each concept plan received for a farm worker housing, Class B, facility, notice to the owner of each lot abutting the parcel for which a concept plan has been received shall be provided in conjunction with the notice required for the special use permit. d. Request for planning commission review and action on farm worker housing, Class A, facility concept plan. An abutting owner to whom notice for a farm worker housing, Class A, facility concept plan under section 5.1.44(c)(1) and who submitted timely written comments about the concept plan as provided therein may request that the planning commission review and act on the concept plan. The request shall be in writing, state the reasons why the commission should review the concept plan, and be filed with the director of planning within ten (10) days after the date of the notice from the zoning administrator. ed. Review and action on concept plan. A concept plan shall be reviewed and acted upon as follows: 1. Farm worker housing, Class A, facility. For a farm worker housing, Class A, facility, the concept plan shall be approved by the zoning administrator or the planning commission, as the case may be, before any building permit is issued for the facility. The concept plan shall be approved by the zoning administrator or the commission if it satisfies all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance and the design is determined to not be a substantial detriment to abutting parcels this chapter. In approving the concept plan, the zoning administrator or the commission may impose reasonable conditions to mitigate impacts on abutting parcels arising from facility. The commission shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the zoning administrator, the director of planning and other officials. In addition, the commission may consider such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application. 2. Farm worker housing, Class B, facility. For a farm worker housing, Class B, facility, the concept plan shall be reviewed and acted upon in conjunction with the special use permit. fe. Farm worker housing facilities; permissible structures . Farm worker housing facilities shall not use motor vehicles or major recreational equipment, as that term is defined in section 4.12.3(b)(1) of this chapter, to provide for sleeping, eating, food preparation, or sanitation (bathing and/or toilets). gf. Minimum yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum front yard shall be seventy-five (75) feet. The minimum side and rear yards shall be fifty (50) feet. All yards shall be measured from the farm worker housing structures. hg. Zoning compliance clearance. The owner shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance from the zoning administrator as provided in section 31.2.3.2 31.5 of this chapter before a farm worker housing facility is occupied, subject to the following additional requirements: 1. The applicant shall apply for a zoning compliance clearance at least thirty (30) days prior to the first expected occupation of the farm worker housing facility. The application shall be submitted to the zoning administrator. 2. The zoning compliance clearance application shall include all of the following information: a. Written approval of the farm worker housing facility as a migrant labor camp under 12 VAC 5-501-10 et seq., the food preparation area, the private water supply, and the septic disposal system onsite sewage system by the Virginia Department of Health. b. Approval of the access to the site from a public street by the Virginia Department of Transportation; provided that nothing herein shall be deemed to require that a commercial entrance be constructed unless such an entrance is required by the Virginia Department of Transportation. c. Written approval of the adequacy of the access to the site for emergency vehicles by the fire marshal. d. Written approval of the adequacy of the structures intended for human habitation by the building official. 3. Upon the zoning administrator’s determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance are satisfied, that all conditions of the special use permit authorizing a farm worker housing, Class B, facility, are satisfied, and upon receipt of the approvals and documents required in section 5.1.44(hg)(2), the zoning administrator shall issue a zoning compliance clearance for the facility. ih. Use of farm worker housing facility by workers and their families only. A farm worker housing facility shall be occupied only by persons employed to work on the farm on which the structures are located for seasonal agriculture work and their immediate families as provided herein. For purposes of this section 5.1.44, the term “immediate families” means the natural or legally defined off-spring, grandchild, grandparent, or parent of the farm worker. ji. Use of farm worker housing facility when not occupied. When not occupied by seasonal farm workers, farm worker housing facilities may be used for any use accessory to a primary agriculture use. (Ord. 06-18(2), 12-13-06) Article III. District Regulations Sec. 10.5.2 Where permitted by special use permit 10.5.2.1 The board of supervisors may authorize the issuance of issue a special use permit for more lots than the total number permitted under sections 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2; provided that no such permit shall be issued for property within the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water supply impoundment water supply reservoir, and further provided that no such permit shall be issued to allow more development lots within a proposed rural preservation development than that permitted by right under section 10.3.3.3(b). (Added 11-8-89; Amended 5-5-04 effective 7-1-04) The board of supervisors shall determine that such division is compatible with the neighborhood as set forth in section 31.2.4.1 31.6.1 of this chapter, with reference to consideration of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan relating to rural areas including the type of division proposed and, specifically, as to this section only, with reference to consideration of the following: (Amended 11-8-89) 1. The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Natural Resources Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry. 2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same shall be is shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Natural Resources Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Natural Resources Conservation Service. 3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent that is reasonably available. 4. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed development on the character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be in an agricultural or forestal area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the border of such property has been in commercial agricultural or forestal use within five (5) years of the date of the application for special use permit. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. 5. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the boundary of such property was in parcels of record of five (5) acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. 6. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers, services and employment centers. A property within areas described below shall be deemed in proximity to the area or use described: a. Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary as described in the comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89) b. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as described in the comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89) c. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a village as described in the comprehensive plan. (Amended 11-8-89) 7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming in regard to increased provision of services. 8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the Virginia Department of Transportation: (Amended 11-8-89) a. Occasion the need for road improvement; b. Cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable road; c. Increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road. 9. With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying wholly or partially within the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water impoundment, the following additional factors shall be considered: a. The amount and quality of existing vegetative cover as related to filtration of sediment, phosphorous, heavy metals, nitrogen and other substances determined harmful to water quality for human consumption; b. The extent to which existing vegetative cover would be removed or disturbed during the construction phase of any development; c. The amount of impervious cover which will exist after development; d. The proximity of any paved (pervious or impervious) area, structure, or drain field to any perennial or intermittent stream or impoundment; or during the construction phase, the proximity of any disturbed area to any such stream or impoundment; e. The type and characteristics of soils including suitability for septic fields and erodability; [ f. The percentage and length of all slopes subject to disturbance during construction or upon which any structure, paved area (pervious or impervious) or active recreational area shall exist after development; g. The estimated duration and timing of the construction phase of any proposed development and extent to which such duration and timing are unpredictable; h. The degree to which original topography or vegetative cover have been altered in anticipation of filing for any permit hereunder; i. The extent to which the standards of Chapter 17 et seq. of the Code of Albemarle can only be met through the creation of artificial devices, which devices will: 1. Require periodic inspection and/or maintenance; 2. Are susceptible to failure or overflow for run-off associated with any one hundred year or more intense storm. (§ 20-10.5.2.1, 12-10-80; 11-8-89; §18-10.5.2.1, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-18(1), 5-5-04 effective 7-1- 04) I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________. __________________________________ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd ____ ____ Mr. Dumler ____ ____ Ms. Mallek ____ ____ Mr. Rooker ____ ____ Mr. Snow ____ ____ Mr. Thomas ____ ____ STA-2012-00001 Water/Sewer – Recommended Revisions to Subdivision Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 12-14( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE III, SUBDIVISION PLAT REQUIREMENTS AND DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED, AND ARTICLE IV, ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND DESIGN, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, Article I, General Provisions, Article III, Subdivision Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted, and Article IV, On-site Improvements and Design, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 14-106 Definitions Sec. 14-309 Soil evaluations By Amending and Renaming: Sec. 14-310 Health director approval of individual private wells and/or septic systems Sec. 14-415 Central water supplies and sewerage systems Sec. 14-416 Individual private wells and septic systems Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land Article I. General Provisions Sec. 14-106 Definitions The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this chapter: . . . Alternative onsite sewage system. The term “alternative onsite sewage system” means a treatment works approved by the Virginia Department of Health that is not a conventional onsite sewage system and does not result in a point source discharge. . . . Conventional onsite sewage system. The term “conventional onsite sewage system” means a treatment works approved by the Virginia Department of Health consisting of one or more septic tanks with gravity, pumped, or siphoned conveyance to a gravity distributed subsurface drainfield. . . . Onsite sewage system. The term “onsite sewage system” means a conventional onsite sewage system or an alternative onsite sewage system. . . . Subsurface drainfield. The term “subsurface drainfield” means a system installed within the soil and designed to accommodate treated sewage from a treatment works. . . . Treatment works. The term “treatment works” means any device or system used in the storage, treatment, disposal or reclamation of sewage or combinations of sewage and industrial wastes, including but not limited to pumping, power and other equipment and appurtenances, septic tanks, and any works, including land, that are or will be (i) an integral part of the treatment process or (ii) used for ultimate disposal of residues or effluents resulting from such treatment. Article III. Subdivision Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted Division 2. Documents and Information to be Submitted with Preliminary or Final Plat Sec. 14-309 Soil evaluations. The subdivider shall submit to the agent with each final plat the results of percolation tests or other methods of soil evaluation used to determine the suitability of the soil for septic systems with conventional drain fields, if septic systems subsurface drainfields, if conventional onsite sewage systems are proposed to be used in the development of the subdivision, and the results are requested by the agent. These results shall be forwarded by the agent to the health director. (9-5-96, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, § 18-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05) State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(3), 15.2-2262. Sec. 14-310 Health director approval of individual private wells and/or septic systems onsite sewage systems. If required as a condition of final plat approval, a final plat shall not be approved if individual private wells are proposed for the subdivision until written approval has been received from the health director by the agent. A final plat shall not be approved if septic systems onsite sewage systems are proposed for the subdivision until written approval has been received from the health director by the agent, provided further that if the subdivision will be served by conventional onsite sewage systems as follows: A. The health director shall determine the suitability of the soil of each lot of the subdivision for which septic systems with a conventional drain field conventional onsite sewage systems will be constructed, and shall submit his opinion to the agent. B. The health director may require as a condition of his approval of the installation of septic systems conventional onsite sewage systems and, whenever necessary for the satisfactor y installation of the septic systems, that individual lots be graded and drained so as to assure the effective removal of surface water from each lot. C. Special lots shall not be subject to this section unless the special lot is created for a water supply or waste disposal purpose. (Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05; Ord. 11-14(1), 6-1-11) State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2242(2), 15.2-2262. Article IV. On-Site Improvements and Design Division 3. Water, Sewers and Other Improvements Sec. 14-415 Central water supplies and sewerage systems. A subdivision for which public water and/or sanitary sewerage service is not reasonably available as provided in section 14-414, and which will have twenty-five (25) or more lots of two (2) acres or less, may be served by a central water supply or central sewerage system, or both, if authorized by the board of supervisors under chapter 16 of the Code, as follows: A. A subdivision whose net average lot size is less than fort y thousand (40,000) square feet shall have both a central water system and a central sewerage system. A subdivision whose net average lot size is between forty thousand (40,000) square feet and sixty thousand (60,000) square feet, inclusive, shall have either a central water system or central sewerage system. BA. The design and construction of each central water system and central sewerage system required by this section shall be approved by the Virginia Department of Health, or its local office, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and the board of supervisors. Each system shall complement or supplement existing or proposed county utilities to the extent that the agent finds existing public utilities to be inadequate. CB. Neither a central water system nor a central sewerage system shall be required: (i) for a subdivision whose net average lot size is greater than sixty thousand (60,000) square feet; or (ii) if the subdivider establishes to the satisfaction of the county engineer that the soils and parent materials of all of the lots created for the purpose of transfer of ownership are such that waste disposal methods for the entire property are satisfactory to the health director, and that no well pollution can occur from the proposed lot configuration. DC. No final plat for a subdivision served by a central water system and/or a central sewerage system shall be approved until the requirements of Chapter 21 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia have been satisfied. (9-5-96, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, § 18-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 14-517; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6- 20-05) State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(4). Sec. 14-416 Individual private wells and septic systems onsite sewage systems. A subdivision for which public water and/or public sewerage service is not reasonably available as provided in section 14-414, and for which a central water supply and/or a central sewerage system is not authorized under section 14-415, shall be served by individual private wells or septic systems having conventional drainfields onsite sewage systems, or both, and shall meet all requirements of the health department and be approved by the health director. (§ 18-23 (part), 9-5-96, 8-28-74; § 18-27, 9-5-96, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, §§ 18-23, 18-27; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5- 98, § 14-518; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05) State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(3). I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________. __________________________________ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd ____ ____ Mr. Dumler ____ ____ Ms. Mallek ____ ____ Mr. Rooker ____ ____ Mr. Snow ____ ____ Mr. Thomas ____ ____ ZTA-2012-00002 Water/Sewer Regulations – Recommended Revisions to Zoning Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 12-18( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Regulations, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Definitions Sec. 4.2 Critical slopes Sec. 4.2.1 Building site required Sec. 4.2.2 Building site area and dimensions Sec. 4.2.3 Location of structures and improvements Sec. 4.2.4 Location of septic systems Sec. 4.7 Open space Sec. 5.1.43 Special events Sec. 5.1.44 Farm worker housing Sec. 10.5.2 Where permitted by special use permit By Amending and Renaming: Current New Sec. 4.1 Area and health regulations related to utilities Water supplies and sewer systems By Repealing: Sec. 4.1.1 Untitled Sec. 4.1.2 Untitled Sec. 4.1.3 Untitled Sec. 4.1.4 Untitled Sec. 4.1.5 Untitled Sec. 4.1.6 Untitled Sec. 4.1.7 Untitled Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Regulations Sec. 3.1 Definitions . . . Alternative onsite sewage system: A treatment works approved by the Virginia Department of Health that is not a conventional onsite sewage system and does not result in a point source discharge. . . . Central Sewerage System: A sewerage system consisting of pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, force mains or sewerage treatment plants, including, but not limited to, septic tanks and/or drain fields, or any of them, designed to serve three (3) or more connections, used for conducting or treating sewage which is required to be approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to Title 15.2, Chapter 21, Article 4 of the Code. . . . Central Water Supply: A water supply consisting of a well, springs or other source and the necessary pipes, conduits, mains, pumping stations and other facilities in connection therewith, to serve or to be capable of serving three (3) or more connections which is required to be approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to Title 15.2, Chapter 21, Article 6 of the Code. . . . Conventional onsite sewage system: A treatment works approved by the Virginia Department of Health consisting of one or more septic tanks with gravity, pumped, or siphoned conveyance to a gravity distributed subsurface drainfield. . . . Critical slopes: Slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater as determined by reference to either current topographic mapping available from the county or a more accurate field survey certified by a professional surveyor or engineer. . . . Onsite sewage system: A conventional onsite sewage system or an alternative onsite sewage system. . . . Subsurface drainfield: A system installed within the soil and designed to accommodate treated sewage from a treatment works. . . . Treatment works: Any device or system used in the storage, treatment, disposal or reclamation of sewage or combinations of sewage and industrial wastes, including but not limited to pumping, power and other equipment and appurtenances, septic tanks, and any works, including land, that are or will be (i) an integral part of the treatment process or (ii) used for ultimate disposal of residues or effluents resulting from such treatment. Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.1 Area and health regulations related to utilities Water supplies and sewer systems (Amended 6-3-81) The following regulations shall apply to all districts: It is specifically intended that the public water supply and public sewerage system be utilized within the service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Within such service areas, provisions of section 6.0 and other provisions of section 4.1 notwithstanding, no building permit shall be issued for any building or structure, including mobile homes, the use of which requires increased water consumption and/or sewage disposal, unless the building or structure shall be provided with public water and/or public sewerage system service. This requirement, however, shall not apply to the following situations and circumstances: a. Whenever a structure is damaged as a result of factors beyond the control of the owner and/or occupant thereof, such structure may be repaired and/or reconstructed provided that such repair and/or reconstruction shall be commenced within twelve (12) months a nd completed within twenty- four (24) months from the date of such damage; and provided further that such structure shall not be repaired and/or reconstructed in such manner as to reasonably cause an increase in water usage and/or sewage disposal demand; or b. The director of planning and community development in consultation with the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the cost of connecting the proposed development to the public water and/or sewerage system, exclusive of connection fees, exceeds the cost of installing an on-site well and/or septic system; or c. The director of planning and community development in consultation with the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the capacity of the public water and/or sewerage system is inadeq uate to serve the proposed development. Except for (a) above, the foregoing provisions shall not provide relief from §§ 4.1.1 through 4.1.7. (Added 1-3-96) 4.1.1 For a parcel served by both a central water supply and a central sewer system, the minimum area requirements of the district in which such parcel is located shall apply. 4.1.2 For a parcel served by either a central water supply or a central sewer system, there shall be provided a minimum area of forty thousand (40,000) square feet per commercial or industrial establishment or per dwelling unit as the case may be. 4.1.3 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 indu strial establishment or per dwelling unit as the case may be. 4.1.4 The provisions of sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 notwithstanding, in such cases where a greater minimum area is required by the regulations of the district in which the parcel is located, said district regulations shall apply. 4.1.5 In the case of unusual soil conditions or other physical factors which may impair the health and safety of the neighborhood, upon the recommendation of the Virginia Department of Health, the commission may increase the area requirements for uses utilizing other than a public sewer system. 4.1.6 For lots not served by a central sewer system, no building permit shall be issued for any building or structure, the use of which involves sewage disposal, without written ap proval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health of the location and area for both original and future replacement septic disposal fields adequate to serve such use. For residential usage, at a minimum, each septic disposal field shall consist of suitable soils of adequate area to accommodate sewage disposal from a three (3) bedroom dwelling as determined by current regulations of the Virginia Department of Health. (Amended 11-15-89) 4.1.7 In a cluster development, open space may be used for septic field location only after the septic field locations on such lot are determined to be inadequate by the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. (Added 6-3-81) The water supply and sewer system serving either a development or any ind ividual lot shall comply with the following: a. Public water supply and public sewer system within the services areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Within the services areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority (the “service areas”), each development and each lot shall be served by the public water supply and the public sewer system. Within the service areas, no building permit shall be issued for any structure if its use requires increased water consumption and/or sewage disposal, unless the structure will be connected to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system. Connection to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system is not required in the following circumstances: 1. Existing structure damaged. When an existing structure is damaged as a result of factors beyond the control of its owner and/or occupant, the structure may be repaired or reconstructed provided that the repair or reconstruction is commenced within twelve (12) months and completed within twenty-four (24) months after the date of the damage, and further provided that the structure is not repaired or reconstructed so as to increase the number of water supply or sewage fixtures. 2. Cost of connection to public water supply or public sewer system ex ceeds cost of onsite sewage system. When the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the cost of connecting the proposed development or lot to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system, exclusive of connection fees, exceeds the cost of installing an on-site well and/or an onsite sewage system. 3. Capacity of public water supply or public sewer system is inadequate . When the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the capacity of the public water supply and/or the public sewer system is inadequate to serve the proposed development or lot. 4. Nonconforming use or structure. The structure is used for a nonconforming use and satisfies the requirements of section 6.2(C) or the structure is nonconforming and satisfies the requirements of section 6.3. b. Water supply and sewer system when development or lot not connected to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system. When a development or a lot is not or will not be connected to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system, the following shall apply, except when an existing structure is damaged as provided in section 4.1(a)(1): 1. Lots served by an alternative onsite sewage system. On any lot served by an alternative onsite sewage system, no building permit shall be issued for any structure, the use of which requires sewage disposal, without the Virginia Department of Health’s approval of the location and area for the alternative onsite sewage system. 2. Lots served by a conventional onsite sewage system. On any lot served by a conventional onsite sewage system, no building permit shall be issued for any structure, the use of which requires sewage disposal, without the Virginia Department of Health’s approval of the location and area for both an original and a replacement subsurface drainfield that is adequate to serve the use. For residential uses, each subsurface drainfield shall have suitable soils of adequate area to accommodate sewage disposal from a three (3) bedroom dwelling as determined by the current regulations of the Virginia Department of Health. Sec. 4.2 Critical slopes These provisions in this section through section 4.2.5 are created to implement the comprehensive plan by protecting and conserving steep hillsides together with public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas and in recognition of because of the increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal sewage disposal problems associated with the development disturbance of those areas described in the comprehensive plan as critical slopes. It is hereby recognized that such development of The disturbance of critical slopes may result in: rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock; excessive stormwater run-off; siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource; and in the event of septic system onsite sewage system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, all of which constitute potential dangers to the public health, safety and/or welfare. These provisions The regulations in sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 are intended to direct building and septic system onsite sewage system locations to terrain more suitable to development and to discourage development on critical slopes, and to supplement other regulations regarding the protection of public water supplies and the encroachment of development into flood plains. (Amended 11-15-89) Where modification of regulations is sought pursuant to section 4.2.5, such request shall address each concern specified in section 4.2. Each request to waive or modify any requirement of sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 or 4.2.4 under section 4.2.5 shall be by special exception under section 31.8. (Added 11-15- 89) Sec. 4.2.1 Building site required No lot or parcel shall have less than one (1) building site, subject to the following:. a. Composition of building site. A building site shall be composed of a contiguous area of land and may not contain any area of land that is: (i) in critical slopes; (ii) withi n the flood hazard overlay district; (iii) under water during normal hydrological conditions; (iv) within two hundred (200) horizontal feet of the one hundred year flood plain of any public water supply reservoir; and (v) within a stream buffer under chapter 17 of the Code, provided that nothing contained herein shall be deemed to prohibit or impair the program authority from exercising its discretion as authorized in chapter 17. For purposes of this section, the term “building site” shall mean a contiguou s area of land in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent as determined by reference to either topographic quadrangle maps of the Geological Survey - U. S. Department of Interior (contour interval twenty [20] feet) or a source determined by the county engineer to be of superior accuracy, exclusive of: -Such area as may be located in the flood hazard overlay district or which is located under water; -Such area as may be located within two hundred (200) horizontal feet of the one hundred year flood plain of any public drinking water impoundment or within one hundred (100) horizontal feet of the edge of any tributary stream to such impoundment; (Amended 11-11-87) -Such area as may be designated as resource protection areas on the resource protection areas map adopted pursuant to chapter 17 of the Code of Albemarle; provided that nothing contained herein shall be deemed to prevent or impair the water resources manager from exercise of discretion as set forth in that ordinance. (Added 9-9-92) b. Special exception. Notwithstanding section 4.2.5, any requirement of section 4.2.1(a) may be waived or modified by special exception under section 31.8 upon the board of supervisors’ consideration of whether (i) the parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical condition; or (ii) development in a stream buffer on the parcel was authorized as provided in section 17-321 of the Code. Sec. 4.2.2 Building site area and dimensions Each building site shall be subject to the following minimum area and dimension requirements: (Amended 10-17-01) a. Uses not served by a public or central sewerage sewage system. Building sites for uses not served by a public or central sewerage sewage system shall be subject to the following: (Amended 11-15-89; 10-17-01) 1. Dwelling units. Each building site for a dwelling unit shall have an area of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet or greater and shall be of such dimensions that no one dimension exceeds any other by a ratio of more than five (5) to one (1) as described by a rectangle inscribed within the building site. The building site shall have adequate area for locating two (2) septic drain fields subsurface drainfields approved by the Virginia Department of Health pursuant to section 4.1 of this chapter if the lot will be served by a conventional onsite sewage system . (Amended 11-15-89; 10-17-01) 2. Development subject to section 32 of this chapter. Each building site in a development subject to section 32 of this chapter shall have an area of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet or greater and shall be of such dimensions that no one dimension exceeds any other by a ratio of more than five (5) to one (1) as described by a rectangle inscribed within the building site. The building site shall have adequate area for all buildings and structures, two (2) septic drain fields subsurface drainfields approved by the Virginia Department of Health pursuant to section 4.1 of this chapter if the lot will be served by a conventional onsite sewage system , parking and loading areas, storage yards and other improvements, and all earth disturbing activity related to the improvements. (Added 11- 15-89; Amended 10-17-01) 3. Modification or waiver Special exception. Notwithstanding section 4.2.5 of this chapter, the director of planning and community development may modify or waive the rectangular shape required by subsections (1) and (2) if, may be waived or modified by special exception under section 31.8 if, after receiving the recommendation from the Virginia Department of Health, the director of planning and community development finds, upon the board of supervisors’ consideration of the recommendation from the Virginia Department of Health and based on information provided by the developer showing, that: (i) the parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical condition; (ii) no reasonable alternative building site exists; and (iii) modifying or waiving the rectangular shape would result in less degradation of the parcel or adjacent parcels than if those dimensions were adhered to. (Added 10-17-01) 4. Appeal. A developer may appeal the denial of a modification or waiver to the planning commission and, thereafter, to the board of supervisors, pursuant to section 4.2.5. (Added 10-17-01) b. Uses served by a central sewerage sewage system. Building sites for uses served by a central sewerage sewage system shall be demonstrated by the applicant to have adequate area, as follows: (Amended 10-17-01) 1. Residential development. Each building site in a residential development shall have adequate area for all dwelling unit(s) together with an area equivalent to the sum of the applicable required yard areas for the applicable zoning district and, if parking is provided in bays, the parking area. (Added 11-15-89; Amended 10-17-01) 2. Development subject to section 32 of this chapter. Each building site in a development subject to section 32 of this chapter shall have adequate area for all structures, parking and loading areas, storage yards and other improvements, and all earth disturbing activity related to the improvements. (Added 11-15-89; Amended 10-17-01) (§ (4.2.2, 12-10-80; § 4.2.2, 4.2.2.1, 11-15-89; Ord. 01-18(7), 10-17-01) Sec. 4.2.3 Location of structures and improvements Except as otherwise permitted pursuant to provided in section 4.2.2, the provisions of this section shall apply applies to the location of any structure for which a permit is required under the Uniform Statewide Building Code and to any improvement shown on a site development plan pursuant to section 32.0 of this chapter. (Amended 11-15-89; 10-17-01) (§ 4.2.3, 12-10-80, 11-15-89; Ord. 01-18(7), 10-17-01) 4.2.3.1a. No structure or improvement shall be located on any lot or parcel in any area other than a building site. (Amended 11-15-89) 4.2.3.2b. No structure or improvement nor earth No structure, improvement, or land disturbing activity to establish such the structure or improvement shall be located on critical slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater except as otherwise permitted under sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6 and 4.3.01. Sec. 4.2.4 Location of septic systems onsite sewage systems (Amended 11-11-87) In the review for and issuance of a permit for the installation of a septic system an onsite sewage system, the Virginia Department of Health shall should be mindful of the intent of this section 4.2, and particularly mindful of the intent to discourage location of septic tanks and/or drain fields onsite sewage systems on slopes of twenty (20) percent or greater. Septic system location shall be restricted to Any onsite sewage system shall be located within the approved a building site. (Amended 11-1-87; 9-9-92) Sec. 4.7 Open space Open space shall be established, used, designed and maintained as follows: a. Intent. Open space is intended to provide active and passive recreation, protect areas sensitive to development, buffer dissimilar uses from one another and preserve agricultural activities. The commission and the board of supervisors shall consider the establishment, use, design and maintenance of open space in their review and approval of zoning map amendments. The subdivision agent and the site plan agent (hereinafter, collectively referred to as the “agent”) shall apply the following principles when reviewing open space provided on a subdivision plat or site plan. b. Uses permitted. Open space shall be maintained in a natural state and shall not be developed with any improvements, provided that the agent may authorize the open space to be used and improved for the following purposes: (i) agriculture, forestry and fisheries, including appropriate structures; (ii) game preserves, wildlife sanctuaries and similar uses; (iii) noncommercial recreational uses and structures; (iv) public utilities; (v) individual wells and treatment works with subsurface drainfields (reference section 4.1.7) (vi) in a cluster development, onsite sewage systems if the Department of Health determines that there are no suitable locations for a subsurface drainfield on a development lot; and (vii) stormwater management facilities and flood control devices. c. Design. Open space shall be designed as follows: 1. Lands that may be required. The agent may require that open space include: (i) areas deemed inappropriate for or prohibited to development including, but not limited to, land in the one-hundred year flood plain and significant drainage swales, land in slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater, public utility easements for transmission lines, stormwater management facilities and flood control devices, and lands having permanent or seasonally high water tables; (ii) areas to satisfy section 4.16, and (iii) areas to provide reasonable buffering between dissimilar uses within the development and between the development and adjoining properties. 2. Redesign during review. The agent may require the redesign of a proposed development to accommodate open space areas as may be required under this section 4.7, provided that the redesign shall not reduce the number of dwelling units permitted under the applicable zoning district. 3. Limitation on certain elements. If open space is required by this chapter, not more than eighty (80) percent of the minimum required open space shall consist of the foll owing: (i) land located within the one-hundred year flood plain; (ii) land subject to occasional, common or frequent flooding as defined in Table 16 Soil and Water Features of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia, August, 1985; (iii) land in slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater critical slopes; and (iv) land devoted to stormwater management facilities or flood control devices, except where the facility or feature is incorporated into a permanent pond, lake or other water feature deemed by the agent to constitute a desirable open space amenity. d. Ownership of open space. Open space may be privately owned or dedicated to public use. Open space in private ownership shall be subject to a legal instrument ensuring the maintenance and preservation of the open space that is approved by the agent and the county attorney in conjunction with the approval of the subdivision plat or site plan. Open space dedicated to public use shall be dedicated to the county in the manner provided by law. Open space dedicated to public use shall count toward the minimum required open space. (12-10-80, §§ 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4; 6-3-81, 11-15-89; Ord. 09-18(1), 1-14-09, § 4.7) Sec. 5.1.43 Special events Each special event authorized by section 10.2.2(50) shall be subject to the following: a. Eligibility and applicability. Special events may be authorized on those parcels in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district on which there is an existing and ongoing by-right (section 10.2.1) primary use. A special event special use permit issued under section 10.2.2(50) and this section shall not be required for special events associated with farm wineries or historical centers, or for events determined by the zoning administrator to be accessory to a primary use of the parcel. b. Information to be submitted with application for special use permit. In addition to any information otherwise required to be submitted for a special use permit, each app lication for a special use permit shall include the following: 1. Concept plan. A preliminary schematic plan (the “concept plan”) satisfying section 32.4.1. The concept plan shall identify the structure(s) to be used for the special event, include the area of the structure(s) in which the proposed special events will be conducted, the parking area, and the entrance to the site from the street. The concept plan shall address, in particular, provisions for safe and convenient access to and from the street, the location of the parking area, the location of portable toilets if they may be required, proposed screening as required by this section for parking areas and portable toilets, and information regarding the exterior appearance of the proposed site. Ba sed on the concept plan and other information submitted, the board of supervisors may then waive the requirement for a site plan in a particular case, upon a finding that the requirement of a site plan would not forward the purposes of this chapter or othe rwise serve the public interest. 2. Information from the Virginia Department of Health. The applicant shall submit written comments from the Virginia Department of Health regarding the private water supply and the septic disposal system onsite sewage system that will serve the proposed special event site, the ability of the water supply and the septic disposal system onsite sewage system to handle the proposed events, and the need to improve the supply or the system in order to handle the proposed events. 3. Building and fire safety. The building official and the county department of fire and rescue shall review and comment on the application, identifying all Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code issues and requirements. c. Zoning compliance clearance. The applicant shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance under section 31.5 prior to conducting a special event. A single zoning clearance may be obtained for one (1) or more such special events in a calendar year as follows: 1. The zoning administrator may issue a single zoning compliance clearance for more than one (1) special event if: (i) the application submitted by the applicant includes the required information in subsection 5.1.43(c)(3) for each special event to be covered by the zoning compliance clearance: (ii) the zoning administrator determines that each special event is substantially similar in nature and size; and (iii) the zoning administrator determines that a single set of conditions that would apply to each such special event may be imposed with the zoning compliance clearance. 2. The applicant shall apply for a zoning compliance clearance at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the first special event to be authorized by the zoning compliance clearance. The application shall be submitted to the zoning administrator, who shall forward copies of the application to the county police department, the county building official, the county department of fire and rescue, and the local offic e of the Virginia Department of Health. As part of his review, the building official shall determine whether the structure(s) proposed to be used for the special events satisfies the requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code for that use. 3. The application shall describe the nature of each special event to be authorized by the zoning compliance clearance, the date or dates and hours of operation of each such special event, the facilities, structures to be used, and the number of participants and support staff expect to attend each special event. 4. Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance and all conditions of the special use permit are satisfied, and imposing all conditions of such approval required by the offices identified in subsection 5.1.43(c)(2), the zoning administrator shall issue a zoning compliance clearance for one or more special events. The validity of the zoning compliance clearance shall be conditional upon the applicant’s compliance with all requirements of the zoning ordinance, all conditions of the approved special use permit, the approved concept plan or site plan, and all conditions imposed by the zoning compliance clearance. d. Special events sites and structures. In addition to all other applicable requirements of this chapter, special events sites and structures shall be subject to the following: 1. Structures used for special events. Each structure used for a special event shall satisfy the following: (i) the structure shall have been in existence on the date of adoption of this section 5.1.43, provided that this requirement shall not apply to accessory structures less than one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size; (ii) the structure shall be a lawful conforming structure and shall support or have supported a lawful use of the property; and (iii) modifications to farm buildings or farm structures as those terms are defined in Virginia Code § 36-97 shall allow the structure to revert to an agricultural use, as determined by the building official. 2. Minimum yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum front yard shall be seventy-five (75) feet. The minimum side yard shall be twenty-five feet (25) feet. The minimum rear yard shall be thirty-five (35) feet. All yards shall be measured from structures and off-street parking areas. These minimum yard requirements shall apply to all accessory structures established after the effective date of this section 5.1.43 and all tents, parking areas and portable toilets used in whole or in part to serve special events. 3. Parking. The number of off-street parking spaces for a special event shall be as required in section 4.12.6. Notwithstanding section 4.12.15(a) through (g), the additional parking area(s) for special events shall consist of or be constructed of pervious materials including, but not limited to stabilized turf, approved by the county engineer. Asphalt and impervious materials are prohibited. If the parking area is on grass or in a field, the applicant shall reseed and restore the parking area site as required by the zoning administrator. In addition to the requirements of section 4.12.5, the parking area shall be onsite and screened from abutting parcels by topography, structures or new or existing landscaping. Notwithstanding section 4.12.16(d) and (e), the delineation of parking spaces and the provision of bumper blocks shall not be required. 4. Water and sewer. The private water supply and septic disposal system onsite sewage system serving a special event shall be approved by the Virginia Department of Health. 5. Streets and access. Streets serving the site shall be adequate for anticipated traffic volume for a special event. Access from the street onto the site shall be a dequate to provide safe and convenient access to the site, and applicant shall install all required improvements and provide adequate sight distance in order to provide safe and convenient access. e. Special events operations. In addition to all other applicable requirements of this chapter, special events operations shall be subject to the following: 1. Number of participants. The number of participants at a special event at any one time shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) persons 2. Number of special events per year. The special use permit shall identify the number of approved special events per calendar year, which number shall not exceed twenty -four (24). 3. Signs. Permanent and temporary signs advertising a special event shall be permitted as provided in sections 4.15.4, 4.15.4A and 4.15.8. 4. Food service. No kitchen facility permitted by the Virginia Department of Health as a commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the site. A kitchen may be used by licensed caterers for the handling, warming and distribution of food, but not for cooking food, to be served at a special event. 5. Portable toilets. If required, portable toilets are permitted on the site, provided that they comply with the yard requirements in section 5.1.43(d)(2) and shall be screened from that parcel and any street by topography, structures or new or existing landscaping. f. Prohibition of development to a more intensive use. A parcel subject to a special events special use permit shall not be subdivided so as to create one or more parcels, including the parent parcel, of less than twenty-one acres in size without first amending the special use permit to expressly authorize the subdivision. If a parcel is so subdivided without first amending the special use permit, special events shall thereafter be prohibited on the resulting parcels unless a new special use permit is obtained. (Ord. 05-18(8), 7-13-05) Sec. 5.1.44 Farm worker housing Each farm worker housing facility shall be subject to the following: a. Concept plan to be submitted with application for farm worker housing. Before applying for the first building permit for a farm worker housing, Class A, facility, or in addition to any other information required to be submitted for a farm worker housing, Class B, special use permit, the applicant shall submit a concept plan meeting the requirements of section 5.1.44(b). b. Contents of concept plan. The concept plan shall show the following: (i) the boundary lines of the farm (may be shown on an inset map if necessary); (ii) the location and general layout of the proposed structures at a scale of not more than one (1) inch equals forty (40) feet; (iii) vehicular access, travelways and parking for the facility; (iv) topography (with a contour interval of no greater than ten (10) feet); (v) critical slopes; (vi) streams, stream buffers and floodplains; (vii) source(s) of water for fire suppression; (viii) building setback lines as provided in subsection 5.1.44(g) below; and (ix) outdoor lighting. The concept plan also shall include a written description of each structure’s construction and materials used, and the number of persons to be housed in the farm worker housing facility. c. Notice of receipt of concept plan to abutting owners . The zoning administrator shall send notice of the receipt of a concept plan as follows: 1. Farm worker housing, Class A, facility: For each concept plan received for a farm worker housing, Class A, facility, the zoning administrator shall send notice to the owner of e ach lot abutting the parcel for which a concept plan has been received within ten (10) days after submittal of the concept plan deemed by the zoning administrator to be complete. The notice shall include a copy of the concept plan and shall advise each re cipient of the right to submit written comments within ten (10) days of the date of the notice and the right to request planning commission review as provided in section 5.1.44(d). Notice mailed to the abutting owner shall be mailed to the last known address of the owner, and mailing the notice to the address shown on the current real estate tax assessment records of the county shall be deemed compliance with this requirement. The failure of an abutting owner to receive the notice required by this section shall not affect the validity of an approved concept plan or zoning compliance clearance. 2. Farm worker housing, Class B, facility: For each concept plan received for a farm worker housing, Class B, facility, notice to the owner of each lot abutting the parcel for which a concept plan has been received shall be provided in conjunction with the notice required for the special use permit. d. Request for planning commission review and action on farm worker housing, Class A, facility concept plan. An abutting owner to whom notice for a farm worker housing, Class A, facility concept plan under section 5.1.44(c)(1) and who submitted timely written comments about the concept plan as provided therein may request that the planning commission review and act on the concept plan. The request shall be in writing, state the reasons why the commission should review the concept plan, and be filed with the director of planning within ten (10) days after the date of the notice from the zoning administrator. ed. Review and action on concept plan. A concept plan shall be reviewed and acted upon as follows: 1. Farm worker housing, Class A, facility. For a farm worker housing, Class A, facility, the concept plan shall be approved by the zoning administrator or the planning commission, as the case may be, before any building permit is issued for the facility. The concept plan shall be approved by the zoning administrator or the commission if it satisfies all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance and the design is determined to not be a substantial detriment to abutting parcels this chapter. In approving the concept plan, the zoning administrator or the commission may impose reasonable conditions to mitigate impacts on abutting parcels arising from facility. The commission shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the zoning administrator, the director of planning and other officials. In addition, the commission may consider such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application. 2. Farm worker housing, Class B, facility. For a farm worker housing, Class B, facility, the concept plan shall be reviewed and acted upon in conjunction with the special use permit. fe. Farm worker housing facilities; permissible structures. Farm worker housing facilities shall not use motor vehicles or major recreational equipment, as that term is defined in section 4.12.3(b)(1) of this chapter, to provide for sleeping, eating, food preparation, or sanitation (bathing and/or toilets). gf. Minimum yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum front yard shall be seventy-five (75) feet. The minimum side and rear yards shall be fifty (50) feet. All yards shall be measured from the farm worker housing struct ures. hg. Zoning compliance clearance. The owner shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance from the zoning administrator as provided in section 31.2.3.2 31.5 of this chapter before a farm worker housing facility is occupied, subject to the following additional requirements: 1. The applicant shall apply for a zoning compliance clearance at least thirty (30) days prior to the first expected occupation of the farm worker housing facility. The application shall be submitted to the zoning administrator. 2. The zoning compliance clearance application shall include all of the following information: a. Written approval of the farm worker housing facility as a migrant labor camp under 12 VAC 5-501-10 et seq., the food preparation area, the private water supply, and the septic disposal system onsite sewage system by the Virginia Department of Health. b. Approval of the access to the site from a public street by the Virginia Department of Transportation; provided that nothing herein shall be deemed to require that a commercial entrance be constructed unless such an entrance is required by the Virginia Department of Transportation. c. Written approval of the adequacy of the access to the site for emergency vehicles by the fire marshal. d. Written approval of the adequacy of the structures intended for human habitation by the building official. 3. Upon the zoning administrator’s determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance are satisfied, that all conditions of the special use permit authorizing a farm worker housing, Class B, facility, are satisfied, and upon receipt of the approvals and documents required in section 5.1.44(hg)(2), the zoning administrator shall issue a zoning compliance clearance for the facility. ih. Use of farm worker housing facility by workers and their families only. A farm worker housing facility shall be occupied only by persons employed to work on the farm on which the structures are located for seasonal agriculture work and their immediate families as provided herein. For purposes of this section 5.1.44, the term “immediate families” means the natural or legally defined off-spring, grandchild, grandparent, or parent of the farm worker. ji. Use of farm worker housing facility when not occupied. When not occupied by seasonal farm workers, farm worker housing facilities may be used for any use accessory to a primary agriculture use. (Ord. 06-18(2), 12-13-06) Article III. District Regulations Sec. 10.5.2 Where permitted by special use permit 10.5.2.1 The board of supervisors may authorize the issuance of issue a special use permit for more lots than the total number permitted under sections 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2; provided that no such permit shall be issued for property within the boundaries for the watershed of an y public drinking water supply impoundment water supply reservoir, and further provided that no such permit shall be issued to allow more development lots within a proposed rural preservation development than that permitted by right under section 10.3.3.3(b). (Added 11-8-89; Amended 5-5-04 effective 7-1-04) The board of supervisors shall determine that such division is compatible with the neighborhood as set forth in section 31.2.4.1 31.6.1 of this chapter, with reference to consideration of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan relating to rural areas including the type of division proposed and , specifically, as to this section only, with reference to consideration of the following: (Amended 11-8-89) 1. The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Natural Resources Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry. 2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same shall be is shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Natural Resources Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Natural Resources Conservation Service. 3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent that is reasonably available. 4. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed development on the character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be in an agricultural or forestal area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the border of such property has been in commercial agricultural or forestal use within five (5) years of the date of the application for special use permit. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. 5. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the boundary of such property was in parcels of record of five (5) acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. 6. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers, services and employment centers. A property within areas described below shall be deemed in proximity to the area or use described: a. Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary as described in the comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89) b. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as described in the comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89) c. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a village as described in the comprehensive plan. (Amended 11-8-89) 7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming in regard to increased provision of services. 8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the Virginia Department of Transportation: (Amended 11-8-89) a. Occasion the need for road improvement; b. Cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable road; c. Increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road. 9. With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying wholly or partially within the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water impoundment, the following additional factors shall be considered: a. The amount and quality of existing vegetative cover as related to filtration of sediment, phosphorous, heavy metals, nitrogen and other substances determined harmful to water quality for human consumption; b. The extent to which existing vegetative cover would be removed or disturbed during the construction phase of any development; c. The amount of impervious cover which will exist after development; d. The proximity of any paved (pervious or impervious) area, structure, or drain field to any perennial or intermittent stream or impoundment; or during the construction phase, the proximity of any disturbed area to any such stream or impoundment; e. The type and characteristics of soils including suitability for septic fields and erodability; [ f. The percentage and length of all slopes subject to disturbance during construction or upon which any structure, paved area (pervious or impervious) or active recreational area shall exist after development; g. The estimated duration and timing of the construction phase of any proposed development and extent to which such duration and timing are unpredictable; h. The degree to which original topography or vegetative cover have been altered in anticipation of filing for any permit hereunder; i. The extent to which the standards of Chapter 17 et seq. of the Code of Albemarle can only be met through the creation of artificial devices, which devices will: 1. Require periodic inspection and/or maintenance; 2. Are susceptible to failure or overflow for run-off associated with any one hundred year or more intense storm. (§ 20-10.5.2.1, 12-10-80; 11-8-89; §18-10.5.2.1, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-18(1), 5-5-04 effective 7-1- 04) I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________. __________________________________ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd ____ ____ Mr. Dumler ____ ____ Ms. Mallek ____ ____ Mr. Rooker ____ ____ Mr. Snow ____ ____ Mr. Thomas ____ ____ STA-2012-00001 Water/Sewer – Recommended Revisions to Subdivision Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 12-14( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE III, SUBDIVISION PLAT REQUIREMENTS AND DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED, AND ARTICLE IV, ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND DESIGN, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, Article I, General Provisions, Article III, Subdivision Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted, and Article IV, On-site Improvements and Design, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 14-106 Definitions Sec. 14-309 Soil evaluations By Amending and Renaming: Sec. 14-310 Health director approval of individual private wells and/or septic systems Sec. 14-415 Central water supplies and sewerage systems Sec. 14-416 Individual private wells and septic systems Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land Article I. General Provisions Sec. 14-106 Definitions The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this chapter: . . . Alternative onsite sewage system. The term “alternative onsite sewage system” means a treatment works approved by the Virginia Department of Health that is not a conventional onsite sewage system and does not result in a point source discharge. . . . Conventional onsite sewage system. The term “conventional onsite sewage system” means a treatment works approved by the Virginia Department of Health consisting of one or more septic tanks with gravity, pumped, or siphoned conveyance to a gravity distributed subsurface drainfield. . . . Onsite sewage system. The term “onsite sewage system” means a conventional onsite sewage system or an alternative onsite sewage system. . . . Subsurface drainfield. The term “subsurface drainfield” means a system installed within the soil and designed to accommodate treated sewage from a treatment works. . . . Treatment works. The term “treatment works” means any device or system used in the storage, treatment, disposal or reclamation of sewage or combinations of sewage and industrial wastes, including but not limited to pumping, power and other equipment and appurtenances, septic tanks, and any works, including land, that are or will be (i) an integral part of the treatment process or (ii) used for ultimate disposal of residues or effluents resulting from such treatment. Article III. Subdivision Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted Division 2. Documents and Information to be Submitted with Preliminary or Final Plat Sec. 14-309 Soil evaluations. The subdivider shall submit to the agent with each final plat the results of percolation tests or other methods of soil evaluation used to determine the suitability of the soil for septic systems with conventional drain fields, if septic systems subsurface drainfields, if conventional onsite sewage systems are proposed to be used in the development of the subdivision, and the r esults are requested by the agent. These results shall be forwarded by the agent to the health director. (9-5-96, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, § 18-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05) State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(3), 15.2-2262. Sec. 14-310 Health director approval of individual private wells and/or septic systems onsite sewage systems. If required as a condition of final plat approval, a final plat shall not be approved if individual private wells are proposed for the subdivision until written approval has been received from the health director by the agent. A final plat shall not be approved if septic systems onsite sewage systems are proposed for the subdivision until written approval has been received from the health director by the agent, provided further that if the subdivision will be served by conventional onsite sewage systems as follows: A. The health director shall determine the suitability of the soil of each lot of the subdivision for which septic systems with a conventional drain field conventional onsite sewage systems will be constructed, and shall submit his opinion to the agent. B. The health director may require as a condition of his approval of the installation of septic systems conventional onsite sewage systems and, whenever necessary for the satisfactory installation of the septic systems, that individual lots be graded and drained so as to assure the effective removal of surface water from each lot. C. Special lots shall not be subject to this section unless the special lot is created for a water supply or waste disposal purpose. (Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05; Ord. 11-14(1), 6-1-11) State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2242(2), 15.2-2262. Article IV. On-Site Improvements and Design Division 3. Water, Sewers and Other Improvements Sec. 14-415 Central water supplies and sewerage systems. A subdivision for which public water and/or sanitary sewerage service is not reasonably available as provided in section 14-414, and which will have twenty-five (25) or more lots of two (2) acres or less, may be served by a central water supply or central sewerage system, or both, if authorized by the board of supervisors under chapter 16 of the Code, as follows: A. A subdivision whose net average lot size is less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet shall have both a central water system and a central sewerage system. A subdivision whose net average lot size is between forty thousand (40,000) square feet and sixty thousand (60,000) square feet, inclusive, shall have either a central water system or central sewerage system. BA. The design and construction of each central water system and central sewerage system required by this section shall be approved by the Virginia Department of Health, or its local office, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and the board of supervisors. Each system shall complement or supplement existing or proposed county utilities to the extent that the agent fin ds existing public utilities to be inadequate. CB. Neither a central water system nor a central sewerage system shall be required : (i) for a subdivision whose net average lot size is greater than sixty thousand (60,000) square feet; or (ii) if the subdivider establishes to the satisfaction of the county engineer that the soils and parent materials of all of the lots created for the purpose of transfer of ownership are such that waste disposal methods for the entire property are satisfactory to the health director, and that no well pollution can occur from the proposed lot configuration. DC. No final plat for a subdivision served by a central water system and/or a central sewerage system shall be approved until the requirements of Chapter 21 of Title 1 5.2 of the Code of Virginia have been satisfied. (9-5-96, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, § 18-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 14-517; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6- 20-05) State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(4). Sec. 14-416 Individual private wells and septic systems onsite sewage systems. A subdivision for which public water and/or public sewerage service is not reasonably available as provided in section 14-414, and for which a central water supply and/or a central sewerage system is not authorized under section 14-415, shall be served by individual private wells or septic systems having conventional drainfields onsite sewage systems, or both, and shall meet all requirements of the health department and be approved by the health director. (§ 18-23 (part), 9-5-96, 8-28-74; § 18-27, 9-5-96, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, §§ 18-23, 18-27; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5- 98, § 14-518; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05) State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(3). I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________. __________________________________ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd ____ ____ Mr. Dumler ____ ____ Ms. Mallek ____ ____ Mr. Rooker ____ ____ Mr. Snow ____ ____ Mr. Thomas ____ ____ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Private water and sewer (Chapter 14) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to amend the subdivision regulations pertaining to private water and sewer systems STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Kamptner, Brooks, Higgins and Ms. McCulley AGENDA DATE: March 20, 2012 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: Since the County’s subdivision regulations pertaining to individual sewage systems were last amended, the General Assembly has mandated that alternative onsite sewage systems be allowed upon approval by the Virginia Department of Health, subject to regulations adopted by the Department of Health. The Department of Health’s final regulations pertaining to alternative onsite sewage systems became effective December 7, 2011. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to consider amending the subdivision regulations to incorporate the State requirements pertaining to alternative onsite sewage systems on February 28, 2012. DISCUSSION: The purposes of the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) are not only to incorporate the State requirements and allow alternative onsite sewage systems (County Code §§ 14-309, 14-310, 14-416), but also to improve the administration of the Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed ordinance would add several definitions pertaining to individual sewage systems (County Code § 14-106) and would use terminology that is both consistent within the Subdivision Ordinance and consistent with the terminology that would be used in the Zoning Ordinance under ZTA 2012-00002. The proposed definitions and terminology are based on relevant State law. The proposed ordinance also would eliminate the minimum lot size for lots served by private water and sewer systems (County Code § 14-415). This proposed change corresponds to the proposed amendment to County Code 18-4.1 in ZTA 2012-00002. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance (Attachment A). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Proposed ordinance Return to PC actions Draft: 03/15/12 1 ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. 12-14( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE III, SUBDIVISION PLAT REQUIREMENTS AND DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED, AND ARTICLE IV, ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND DESIGN, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, Article I, General Provisions, Article III, Subdivision Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted, and Article IV, On-site Improvements and Design, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 14-106 Definitions Sec. 14-309 Soil evaluations By Amending and Renaming: Sec. 14-310 Health director approval of individual private wells and/or septic systems Sec. 14-415 Central water supplies and sewerage systems Sec. 14-416 Individual private wells and septic systems Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land Article I. General Provisions Sec. 14-106 Definitions The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this chapter: . . . Alternative onsite sewage system. The term “alternative onsite sewage system” means a treatment works approved by the Virginia Department of Health that is not a conventional onsite sewage system and does not result in a point source discharge. . . . Conventional onsite sewage system. The term “conventional onsite sewage system” means a treatment works approved by the Virginia Department of Health consisting of one or more septic tanks with gravity, pumped, or siphoned conveyance to a gravity distributed subsurface drainfield. . . . Onsite sewage system. The term “onsite sewage system” means a conventional onsite sewage system or an alternative onsite sewage system. . . . Draft: 03/15/12 2 ATTACHMENT A Subsurface drainfield. The term “subsurface drainfield” means a system installed within the soil and designed to accommodate treated sewage from a treatment works. . . . Treatment works. The term “treatment works” means any device or system used in the storage, treatment, disposal or reclamation of sewage or combinations of sewage and industrial wastes, including but not limited to pumping, power and other equipment and appurtenances, septic tanks, and any works, including land, that are or will be (i) an integral part of the treatment process or (ii) used for ultimate disposal of residues or effluents resulting from such treatment. Article III. Subdivision Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted Division 2. Documents and Information to be Submitted with Preliminary or Final Plat Sec. 14-309 Soil evaluations. The subdivider shall submit to the agent with each final plat the results of percolation tests or other methods of soil evaluation used to determine the suitability of the soil for septic systems with conventional drain fields, if septic systems subsurface drainfields, if conventional onsite sewage systems are proposed to be used in the development of the subdivision, and the results are requested by the agent. These results shall be forwarded by the agent to the health director. (9-5-96, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, § 18-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05) State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(3), 15.2-2262. Sec. 14-310 Health director approval of individual private wells and/or septic systems onsite sewage systems. If required as a condition of final plat approval, a final plat shall not be approved if individual private wells are proposed for the subdivision until written approval has been received from the health director by the agent. A final plat shall not be approved if septic systems onsite sewage systems are proposed for the subdivision until written approval has been received from the health director by the agent, provided further that if the subdivision will be served by conventional onsite sewage systems as follows: A. The health director shall determine the suitability of the soil of each lot of the subdivision for which septic systems with a conventional drain field conventional onsite sewage systems will be constructed, and shall submit his opinion to the agent. B. The health director may require as a condition of his approval of the installation of septic systems conventional onsite sewage systems and, whenever necessary for the satisfactory installation of the septic systems, that individual lots be graded and drained so as to assure the effective removal of surface water from each lot. C. Special lots shall not be subject to this section unless the special lot is created for a water supply or waste disposal purpose. (Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05; Ord. 11-14(1), 6-1-11) Draft: 03/15/12 3 ATTACHMENT A State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2242(2), 15.2-2262. Article IV. On-Site Improvements and Design Division 3. Water, Sewers and Other Improvements Sec. 14-415 Central water supplies and sewerage systems. A subdivision for which public water and/or sanitary sewerage service is not reasonably available as provided in section 14-414, and which will have twenty-five (25) or more lots of two (2) acres or less, may be served by a central water supply or central sewerage system, or both, if authorized by the board of supervisors under chapter 16 of the Code, as follows: A. A subdivision whose net average lot size is less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet shall have both a central water system and a central sewerage system. A subdivision whose net average lot size is between forty thousand (40,000) square feet and sixty thousand (60,000) square feet, inclusive, shall have either a central water system or central sewerage system. BA. The design and construction of each central water system and central sewerage system required by this section shall be approved by the Virginia Department of Health, or its local office, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and the board of supervisors. Each system shall complement or supplement existing or proposed county utilities to the extent that the agent finds existing public utilities to be inadequate. CB. Neither a central water system nor a central sewerage system shall be required : (i) for a subdivision whose net average lot size is greater than sixty thousand (60,000) square feet; or (ii) if the subdivider establishes to the satisfaction of the county engineer that the soils and parent materials of all of the lots created for the purpose of transfer of ownership are such that waste disposal methods for the entire property are satisfactory to the health director, and that n o well pollution can occur from the proposed lot configuration. DC. No final plat for a subdivision served by a central water system and/or a central sewerage system shall be approved until the requirements of Chapter 21 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Vi rginia have been satisfied. (9-5-96, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, § 18-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 14-517; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05) State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(4). Sec. 14-416 Individual private wells and septic systems onsite sewage systems. A subdivision for which public water and/or public sewerage service is not reasonably available as provided in section 14-414, and for which a central water supply and/or a central sewerage system is not authorized under section 14-415, shall be served by individual private wells or septic systems having conventional drainfields onsite sewage systems, or both, and shall meet all requirements of the health department and be approved by the health director. (§ 18-23 (part), 9-5-96, 8-28-74; § 18-27, 9-5-96, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, §§ 18-23, 18-27; Ord. 98-A(1), 8- 5-98, § 14-518; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05) State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(3). Draft: 03/15/12 4 ATTACHMENT A I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________. __________________________________ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd ____ ____ Mr. Dumler ____ ____ Ms. Mallek ____ ____ Mr. Rooker ____ ____ Mr. Snow ____ ____ Mr. Thomas ____ ____ ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1 MARCH 20, 2012 - DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES ZTA-2012-2 AND STA-2012-1 WATER/SEWER REGS Albemarle County Planning Commission March 20, 2012 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, March 20, 2012, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Richard Randolph, Bruce Dotson, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Don Franco, Calvin Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present. Other officials present were Lee Catlin, Assistant to the County Executive for Community and Business Partnerships, Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Phil Custer, Engineer; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Ron White, Director of Housing; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Francis MacCall, Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Public Hearing Item: STA-2012-00001 Water/Sewer Amend Secs. 14-106, Definitions, 14-309, Soil evaluations, 14-310, Health director approval of individual private wells and/or septic systems, 14-415 Central water supplies and sewerage systems, and 14-416, Individual private wells and septic systems, of Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend the regulations pertaining to onsite sewage systems serving subdivision lots by adding definitions pertaining to onsite sewage systems (14-106), and by allowing subdivision lots to be served by either conventional or alternative onsite sewage systems, requiring health director review of such systems, and revising the terminology (14-309, 14-310 and 14-416); and would amend the minimum area requirements for lots served by central water supplies or central sewerage systems (14-415). A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Glenn Brooks) Mr. Brooks summarized STA-2012-00001, Water/Sewer Regulations, which is the corresponding subdivision text amendment. In the sections of Code staff added the state definitions and allowed a provision for onsite alternative systems. Mr. Kamptner noted the purpose for this zoning text amendment was simply to align the subdivision ordinance with the changes that the C ommission just recommended in the zoning ordinance, which brings these regulations up-to-date with state statutes and regulations. Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. There being no questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Neil Williamson, with The Free Enterprise Forum, said he believed Mr. Dotson may have misspoken. There is nothing in any of the regulations that controls the pace of development in the rural area or the development area. The pace of development is controlled by the markets. There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to the Planning Commission for additional discussion and a recommendation. Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of STA-2012-00001, Water/Sewer Regulations. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Morris said that STA-2012-00002, Water Sewer Regulations, will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval at a date to be determined.