HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA200700003 Action LetterLrf2C;l1�ZA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner
DATE: September 24, 2007
Fax(434)972 -4012
RE: ZTA2007 -00003 Zoning Ordinance & STA2007 -00002 Subdivision Ordinance
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 11, 2007, by a vote of 4:0,
recommended approval of the above -noted Zoning Text Amendments and Subdivision Text Amendment
to the Board of Supervisors.
The Board is scheduled to hold a public hearing on this item at its October 10, 2007 night meeting. An
updated staff report will be provided in the near future.
JM /SM
Work Session:
ZTA- 2007 -00003 - Zoning Ordinance; critical slopes; safe and convenient access
Amend Sec. 4.2.3, Location of structures and improvements, Sec. 4.2.4, Location of septic
systems, Sec. 4.2.6, Exemptions, and Sec. 4.6.6, Lot access requirements, of Chapter 18,
Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would prohibit the disturbance of slopes
of 25% or greater ( "critical slopes ") in order to establish or maintain a street, driveway, or a yard
on a lot in the rural areas zoning district, and would reorganize the section (Sec. 4.2.3); would
require that septic systems, including the drain field, be located within the approved building site
for the lot and, in the rural areas zoning district, prohibit disturbing critical slopes to establish or
maintain a septic system, including the drain field (Sec. 4.2.4); would eliminate for lots within the
rural areas zoning district the conditional exemption allowing the disturbance of critical slopes to
establish access ways (including streets, driveways and alleys) and storm water management
facilities and the provision allowing such improvements to be located outside of the building site
(Sec. 4.2.6); and would establish vehicular access requirements (minimum standards for grade,
width, distance from dwelling unit, clear zone) for lots in the rural areas zoning district to assure
that safety vehicles have safe and reasonable access to dwelling units (Sec. 4.6.6). (Joan
McDowell)
AND
STA 2007 -00002 - Subdivision Ordinance; family divisions; contour intervals; individual
lot grading
Amend Sec. 14 -212, Family subdivisions; conditions of approval, Sec. 14 -302, Contents of
preliminary plat, and Sec. 14 -309, Soil evaluations, of Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the
Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would require that a lot created by family division be
held by a member of the immediate family for 15 years and recordation of a restrictive covenant
prohibiting transfer of the lot to a non - family member for such period (Sec. 14 -212); would
amend the contour intervals at which topography must be shown on a preliminary subdivision
plat and require that, in the rural areas zoning district, the preliminary subdivision plat must
include the proposed grading showing all individual lot grading, including access, clearing and
all other lot improvements (Sec. 14 -302); and would require that in the rural areas zoning
district, the soil evaluation to determine the suitability of the soil for septic systems with a
conventional drain field be conducted within the building site shown on the approved preliminary
plat (Sec. 14 -309). (Joan McDowell)
After taking public comment, the Planning Commission took a 10 minute break at 7:55
p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:09 p.m.
Action on STA- 2007 - 00002, Subdivision Ordinance; family divisions; contour intervals;
individual lot grading:
Motion: Mr. Cannon moved, Mr. Craddock seconded, to approve the proposed amendments to
the Subdivision Ordinance, STA- 2007 - 00002, to include the proposals for changes to the
contour intervals; individual lot grading provisions and to include the following amendments to
the family division requirements:
The family division requirements would have a total holding period of 15 years with the
further requirement that at least 5 of those years occur after the subdivision.
Ms. Joseph asked if there was any further discussion. She asked Mr. Brooks to give a brief
overview of the contour interval and individual lot grading.
Mr. Brooks said that this had to do with the critical slope provisions, but not necessarily with the
family divisions. It is part of the Subdivision Text Amendment.
Ms. Joseph said that there are two different things here. They have the zoning text and the
subdivision text. She wanted to make sure that it was clear what was going on.
Mr. Brooks said that in the contour interval they were looking at language less specific and
referring to the actual topography that has been flown by the County instead of giving it a foot
interval. The current ordinance has a 5' minimum contour. If their aerial topography that the
County is supplying to the public is better than that, then they want to use it. That is the change
in the contour interval.
Mr. Cannon said that was not a substantive change.
Mr. Brooks noted that it changed the look of the application, but was not substantive in changing
the regulation.
Mr. Cannon asked if the individual lot grading change was substantive.
Mr. Brooks said that this change has to do with the driveways and the other disturbances.
Currently the way the ordinance is implemented and written is that in a standard subdivision the
grading that is being done for the house, building or the driveways does not have to necessarily
be shown. It shows the general grading for the yards and that kind of thing. Typically what is
shown on the plat is only for the public or private road that has to be built. This is actually being
more specific with the language and saying that any grading that is planned in a subdivision
needs to be shown on the plat, such as two driveways or areas planned to be graded flat. It can
show staff at the planning stage whether critical slopes are going to be disturbed or not. Staff
does not get that information currently.
The role was called
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. (Mr. Strucko voted aye in the hopes that the Board of
Supervisors review the minutes of this discussion and he encourages them to consider some of
the provisions outlined in that discussion.) (Mr. Morris, Mr. Edgerton and Mr. Zobrist were
absent.)
Ms. Joseph noted that it was a long discussion, but the Commission hopes that the essence of
the discussion and how much they are concerned about the fact that they are creating these
substandard lots was forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. But, the Commission understands
the need for that.
In summary, the Planning Commission held a discussion about their concerns about the
proposal and requested the Board of Supervisors to consider the following provisions as
outlined:
Concerns made regarding the timing of the family division. The proposal needs to
protect and balance the rights of the family and land owner, but still protect the safety
and welfare of the general public to avoid the potential sale of a substandard lot with an
unsafe access.
Safety and welfare of the public that parcel hits market and the consumer has something
less than safe access.
All options (the 0 years before and 15 years following and the alternative 15 years
cumulative) have limitations, which need to be understood.
Concern about the parent parcel being under the ownership restrictions.
When put parcel on public market, it needs to have certain safety standards (potential of
having a substandard road).
Need to assure with family division that there is a reasonable safe access and we need
to make sure there is adequate access that turns it into a conventional development
upon sale to a non - family member.
Speed limit concern for safety for school buses and emergency vehicles. Could speed
bumps be used to set a speed limit appropriate for the road?
Facilitate family divisions, but with some tradeoffs.
Question raised on how to retrofit a family division to a conventional division upon sale of
the lot.
Action on ZTA- 2007 - 00003, Zoning Ordinance; critical slopes; safe and convenient
access:
Mr. Cannon said that this is a good, carefully thought through proposal. He appreciates very
much the burdens it imposes on some property owners. He thinks that the County should only
take such steps or impose such burdens where the benefits are clear. In this case they are
clear. This proposal grows out of a long process with a lot of folks from a lot of different points
of view coming together and trying to figure out what would be the best thing to protect critical
areas in the County. Those representatives included representatives of property rights groups
as well as environmental groups. It was a broad spectrum of the community. They came up
with the critical slopes as the proper focus. Glenn's presentation today made it clear that there
is a sound technical basis for that focus, that these provisions are appropriate efforts to try to
address the concerns here, and that there are appropriate relief mechanisms, including waiver
provisions, for citizens where these regulations create an undue hardship. He would be in favor
of the proposal as it is being put forward here.
Ms. Joseph asked if that would include administrative approval of waiver requests.
Mr. Cannon replied that would include administrative approval of waiver requests on the terms
that are included in the proposal as discussed earlier.
Mr. Strucko said that there is recourse for applicants that do not get the decision from the
administrative review that they are hoping for. They can appeal to the Planning Commission?
He asked if there was provision in there for that.
Ms. McDowell replied yes.
Mr. Joseph asked to see definition of the mitigation measures and whether it is confining the
road to a certain area that is reasonable or it is removing excess trees or not. They need to
make it easy to use for county staff and the public. It is important because if they are talking
about E & S measures for all kinds of things, they need to start thinking about how this is going
to work in some of these very long driveways, if there is no other ways that it is accessible. The
Mountain Overlay District Committee did decide that if someone had a perfect site that they had
always wanted to place a house that they would have the ability to do so with some sort of
mitigation measures to get up to the site. She would like something like that worked out.
Mr. Cannon felt that the mitigation measures should be explicitly keyed to the purposes of the
critical slopes ordinance that they talked about earlier, which are multiple purposes. So
mitigation should not focus solely on erosion, because there are other considerations that are
behind and supporting the critical slopes ordinance. Mitigation should be focused to mitigate
and protect those other interests. He did not know if that was a footnote to this or just our
suggestion to the Board and their proposed guidance to staff. But, he would be strongly in favor
of that.
Mr. Brooks said that this is guidance on a policy that staff will put together on how to implement
the ordinance.
Mr. Cannon said that they can't write that in the ordinance. They don't know enough.
Ms. Joseph asked if he was still talking policy and not ordinance language.
Mr. Brooks said yes, that is what he was clarifying. If they have to now put it into the ordinance,
it is a much more difficult order.
Mr. Cannon said that he was content to have it be guidance to staff, as long as they pay
attention to it.
Ms. Joseph asked that they make sure that the policy is written down some where so that
people coming in know what they are supposed to be doing.
Mr. Brooks said that staff can put together a section in the Design Standards Manual specifically
for erosion control plans that come in for rural subdivision driveways and lots of disturbances
which is being called for in this amendment. It can go beyond erosion control. They can
address the 5 items such as the aesthetics, the storm water run off, the structural integrity and
all those sorts of things. If they also intent to address the safe and convenient access, then they
should say so because that is not a mitigation. It may actually be sort of counter - productive to
mitigation if they have to make the driveway more accessible and less steep or more secure so
to say. They have some conflicting goals, if that is the case.
Ms. Joseph said that they have changed the maximum slope to 16 percent as far as the
driveways are concerned.
Mr. Brooks replied that is correct. For example, the driveway that they looked at would have to
be a longer driveway. To get 16 percent they would have a few more turns.
Mr. Strucko said that he wanted to make sure there is no retroactive anywhere in the proposed
changes, so they are going from a date certain moving forward.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes.
Ms. Joseph asked what happens if someone is in process and this amendment gets approved.
Mr. Kamptner said that it depends on where someone is in the process. If they have a
preliminary subdivision plat approval, under State law, if they have diligently pursued that
preliminary approval and they have incurred extensive obligations or expended substantial
funds they will have to go through a determination by the zoning administrator. But, if they have
satisfied those things they will be found to have vested rights. They will fall under the current
regulations that were in effect when the preliminary plat was approved. They have to be certain
that preliminary plat is still valid at the time they try to exercise their rights.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that one of the things that have been done in the past was to put the
effective date out a period of time. On the Neighborhood Model it might have been 180 days on
that particular ordinance provisions. So the things that were in the pipe -line would have a
chance to clear. Everyone would know the 180 day effective date. That is something that the
Commission can recommend.
Mr. Cannon said that he was not sure if 180 days was the right period of time. That is a long
period of time. He would be in favor of 60 to 90 days.
Mr. Strucko said that this one was more difficult for him to come to terms with on a variety of
things and issues. This is the one thing that he thought they received good substantial
conversation on December 13, 2006, in a joint Board of Supervisors work session. From the
conversations that he heard among the Board of Supervisors he thought that this particular set
of provisions received the most favorable review, but yet here it is back before the Commission
for consideration. Again, he was not sure if his recommendations have changed in the 9
months intervening. But, he wanted to make sure there are appropriate details in here. His
concern was retroactive application for existing roads, driveways and alley ways. He felt that it
would be unfair to force landowners that are currently there to suddenly upgrade to a new set of
rules. He was sensitive to those who have projects in the process while this thing is being
considered and deliberated on. Some of the speakers tonight expressed a concern if they are
going to have the courage to say that they are concerned with the rural area or not concerned
with the rural areas. Collectively the Commission expressed concerns that they are looking at
Albemarle County in its entirety and are committed to a set of policies and principles to preserve
and protect the Rural Areas while protecting property rights and to concentrate growth into the
designated growth areas for a variety of good policy reasons. In his tenure on the Commission
he felt that a lot of their activities had been doing a lot of rezoning of growth area parcels,
increasing the densities and the number of development rights all for the sake of this policy. Yet
they have done nothing to protect the rural areas other than to encourage the purchase of
development rights and conservation easements. They have not advocated the dedication of
additional resources. They don't have the power of the purse. The Board needs to step up and
start allocating some resources towards the purchase of development rights. There is certainly
something they can do here. He questioned why they don't require the same for other structures
such as roads? Some feel it is a loophole that needs to be closed. Others ask how they can
get to the parcel being developed unless they have access to a building that may not involve
critical slopes. Either way they are looking to protect critical slopes one way or the other. He
has come to the conclusion that here is a step they can take directly to do something to protect
the rural areas small as it is. There is still opportunity for exceptions, which he agrees with.
Therefore, he agreed with Mr. Cannon. He asked that the Board consider this matter.
Mr. Craddock agreed with Mr. Strucko. When working on the Mountain Overlay District
Committee the critical slopes was one of the critical components of it. The fact that the political
will have to be there for this rural protection is yet to be seen. He left the meeting in December
fairly excited because the Supervisors brought it up that they wanted to extend the MOD
provisions to the flat lands, also. Then with Mr. Brooks' presentation about the history of the
critical slopes, it made it even more imperative that they do move it to the Board of Supervisors
and get it off the dead center. Then they can do what they want.
Ms. Moneith said that a lot of words have been passed. As long as there is a way for an
exemption they should really try to protect the critical slopes. It should be happening.
Ms. Joseph said that when they started about talking about the critical slopes, they talked about
what goes on in the urban areas. In the urban areas they do allow the exemptions and thought
that it made sense to allow the exemptions in the rural areas also with mitigation. The other
thing she would like to ask Mr. Brooks before the Commission takes any action on this is that
she hears about the policy and realizes that staff is going to write this in the manual, but she
wants to know more about that process. Is there any input from the community before it gets
into the manual?
Mr. Brooks replied that the way it was currently written there is a one month period of input, but
they could expand that if the Commission would like.
Ms. Joseph asked if staff would put it on the web, send it out or call people in.
Mr. Brooks said that, currently, staff has an email list that contains most of the local citizens. He
would send out a notice on the email list. They also put it on the web site. Staff has had an
open forum on the web site in the past. The manual is on the County's web site. That is
currently the process. In the past when there were big changes that staff feels has a large
impact they held meetings. In the recent Design Manual changes, he advertised an open
discussion meeting that was held in the County Office Building. They have not had a lot of
participation in that, but they may have better participation now.
Ms. Joseph said that would be important so that everyone knows that they are listening and
they hear. They want to make sure that they are doing something that really protects what they
want it to protect. The Commission has received a lot of good input tonight. If staff could have
at least one round table to let people know about the mitigation standards and provide it on
email that would be great.
Mr. Brooks said that staff could do that.
Mr. Cannon asked if all of the administrative waivers proposed for the critical slopes were
limited to lots that would be in existence at the time of the statute. Or, does it apply only to
waiver #3.
Mr. Brooks replied certainly not. That is not in any of the writing. That was one scenario that he
could think of for #3, but there are many others.
Mr. Cannon wanted to make sure that the proposal they might be voting on would be that at
least to waiver #3 there would be availability of that waiver only for lots that currently do not
exist or would be in existence by the time that the ordinance would be adopted. He asked if that
was the intent.
Mr. Brooks replied that it was not, but they could add that. It was sort of an open ended waiver.
The way it was written was if they found a case in which staff agreed with the applicant that
there was no alternative it would be allowed to be administratively waived. He could not think of
all of the scenarios. One of the things he has learned in doing text amendments is that they can
not think of all of the scenarios that might happen.
Mr. Cannon said that makes this more important.
Ms. Joseph said that what they have been hearing from people is that not allowing the waiver
would make any further subdivision of their property impossible.
Mr. Cannon said that he needs to understand Ms. Joseph's comments about mitigation. He
understands by minimization and mitigation that there are two things that would be required.
First, all adverse impacts would be required to be minimized. Then those that could not be
eliminated through that minimization process would be fully offset by mitigation. That
minimization and mitigation would occur across the range of concerns stated in the critical
slopes ordinance in the passage they looked at in the beginning.
Mr. Brooks replied that is clear.
Mr. Cannon noted that is essential if this is to work.
Mr. Kamptner asked to go back to Mr. Cannon's first question regarding waiver #3. That is
corresponding to waiver #C1 in the proposed regulations. It is on page 2 of the September 5,
2007 draft.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that it was Attachment 6 in the packet.
Mr. Kamptner asked to which lots that waiver would pertain. It does include that it would apply
to a proposed dwelling unit on a lot of record created before the effective date of the
amendment to this section.
Mr. Cannon asked if it would not be applicable to lots created after that.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the lots being created after that should not be creating the situation
requiring a waiver. There would still be a waiver that would be allowed.
Mr. Cannon asked if his initial understanding was correct, and Mr. Brooks replied yes.
Ms. Joseph noted that she felt the same when the Commission talked about the Rural Areas
part of the Comp Plan. They spent a lot of time talking about the residential use of the land
itself. That is exactly what they are doing here. It is a little disconcerting to think that what they
expect of our rural areas is to be residential.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that they might need to make one more recommendations that did not show
up in the amendment.
Ms. McDowell said that one discussion held at staff level was about the concern on page 2
about the land disturbing activity, the waste and the fill areas authorized by Section 4.3.01.
They talked about removing that. Mr. Brooks can address a little bit about what happens with fill
and waste areas. But basically, if they had 2 hills they could top them off, fill the area between
and then put the house on the fill area.
Mr. Brooks said that was correct. Fill and waste areas is an existing loophole in the ordinance.
It is a fairly broad definition. It means that someone has to turn in an erosion control plan on an
agricultural piece of property and they can fill.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that #7 is the reference that they are covering. The suggestion is that
would not be an administrative waiver.
Mr. Brooks agreed.
Ms. Joseph said that particular one would not be an administrative waiver.
Mr. Brooks said that was correct. They would eliminate #7.
Mr. Kamptner said that under current Section 4.2.3 it is completely exempt anyway. So this
would be shifting it over to a section 4.2.5 waiver.
Mr. Brooks agreed. It would have to come before the Planning Commission. It is difficult to do
this because it is grading and it is disturbance. It is just a matter of what you call it. Instead of
calling it a foundation for a house or a driveway or a future roadway, if they suddenly call it a fill
and waste area no matter what its shape or appearance then it is exempt. So it is difficult as a
staff person to say no I don't believe you, I think it is a driveway if they are calling it a fill and
waste area.
Ms. Joseph said that it came from the fact that they did not want to regulate the rural areas in
this manner. So now they are thinking about this in terms that it is more of a residential use.
Mr. Brooks said that staff does not see very many fill and waste areas that are of a rural nature.
Action on ZTA- 2007 - 00003, Zoning Ordinance; critical slopes; safe and convenient
access:
Motion: Mr. Cannon moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, to recommend adoption of the proposed
changes of the Zoning Ordinance, ZTA- 2007 - 00003, to the Board of Supervisors, which
includes the proposals for changes to the critical slopes; safe and convenient access with staff's
recommendations, as amended, as follows:
1. Specific guidance be prepared on mitigation measures necessary to qualify for [section
4.2.3(c)(4)] and placed in the Design Standards Manual.
2. Guidance by staff to be prepared after the adoption of the ordinance with opportunity for
public input and written to be consistent and forward the concerns underlying the critical
slopes ordinance that the Commission talked about earlier.
3. Subsection 4.2.3(c)7, as recommended by staff, should be deleted as listed on
Attachment 6 regarding the land disturbing activity that occurs in a fill or waste area
authorized by section 4.3.01.
Mr. Cilimberg asked for a clarification when they were talking mitigation policy they referred to a
particular waiver #3.
Mr. Cannon replied that it was to implement that waiver as he understood it.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that they look at page 2 of Attachment 6 to make a reference to a
section that they feel that is applying to. There is a list of 6 administrative waivers since
#7 was deleted, which would not be included in the recommendation. The question is where
they connect the mitigation policy standards. Do they connect them to all of the administrative
waivers or to a particular one or more?
Mr. Cannon asked if other waivers involve mitigation.
Mr. Kamptner noted that [section 4.2.3(c)] #1, #4 and #6 require mitigation. Subsection #3
requires reasonable conditions imposed by the County Engineer to assure that the erosion
condition is corrected.
Ms. Joseph said that is where that policy needs to come in so that people won't be worried and
that Mr. Brooks has some guidelines to work with.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in #C3 they are looking for reasonable conditions.
Mr. Kamptner said that #3 that Mr. Cannon referred to on the screen does not correspond with
the numbers in the ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg said that Ms. Joseph was mentioning this #3 and staff was trying to make sure
they know which one it was connected to. It is a detail that was important in order to understand
what the expectation is.
Mr. Cannon noted that administrative waiver #3 [as it appeared on the screen] applies only to
lots in existence at the time that the ordinance is adopted.
Ms. Joseph replied that is in there.
Mr. Kamptner asked for discussion on the delayed effective date.
Mr. Cannon amended the motion that the delayed effective date be 60 days.
Mr. Strucko seconded the amended motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0 with the following recommendations: (Mr. Morris, Mr.
Zobrist and Mr. Edgerton were absent.)
1. Specific guidance be prepared on mitigation measures necessary to qualify for [section
4.2.3(c)(4)] and placed in the Design Standards Manual.
2. Guidance to be prepared by staff after the adoption of the ordinance with opportunity for
public input and written to be consistent and forward the concerns underlying the critical
slopes ordinance that the Commission talked about earlier.
3. Subsection 4.2.3(c)7, as recommended by staff, should be deleted as listed on
Attachment 6 regarding the land disturbing activity that occurs in a fill or waste area
authorized by section 4.3.01.
4. The effective date of the ZTA should be 60 days after the date of adoption.
Ms. Joseph stated that ZTA- 2007 - 00003, Zoning Ordinance; critical slopes; safe and convenient
access will be sent to the Board of Supervisors with their recommendations for approval. But,
the Board date has not been set.
(The Board of Supervisors has scheduled a meeting to hear these matters on October 10,
2007 at 6:00 p.m.)
OF �I.g.
,>t �rL
COUNTY OF ALBEtIARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road. Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4012
TO: File / �1
FROM: Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
DATE: March 7, 2008 �Jv�
RE: WPTA2007 -00001 (Water Protection Text Amendment) & ZTA2007 -00003 (Zoning
Text Amendment) & STA2007 -00002 (Subdivision Text Amendment)
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on February 6, 2008, by a vote of 4:2,
adopted the above -noted Water Protection Text Amendment, Zoning Text Amendment and Subdivision
Text Amendment.
WC(SM
ORDINANCE NO. 08 -17(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 17, WATER PROTECTION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF ALEMARLE, VIRGINIA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE I, GENERAL, ARTICLE II, EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL, AND 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 I, General, Article II, Erosion and Sediment Control, and Article III, Stormwater
management and water quality, are amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 17 -104 Definitions
Sec. 17 -200 Applicability
Sec. 17 -317 Duty to retain or establish stream buffer
Sec. 17 -321 Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority
Chapter 17. Water Protection
Article I. General
Sec. 17 -104 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this chapter:
(32) Perennial stream. The term "perennial stream" means any stream that is depicted as a
continuous blue line on the most recent United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic
quadrangle maps (scale 1:24,000) or which is determined by the program authority to be perennial
following a site - specific evaluation using the guidance entitled "Determinations of Water Bodies with
Perennial Flow," dated September 2003, issued by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department.
This definition shall not apply to streams within a development area or area of infill and redevelopment
that have been piped or converted legally and intentionally into stormwater conveyance channels such
that the stream does not resemble or maintain the characteristics of a natural stream channel, as
determined by the program authority.
Article 11. Erosion and Sediment Control
Sec. 17 -200 Applicability.
This article shall apply to any land disturbing activity as provided herein:
A. Except as provided in paragraph (B), each owner shall comply with the requirements of
this article:
1. prior to engaging in any land disturbing activity, or allowing any land disturbing
activity to occur, on his property;
2. at all times during such land disturbing activity until it is completed, including all
times when the land disturbing activity is performed by a contractor engaged in construction work;
1 when notified by the program authority that an erosion impact area exists on his
land, and the notice requires the owner to submit an erosion and sediment control plan in order to control
erosion and sedimentation; and
4. for the prior construction of an agricultural road, when the owner submits a
preliminary or final plat, preliminary or final site plan, an application for a zoning map amendment to a
non - agricultural zoning district, or an application for a special use permit for a use or activity not directly
related to agriculture for the lot on which the agricultural road is located or serves, if both: (i) the plat; plan
or application was submitted within twenty -four (24) months after construction of the agricultural road
began; and (ii) the program authority determines that the dimensions and alignment of the agricultural
road substantially correspond to the dimensions and alignment of a road proposed on the plat, plan or
any document submitted as part of an application.
B. This article shall not apply to the following activities:
individual home gardens, landscaping, repair and maintenance work;
individual service connections;
3. installation, maintenance, or repair of any underground public utility lines when
such activity occurs on an existing hard - surfaced road, street or sidewalk; provided that the land
disturbing activity is confined to the area of the road, street or sidewalk which is hard surfaced;
4. septic tank lines or drainage fields, unless included in an overall plan for land
disturbing activity relating to construction of the building to be served by the septic tank system;
surface or deep mining;
6. exploration or drilling for oil and gas, including the well site, roads, feeder lines
and off -site disposal areas;
7. tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural or forest crops, livestock
feed operations or products, or related engineering operations including, but not limited to, construction of
terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds, ditches, strip cropping, lister
furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage and land irrigation. This exception shall
not apply to: (i) the harvesting of forest crops unless the area on which harvesting occurs is reforested
artificially or naturally in accordance with the provisions of Virginia Code §§ 10.1 -1100 et seq. or is
converted to bona fide agricultural or improved pasture uses as described in Virginia Code § 10.1 -
1163(B), in which case such person shall comply with the provisions of this article when grading,
excavating, or filling; (ii) a land disturbing activity related to the construction of farm structures, including
but not limited to agricultural structures or roads not associated with tilling, planting and harvesting; and
(iii) the construction of roads other than agricultural roads;
8. the construction of agricultural roads, except as provided in paragraph (A)(4);
9. repair or rebuilding of the tracks, right -of -way, bridges, communication facilities
and other related structures and facilities of a railroad company;
10. installation of fence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and other
kinds of posts or poles; and
11. emergency work to protect life, limb or property, and emergency repairs;
provided that if the land disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion and sediment control
plan if the activity was not an emergency, the land area shall be shaped and stabilized in accordance with
the requirements of the program authority.
C. Any activity that is otherwise exempt from this article under paragraph (B) shall become
subject to this article if the program administrator determines that an erosion impact area exists on the
subject property as provided in section 17 -202.
(§ 7 -31 6- 18 -75, § 51 2- 11 -76, 4- 21 -76, 2- 11 -87, 3- 18 -92, § 19.3 -8, 2- 11 -98, Code 1988, §§ 7 -3, 19.3 -8;
Ord. 98 -A(1), 8 -5 -98; Ord. 08- 17(1), 2 -6 -08)
State law reference - -Va. Code §§ 10.1 - 560, 10.1 -562, 10.1 -563.
Article III. Stormwater management and water quality
Sec. 17 -317 Duty to retain or establish stream buffer.
Except as provided in section 17 -319, any land subject to this article and each stormwater
management/BMP plan shall provide for stream buffers for the purposes of retarding runoff, preventing
erosion, filtering nonpoint source pollution from runoff, moderating stream temperature, and providing for
the ecological integrity of stream corridors and networks, as provided herein:
A. If the development is located within a development area or an area of infill and
redevelopment, stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on any
lands subject to this article containing perennial streams, and/or nontidal wetlands contiguous to these
streams. The stream buffer shall be no less than one hundred (100) feet wide on each side of such
perennial streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the nontidal
wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist.
B. If the development is located within a water supply protection area or other rural land,
stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on any lands subject to
this article containing perennial or intermittent streams, nontidal wetlands contiguous to these streams,
and flood plains. The stream buffer shall extend to whichever of the following is wider: (i) one hundred
(100) feet on each side of perennial or intermittent streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured
horizontally from the edge of the nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist; or
(ii) the limits of the flood plain. The stream buffer shall be no less than two hundred (200) horizontal feet
wide from the flood plain of any public water supply impoundment.
C. On agricultural lands used for crop land, whether located in a development area, an area
of infill and redevelopment, a water supply protection area or other rural land, the stream buffer shall
include all perennial streams, non -tidal wetlands contiguous with these streams, and a twenty -five (25)
foot buffer, measured horizontally from the edge of contiguous non -tidal wetlands, or the top of the stream
bank if no wetlands exist. On these lands, the stream buffer shall be managed to prevent concentrated
flows of surface water from breaching the buffer area. Each owner of crop land with a stream buffer shall
have developed by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District a soil and water
conservation plan, or a component thereof, which, shall be based on an assessment of existing
conservation practices of the crop land.
D. Each stream buffer shall be maintained and incorporated into the design of the land
development to the fullest extent possible.
E. Except for the activities pertaining to the management of a stream buffer identified in
section 17 -318, the types of development authorized in a stream buffer identified in section 17 -320, and
the additional types of development which may be allowed in a stream buffer identified in section 17 -321,
no indigenous vegetation within the stream buffer shall be disturbed or removed, regardless of the size of
the area affected.
(§ 19.3 -41, 2- 11 -98; § 19.2 -8, 6- 19 -91, Code 1988, §§ 19.2 -8, 19.3 -41; Ord. 98 -A(1), 8 -5 -98; Ord.
08- 17(1), 2 -6 -08)
State law reference - -Va. Code § 10.1 -2108.
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 which is located within a development area but is not within a water supply
protection area: within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward (furthest from
the stream);
2. on a lot which is located within a water supply protection area or other rural land: within
the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward, but only for stormwater
conveyance channels or other necessary infrastructure, and only if such development is determined by
the program authority to be necessary to allow a reasonable use of the lot. In all cases under this
paragraph, the building site and the sewage disposal system shall be located outside of the stream buffer:
3, on a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of a lake, pond, or
ecological/wetland restoration project;
4. on a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction and
maintenance of a driveway or roadway, and the program authority determines that the stream buffer
would prohibit reasonable access to a portion of the lot which is necessary for the owner to have a
reasonable use of the lot;
5. 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
6. 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)
State law reference - -Va. Code § 10.1 -2108.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after February 6, 2008 provided, however, that any subdivision
plat, site plan or application for a building permit submitted on or before February 5, 2008, and approved
on or before June 6, 2008, may be approved under the applicable regulations in effect on February 5,
2008.
ORDINANCE NO. 08 -18(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC 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 II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.6.6 Lot access requirements
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article 2. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.6.6 Lot access requirements
Vehicular access on a lot shall be provided as follows:
In all zoning districts, a structure requiring a permit under the Uniform Statewide Building Code
may be established only on a lot having frontage on a public or private street as authorized by the
subdivision ordinance, except that this requirement shall not apply to lots lacking such frontage
on the effective date of this chapter.
In the rural areas zoning district, in addition to the requirements in subsection (a) and in order to
provide public safety vehicles with safe and reasonable access to a new dwelling unit on a lot,
each driveway that will serve a new dwelling unit: (1) shall not exceed a sixteen (16) percent
grade; (2) shall have a travelway that is at least ten (10) feet in width; (3) shall extend to within
fifty (50) feet of each dwelling unit on the lot; and (4) shall include a rectangular zone superjacent
to the driveway that is clear of all obstructions, including any structures and vegetation, that is at
least ten (10) feet in width and fourteen (14) feet in height. The landowner shall demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the county engineer that the driveway will meet the requirements of this
subsection before a building permit is issued.
Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (b), the county engineer, with the
recommendation of the fire marshal, may authorize a driveway having a grade that exceeds
sixteen (16) percent if the landowner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the county engineer and
the fire marshal that public safety vehicles would be able to access the dwelling unit even though
the grade may exceed sixteen (16) percent. In considering a waiver request, the county engineer
and the fire marshal shall consider: (1) the length of the segment of the driveway that would
exceed sixteen (16) percent; (2) whether the segment that would exceed sixteen (16) percent
would require the public safety vehicle to travel uphill towards the dwelling unit; (3) whether fire
suppression equipment such as sprinklers would be installed within the dwelling unit; and (4)
whether the dwelling unit is within fifty (50) feet of a public or private street. In authorizing such a
grade, the county engineer may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the public safety
vehicles may access the dwelling unit including, but not limited to, a condition limiting the
maximum length any segment of the driveway may exceed sixteen (16) percent.
The landowner may appeal the disapproval of a waiver under subsection (c), or the
approval of a waiver with conditions objectionable to the landowner, to the commission.
The appeal shall be in writing and be filed with the department of community
development within ten (10) days after the date of the county engineer's and the fire
marshal's decision. In reviewing a waiver request, the commission may approve or
disapprove the waiver based upon the applicable factors in subsection (c); amend any
condition imposed by the county engineer and fire marshal, and impose any conditions it
deems necessary to assure that public safety vehicles may access the dwelling unit. In
so doing, the commission shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the
county engineer and the fire marshal. In addition, the commission may consider such
other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the waiver request.
The landowner may appeal the decision of the commission to the board of supervisors
under the same procedure and subject to the same standards as an appeal to the
commission set forth herein.
d. Any lot which was lawfully a lot of record on the effective date of subsection (b) shall be exempt
from the requirements of that subsection for the establishment of the first single - family detached
dwelling unit on the lot if the county engineer determines that those requirements would prohibit
the practicable development of the lot for that first single - family detached dwelling unit.
(§ 4.6.6, 12- 10 -80; 5- 21 -86; Ord. 98 -A(1), 8 -5 -98; Ord. 08-18(l), 2 -6 -08)
This ordinance shall be effective on and after February 6, 2008 provided, however, that any application
for a building permit submitted on or before February 5, 2008, and approved on or before June 6, 2008,
may be approved under the applicable regulations in effect on February 5, 2008.
ORDINANCE NO. 08 -14(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, AND ARTICLE 11,
ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE, 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, and Article II, Administration and Procedure, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 14 -212 Family subdivisions; conditions of approval
Sec. 14 -302 Contents of preliminary plat
Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land
Article 11. Administration and Procedure
Division 3. Procedures for Rural Subdivisions, Family Subdivisions,
Boundary Line Adjustments, Vacations and Easement Plats
Sec. 14 -212 Family subdivisions; conditions of approval
Each approval of a plat for a family subdivision shall be subject to the following conditions:
A. No lot may be created by family subdivision unless it has been owned by the current
owner or a member of his or her immediate family for at least four (4) consecutive years immediately
preceding the date the family subdivision plat is submitted under section 14 -210.
B. No lot created by the family subdivision, including the residue, may be transferred, except
by devise, descent or operation of law, to a person other than an eligible member of the immediate family
of the subdivider, for a period of four (4) years after the date of recordation of the plat, except for
purposes of securing any purchase money and/or construction loan, including a bona fide refinancing, or
if the lending institution requires in writing that the spouse of the member of the immediate family be a co-
grantee and co -owner of the lot. The subdivider shall place a restrictive covenant on the lots created by
the family subdivision prohibiting the transfer of the lots so created to a person who is not a member of
the immediate family for the retention period after the date of recordation. The restrictive covenant shall
be subject to review and approval by the county attorney before it is recorded. If the lot created is
conveyed back to the grantor during the retention period, it shall be recombined with the parent lot within
six (6) months after such conveyance and no building permits shall be issued for the lots until they are
recombined.
C. The entrance of the principal means of access for each lot onto any public street shall
comply with Virginia Department of Transportation standards and be approved by the Virginia Department
of Transportation.
D. The following note shall be added to each plat for a family subdivision: "No lot shown on
this family subdivision plat may be sold or conveyed to a person other than an eligible 'member of the
immediate family:' as that term is defined in Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code, for a period of
four (4) years after the date of recordation of this plat except as authorized by section 14- 212(A) of the
Albemarle County Code. If any lot created by the recordation of this plat is conveyed back to the grantor
during the four (4) year period, it shall be recombined with the parent lot within six (6) months after such
conveyance."
(9 -5 -96, 1 -3 -96, 4- 13 -88, 12- 21 -83, 10- 17 -79, 8- 28 -74, 1988 Code, § 18 -57; Ord. 98 -A(1), 7- 15 -98; Ord.
05- 14(1), 4- 20 -05, effective 6- 20 -05, Ord. 08- 14(1), 2 -6 -08)
State law reference - -Va. Code §§ 15.2- 2244(C), 152- 2244.1.
Article Ill. Subdivision Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted
Division 1. Plat Requirements
Sec. 14 -302 Contents of preliminary plat,
A preliminary plat shall contain the following information:
A. A preliminary plat shall contain the following information, which must be included in order
for a preliminary plat to be deemed complete under section 14- 216(8):
1. !Name of subdivision. The title under which the subdivision is proposed to be
recorded. The title shall not duplicate or be a homonym of an existing or reserved subdivision name
within the county, the City of Charlottesville, or the Town of Scottsville, except if the subdivision is an
extension of an existing subdivision.
2. Vicinity map. A map at a scale of one (1) inch equal to two thousand (2,000) feet
showing the property and its relationship with adjoining land and streets, its relationship with landmarks in
the area and, if the subdivision is a phased subdivision, all other phases of the subdivision for which a
final plat has been approved, in detail adequate to describe the location of the property without field
review.
3. Existing or platted streets. The location, width and names of all existing or
platted streets and all other rights -of -way.
4. Private easements. The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed
private easements. Existing easements shall be labeled with the deed book and page number and the
name of the owner of record.
5. Public easements. The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed
public easements outside of a street right -of -way. Existing easements shall be labeled with the deed
book and page number and the name of the public owner of record. Proposed easements shall be
labeled as "dedicated to public use."
6. Alleys and shared driveways. The location and dimensions of all easements for
alleys and shared driveways.
7. Existing and departing lot lines. If the property consists of more than one existing
lot, then the identification of the existing lots and their outlines, which shall be indicated by dashed lines;
and, the location of departing lot lines of abutting lots.
8. Proposed lots. The number, approximate dimensions, and area of each
proposed lot
9. Building sites on proposed lots. The location, area and dimensions of a building
site on each proposed lot complying with the requirements of section 4.2 of the zoning ordinance. The
plat shall also contain the following note: "Parcel [letter or number] and the residue of Tax Map /Parcel
[numbers] each contain a building site that complies with section 4.2.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance"
10. Right of further division of proposed lots. The number of lots, as assigned by the
subdivider, into which each proposed lot may be further divided by right pursuant to section 10.3.1 of the
zoning ordinance, if applicable. The plat shall also contain the following note: "Parcel [letter or number] is
assigned [number] development rights and may /may not be further divided and when further divided
these rights shall not comprise more than [number] acres. The residue of Tax Map /Parcel [numbers] is
retaining [number] development rights and when further divided it shall not consist of more than [number]
acres."
11. Instrument creating property proposed for subdivision. The deed book and page
number of the instrument whereby the property was created, as recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county.
12. Topography. Existing topography at the time of plat submittal at up to twenty [20]
percent slope, with a contour interval that is not greater than the interval on aerial topography available
from the county. The source of topography, including survey date and name of the licensed professional
or a statement that topography data provided by the county was used. Proposed grading, with a contour
interval equal to the intervals of the existing topography, supplemented where necessary by spot
elevations; areas of the site where existing slopes are twenty -five (25) percent or greater. Existing
topography for the entire site with sufficient offsite topography to describe prominent and pertinent offsite
features and physical characteristics, but in no case less than fifty (50) feet outside of the site unless
otherwise approved by the agent. For property in the rural areas zoning district, the proposed grading
shall show all grading on each proposed lot, including access, clearing and all other lot improvements.
13. Proposed facilities. The location of proposed water and sewer lines and related
improvements; proposed drainage and stormwater management facilities and related improvements.
14. Land to be dedicated in fee or reserved. The location, acreage, and current
owner of all land intended to be dedicated in fee or reserved for public use, or to be reserved in a deed for
the common use of lot owners in the subdivision.
15. Identification of all owners and certain interest holders. The names and
addresses of each owner of record and holders of any easements affecting the property.
B. A preliminary plat shall also contain the following information, provided that the
preliminary plat shall not be deemed incomplete for purposes of section 14- 216(B) if it does not include
this information in the initial plat submittal:
1. General information. The date of drawing, including the date of the last revision,
the number of sheets, the north point, and the scale. If true north is used, the method of determination
shall be shown.
2. Name of plat preparer. The name of the person who prepared the plat.
3. Public areas, facilities or uses. The location of all areas shown in the
comprehensive plan as proposed sites for public areas, facilities or uses, as described in Virginia Code §
15.2 -2232, which are located wholly or in part within the property.
4. Places of burial. The location of any grave, object or structure marking a place of
burial located on the property.
5. Zoning classification. The zoning classification of the property, including all
applicable zoning overlay districts, proffers, special use permits and variances.
6. Tax map and parcel number. The county tax map and parcel number of the
property.
7. Reservoir watershed; agricultural- forestal district. A notation as to whether the
land is within an Albemarle County and/or City of Charlottesville water supply watershed or an
agricultural- forestal district.
8. Yards. The location of all yards required by this chapter and the zoning
ordinance, which may be shown graphically or described in a note on the plat.
9. Flood plain. The location of any part of the property within the flood hazard
overlay district, as set forth in section 30.3 of the zoning ordinance.
10. Stream buffers. The location of stream buffers required by section 17 -317 of the
water protection ordinance, with the following note: 'The stream buffer(s) shown hereon shall be
managed in accordance with the Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance."
(9 -5 -96, 2 -4 -81, 8- 28 -74; 1988 Code, § 18 -52; Ord. 98 -A(1), 8 -5 -98; Ord. 05- 14(1), 4- 20 -05, effective 6-
20-05; Ord. 08- 14(1), 2 -6 -08)
State law reference - -Va. Code §§ 15.2 - 2241(1), 15.2 -2258, 15.2 -2262.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after February 6, 2008 provided, however, that any subdivision
plat submitted on or before February 5, 2008, and approved on or before June 6, 2008, may be approved
under the applicable regulations in effect on February 5. 2008.
Lrf2C;l1�ZA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: David B. Benish, Chief of Planning
DATE: August 20, 2007
Fax(434)972 -4012
RE: ZTA2007 -00003 Critical Slopes, Safe and Convenient Access
STA2007 -00002 Family Divisions
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 7, 2007, by a vote of 5:0,
recommended deferral to of the above -noted Zoning Text Amendment and Subdivision Text Amendments
to August 21, 2007 Planning Commission meeting.
DBB /SM