HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-01
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TENTATIVE
AUGUST 1, 2006
BURLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM
ROSE HILL DRIVE
6:00 P.M.
JOINT MEETING WITH ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. To receive comments from the public on a proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's
Mountain Resources (Mountain Overlay District).
5. Adjourn.
.
I
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of August 1, 2006
August 14, 2006
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to Order.
. Meeting was called to order at 6:00
p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker.
All BOS members were present.
Also present were Planning
Commission members Jon Cannon,
Eric Strucko, Pete Craddock, J 0
Higgins, and Marcia Joseph, and
Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, and
Sharon Taylor.
4. To receive comments from the public on
a proposal for Protection of Albemarle
County's Mountain Resources
(Mountain Overlay District).
. RECIEVED
5. Adjourn.
. At 8:09 p.m., the meeting was
adjourned.
July 26, 2006
To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
From: League of Women Voters
Re: Proposed Regulatory Frameworks for Consideration of Rural Clustering and Phasing and for a
Mountain Overlay District Ordinance.
In 2005, the League of Women Voters offered support for the proposed revisions to the Rural Areas
section of the Comprehensive Plan. For years, the League has supported implementation of the Natural
Resources section of the Comp Plan; within which is the Mountain Protection Plan.
The Rural Areas Plan states, "[t]he ongoing conversion of rural land from farms, forests, open spaces, and
natural habitats to residential uses is a central issue for the County." As a goal, the Plan identifies the need
to "reduce the level and rate of residential development in the Rural Areas." Last year, the Board of
Supervisors identified clustering and phasing as priorities for implementation. The League supports
moving forward with this dual objective
The Mountain Protection Plan recommends that the County "[p ]ursue additional protection measures to
protect mountain resources." The proposed framework for a mountain protection ordinance was
unanimously approved by a committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors. This proposal was
"designed to get development off critical slopes and out of stream buffer areas and to protect habitats and
watersheds, scenic and historic resources." The League supports moving forward with the
recommendations in this framework.
To retain the significant environmental, economic and quality of life benefits that we derive from our
Rural Areas and mountains, we must continue to support ag/for industries and increase our focus on land
conservation, and natural resource protection. Albemarle's growth management policies and regulations
created the designated Development Areas; we must now move forward with regulations that implement
the policies for the designated Rural Areas. The Comp Plan reflects this community's support for stricter
standards in the Rural Area. The proof of our resolve to retain the Rural Areas and protect the mountains
will be in the decisions that allow the implementation of the Comp Plan.
There is little doubt as to the fiscal, economic, and ecological impacts of the current rate and pattern of
rural subdivision. To reduce the impact of this trend, the League supports rural clustering and urges that
the development standards maximize the size of the preservation parcel, minimize the residential lot sizes,
and protect important soils and natural resources. In addition to clustering and to reduce the rate of rural
subdivision, the League supports the County's intent to simultaneously pursue phasing of development.
The League has long been concerned with the health of local rivers, streams, and groundwater. Protecting
the Rural Areas and the mountains will protect not only vital ecological resources but also those natural
systems that are directly related to the health and integrity of this community's public water supply.
Therefore, the League of Women Voters urges you to affirm your commitment to the Comprehensive
Plan and your responsibility to bringing to fruition the community's vision as established in that Plan by
supporting the development of regulations for rural clustering, rural phasing, and for mountain protection.
Thank you,
Nancy K. Button, President, Charlottesville/Albemarle L WV
And L WV Natural Resources Committee
0
__9' \. OlQ.
P~;i~j~~~ I
l
Currituck Farm "
P. O. Box 207
Earlysville V A 22936
August 1, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville V A 22902
Dear Members of the Board,
I believe in stewardship. I believe that people have responsibility to live lightly on the land, to leave
it better than we found it. I believe in community, the WE as opposed to the ME. What kind of
future do we want for our community? I urge you to continue the development of the Mountain
Overlay District into an ordinance to be considered at future hearings. There are so many benefits
from this process. I am particularly concerned about these topics:
Critical slopes. Construction of roads and homes on steep slopes causes much more damage than
work on the flat. Even light rain can bring about significant erosion and damage to waterways far
downstream.
Safety. When I lived in western New England I learned that road building was not allowed on
slopes above 10 % grade because rescue vehicles such as fire engines could not travel the slopes to
provide good service, especially in bad weather.
Stream protection buffers. As a farmer concerned about water quality, I understand it is difficult to
protect streams from erosion and bodies of water from siltation. When development is added to the
mix, the results are more damaging than cows walking down the stream bank to drink. On our farm
we have seen the benefit of fencing off streams and watering our cows from a tank and spring. All
the soil we disturb in our daily lives is carried at high speed to the Chesapeake Bay while our state
government is spending millions of our tax dollars to improve the environment of the Bay. Our
local actions are counter to the efforts at the state and regional level.
Our scenic beauty draws visitors to our area. Tourism dollars are low impact dollars. They do not
bring children to be educated or increase demand for other services. We need to protect the
attractions which bring those visitors. Equally important is the sense of happiness that county
residents achieve living here. We view the mountains daily and appreciate them. All of us have
traveled to other places where ridge lines are covered with condos or other buildings. I hope we do
not allow that here in Albemarle.
Please push ahead with the MOD ordinance. Thank you.
Ann Mallek
[:;ECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
Date: '6 . loCo
Agenda Itom I: \; 0. \J)hl -\~ ~D. ,iYlGa
-:.~ "'~':':'_'~ ~nit!a~s: ---
r , ~I /,bo(P oJkc,hmervY
.
( .
.
, Comments to the Albemarle County Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors
Mountain Overlay District Public Hearing - August 1, 2006
My name is Will Crowder. I live with my wife and two children in Ivy with a beautiful
view of the Ragged Mountains from my front door. I have come before this Planning
Commission and this Board of Supervisors many times in the past to support matters of
importance to me. I have advocated for the safety of my family, home, and property and
for the protection of the esthetic and natural resources of the rural community that
encompasses this county. I have argued against ill-advised zoning decisions and the
power of big money. Today I come before you to argue in support of both phasing and
clustering and this evening the Mountain Overlay District. It is quite easy to put forth a
strong argument in support of the Mountain Overlay District from the standpoint of
protecting beautiful recreational resources, important animal and plant habitat, and
valuable water resources. For once, tonight it is also quite easy to put forth a strong
economic argument in support of mountain-top protection.
According to a news story in the June 1 st, 2001 edition of USA Today, National Park
Service figures indicate that the Blue Ridge Parkway had 19 million visitors in the year
2000, making it the most popular National Park Service area. According to other
sources, such as the American Society of Landscape Architects, that number is now well
into 20 million. In a survey conducted in the summer and fall of 2002, researchers from
the University of North Carolina, Asheville and Warren Wilson College, in cooperation
with consultant Steven Stewart, collected and analyzed Blue Ridge Parkway visitor
responses to discover what value those visitors placed on visiting the Blue Ridge
Parkway. Reporting in National Park Service literature, the authors reported that about
one-fourth of respondents indicated that they would decrease their visits if scenic quality
declines, with a potential loss of revenues of over $3 billion to adjacent communities. If
scenic quality stays the same, 88 percent of respondents said they would increase the
number oftimes they visit each year from 5.2 to 6.5. Respondents reported spending an
average of $170 per day per visitor. More frequent visits would potentially generate
hundreds of millions of dollars of additional annual expenditures. To be fair in my
comments, the above quoted figures come from the North Carolina section of the
Parkway research, but the study goes onto to add that the general findings of the Virginia
survey are similar to the North Carolina survey. These findings are only for visitors to
the Blue Ridge Parkway and do not account for the additional income generated from the
two million visitors per year to the Shenandoah National Park which also sits in part in
Albemarle County, plus all the other visitors to the state and local recreational areas in
Albemarle County to which views of the surrounding Piedmont are so important. Thus,
in conclusion I am in full support of the intent of the Mountain Overlay District plan and
argue not only for the incalculable conservation resources associated with the mountains,
but also for protection of the vital economic base the mountains bring to our community.
":, ,::D r' 80S
, .:~. -M . QJ.J)
--- --------~---,~
.,,:.nd.:=:: /tern #:JLA~<'" .~ci_~
~ ." < ,.. . ~
. I.."
I I
Search
....
ECONOMICS OF PARKWAY VIEWS SURVEYED ~ Search this park
Search nps.gov
Laura Rotegard, (828) 271-4779 x 201
In dollar terms, the scenic views along the Blue Ridge Parkway in
North Carolina are worth upwards of $5 billion a year to the visitors
who enjoy them, and preserving the integrity of these views would net
the state's tourism economy hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
That's according to the recently completed North Carolina Scenic
Experience Survey that was released today by the National Park
Service.
The survey was conducted summer and fall of 2002 as a collaborative
project between the National Park Service, two universities, and an
independent consultant. A previously completed companion study
documented the value of views along the southwest Virginia section of
the Parkway.
In the just-released North Carolina survey, researchers from the
Departments of Economics at the University of North Carolina,
Asheville and Warren Wilson College, in cooperation with consultant
Steven Stewart, collected and analyzed 640 visitor responses to
discover what value visitors place on viewing scenes along the
parkway. According to the research team, visitors attach annual values
of $468-519 per person to experiencing the views along the Blue Ridge
Parkway between Asheville and the Virginia state line. This number
represents the cash value that visitors indicated would justly
compensate them for the loss of the experience of viewing scenes
along this section of the Parkway.
This sum exceeds values placed on camping, whitewater rafting and
hunting experiences for which similar data has been collected. The
Parkway in North Carolina averages more than 11 million visits a year
which yields a total visitor value of some $5 billion. This represents the
value of visitor satisfaction received and does not reflect expenditures.
Parkway Superintendent Daniel W. Brown said that, "While these dollar
values are impressive, the most significant finding is the extent and
depth of public support for protecting the scenery, which is really at
the heart of the Blue Ridge Parkway experience."
Respondents overwhelmingly supported resource protection efforts and
indicated that state government and local communities should assist
the National Park Service in preserving these views. Half also
supported the notion that users of the Parkway should pay to protect
j
it. . .
The existing condition of views was acceptable to study participants,
with 750/~ reporting high levels of satisfaction. There was strong
support fe; retaining the views as they are, with no further
degradation. Over three-fourths of those surveyed indicated that
scenic quality changes were evident in this section of the Parkway. The
changes of most concern were air pollution and housing developments.
Brown said the findings show how important it is for his staff to
maintain and manage the views that are within the Parkway corridor.
They also, "reinforce the importance of improving regional air quality
and the need for the parkway staff to work closely with local
communities, individual land owners and conservation groups to
protect the adjacent agricultural and other landscapes that attract our
millions of annual visitors,"
About one-fourth of respondents indicated that they would decrease
their visits if scenic quality declines, with a potential loss of revenues
of over $3 billion to adjacent communities. If scenic quality stays the
same, 88 percent of respondents said they would increase the number
of times they visit each year from 5.2 to 6.5. Respondents reported
spending an average of $170/day/visitor. More frequent visits would
potentially generate hundreds of millions of dollars of additional annual
expenditures.
Dr. Leah Greden Mathews, of UNC Asheville's Economics Department,
cautioned that the study was not designed to measure economic
impact. "Still," she said, "there is no question that changes in view
quality will directly affect the frequency of future visits and, in turn,
total visitor expenditures."
Dr. Mathews also said the study is significant because it estimates the
economic value that Parkway visitors receive from the unpriced
amenities of scenic beauty and visibility. "Just because people don't
directly pay for the scenic beauty of this region doesn't mean that they
have no value for it. Our study suggests that respondents value scenic
beauty and visibility very highly, and will change their visitation
behaviors if scenic quality is degraded." Researchers collected data for
eight days at the Folk Art Center near Asheville and at the Moses H.
Cone Memorial Park near Blowing Rock. Participants spent 20 minutes
answering up to 27 questions on a computer laptop. The methodology
included applied economic practices of choice modeling and contingent
valuation.
Visitors were asked to choose different groupings of ideal park
situations, which included mixes of view qualities, facility conditions,
and recreational activities with varying levels of budget support. From
these preferences, researchers were able to deduce the values that
visitors placed on the "experience" of viewing scenic overlooks and
roadside vistas as well as a total value for the entire "experience" of
being on the Parkway. In addition, respondents were asked directly
about their willingness to pay for scenic quality preservation along the
Parkway.
The general findings of the southwest Virginia and North Carolina
studies are similar, although respondents in the North Carolina study
indicated a greater inclination to reduce their future visits if views are
significantly degraded. Respondents in both studies had visited the
Parkway for an average of nearly 20 years.
Parkway Management Assistant Laura Rotegard, who coordinated the
j
. .
work. of the research team, said the results of both studies show that
"What Parkway visitors are taking home in their minds is as valuable
aS,what t<hey'rli putting into the communities as expenditures."
The Scenic 'Experience Project was funded by the non-profit Blue Ridge
Parkway Foundation, with support from the GoldenLEAF Foundation,
and the John Wesley and Anna Hodgin Hanes Foundation. UNC
Asheville and Warren Wilson College provided additional support.
The complete report and executive summary have been posted on the
Parkway's website at www.nps.govjblri. Click on "Management Docs"
and open "Scenic Experience Project-NNC (Phase II)."
Return to list >>
To the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County:
Statement on the "Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources"
Submitted by J. James Murray, 1 August 2006
I should like to express my wholehearted support for the County's attempt to
protect the invaluable mountain treasures of Albemarle County. We have only to look
southward to Nelson County to see the dreadful results of unfettered development of their
mountain lands. I am outraged each time I drive south from Rockfish Gap on the Blue
Ridge Parkway and see the thoughtless and selfish intrusion of the Wintergreen
construction on the skyline. We are fortunate indeed that at least some of our mountains
have the protection afforded by the Shenandoah National Park.
I applaud the efforts of the Mountain Overlay District Committee to reach a
compromise acceptable to all parties. The Committee has done an admirable job by
basing their recommendations on solid ecological principles, such as the protection of
watersheds, restriction of disturbance of critical slopes, and requirements for safe access.
These principles make their position on the restriction of development unassailable.
My principal concern with the future planning for the Mountain Overlay District
Ordinance is that there may not be general recognition of the extent to which the position
reached by the Committee represents a true compromise. This is not an extreme
protectionist stance. It is not a position from which to argue for further concessions to
development. It represents the very minimum required if the mountains are to have any
protection at all from the spread of the Wintergreen blight. Indeed, I am concerned about
the extent to which the proposed provision for waivers may offer opportunities for abuse.
I therefore urge the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to hold
the line on these hard-won agreements and to push forward without delay to place in
effect a Mountain Overlay District Ordinance for the County.
1601 entivar Farm Rd.
Charlottesville, V A 22911
1ED AT 80S MEF,"[,: :
- 8 "I" D~
1~m ,:~l iL '\-lQa 1\ 1
c"als: .___,
, j
.. ,.
COMMENTS
Your comments will be delivered to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
PLEASE PRINT
Comments Apply to: ~ Mountain Overlay District o Rural Areas - Phasing & Clustering o Both
Name: t),A",..? 1.-\.... I'^H...'\ '0,-\ Address: \':l9'5 Wt-lOORAN ~Ul'~E Non.:i~ 6-ALl)e~
I
(I) 1-'kEA~'E.. ~Or.l~ \E>c,L, II 1\ ~
IN. AOtWr,ot-J 10 'l\1E HA/L1).!Hlt W^\"t.A-. Ik} ITS
'Pl.hc..~) . A 'I \' s.ocJ\ A 'VonL~ ~\~~r
D\%',G-IJ. 'J'uSnFlCATI 0 tJ. tr-JA: ,V\?fL .
,
ALL6W A t...AtUt> ~ W...,)~A- 'io fl'H,\J e I INrrt1 A Crlt"\fV~ENSI\l ~ U Ill...\~t\{')) ANA\rl~ IS
,
t-~\l \ \\.MM~AL ItI\l'~ C:::l0\)'1 tit- .\.\.nt.OLO(,\<.... \~Vt:c;\\~A\IO,..,}, ~
, I
1 t-{ ~ f:y-.\Q, ( AS e ) A -l\o""~.5 ITe 6lt n C,. 't> fvV::,.,.\J /laVA ll--( &.JUL\t. YE'fieA,..-
.__.__u. ,
I 8S0( .
-.--- ~.--_.- Ar'~~~7_0 ~0fIrr OV L It\- a. No l't WQ\)\...l:> A.T 1'\ ~.s ~'0\1 ~ To
---~- ~.L '4\0 ~~ "il'{tS &\~l> lH;.: 1 . I ~ (VIA",- \"< ,/!yLe.A S, :f;twp A T THrT
,
C:lJd - 600' (' ~JOGr- j Ct'f.-J T3 It" FAt'L tv\ 0 (W;; 1f'\'t\~-rAU\ TQ \fu)
-
A J.fA ') R 1Jl.A l. c.J\r..,{l.-Ati-f"IL. ,.t\ At? I\A'\ Ar-)b \.JA T~^ ~~S"\.:)v fLL€'l lHA...J
, \
AC1Ac.ef"J I A.Q~A) \N ,-HE:: ftLOfDJ €D M.~.~_ fu)J.;;$~ A\L Q LJ
--_.._-~ \,O\)lt.-)E\...Vr:~ $,vr-e fl ~I t3 \ \... IT'" {70 ACLBf T It ft? O\"c:dAL W !i<.ct{ """'1 crftC
-.--_.~------~- 1; g r?€tI(;' f\ - "il\- AfJ 11t-e "L o~ \ ,.J (j-- F 0 ~ s t"'Fr_
------ (3) 1.1 1+\AI'-\~ 'i (}.J Fll/L ~OVVL I "'" r 0 jL "\4-foJ 1- "'" e "- It. !5,J ~ , t.l rt.6etJ \
N'ITEIl- . \It~ '[eA.M I'> -ro "BE' L6rv--/'V\ ~"'t P .
b 1Jt-~r- ------"",
-------
--, ~'~:-- ';--9 AT BaS f ~,.,.,. ",
-." "'-., , v1i:;;t:i.,,,J',,:;.J
->'1'\' 8, I ' V to
.,,;.,l......
t:;enda Itam It: pub/lL '-i-l.u;, r I Yll1:
~-'''''.(.:: ::1le:?;S:__r _'-=-~___
July-August 2006 Mountain Overlay and Rural Areas Phasing/Clustering Proposals
. ..
Joint Meeting of
Albemarle County Planning Commission
And
Board of Supervisors
1 August 2006
I am Carleton Ray, a resident of Albemarle County for 26 years. As a member
during the past decade of both your Mountain Protection and Mountain Overlay District
committees, I can assure you that the struggle has been worthwhile. MOD Committee
members held a wide diversity of opinions, but nevertheless achieved unanimous
consensus. The Proposal before you presents the minimum requirements for protection of
Albemarle's most valuable and valued resource - its mountains.
The adoption of this Proposal is an essential step towards fulfilling the promise of
the Comprehensive Plan. However, we must recognize what the development of an
Ordinance mayor may not accomplish. First, the Proposal advances protection of the
mountains and their watersheds. Second, the Proposal protects property rights and
suggests innovative mechanisms for establishing easements that could mutually benefit
property owners and the environment. Conversely, we must recognize that, in several
respects, this Proposal is a compromise. Watersheds and water quality will remain
vulnerable. Stream buffers of 200 feet on either side will be barely sufficient and must be
enforceable, and there is simply no way to build structures or roads on critical slopes
without severely damaging natural flows. However, this Proposal's greatest significance
lies in the opening of debate towards an effective and equitable Ordinance, which
hopefully will increase mountain protection for the common good.
Rarely does anyone intend to harm an environment, wipe out a habitat, or deplete
resources. But current trends suggest that we are being held hostage to property rights
under the false assumption that it will have no effect on, or overrides, public wellbeing.
Reversing this trend is bound to be a contentious issue. So was the creation of
California's Coastal Commission decades ago. Now, California's coastal conservation
accomplishments are the pride of the State and envy of the Nation. Farms are preserved
and tourism and recreation have benefited. Albemarle could be as exemplary with respect
to its mountains. But will it?
The Board needs to muster the political will to protect the long-term character of
this county and its present and future citizens' wellbeing. The worst possible outcome
would be to reject the current Proposal, and to adopt the status quo. In this case,
accountability will lie squarely at the feet of the Board of Supervisors, which will be
forced either to come up with its own solution or to admit that their Comprehensive Plan
is merely words on paper.
..'. __,Q~~ . 0 tR '4~n0'0
PuJohc....
_."~~::; ';t~..n;; :;~;_.,
,_9' ..-.,.<,,,-~-,,~"--"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Mountain Overlay District (August I) August 1,2006 (MOD)
RA Phasing and Clustering of Subdivisions (August 3) August 3, 2006 (Phasing/Clustering)
SUBJECTIPROPOSALIREOUEST: ACTION: INFORMATION:
No Action
August 1: Public input on the proposed Mountain Overlay
District (MOD) Committee's Proposal for Protection of CONSENT AGENDA:
Albemarle County's Mountain Resources and ACTION: INFORMATION:
August 3: Public input on the Rural Areas phasing and
clustering of subdivision frameworks
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CONTACT(S): Yes
Tucker, Foley, Graham, Cilimberg, Benish, McDowell
REVIEWED BY:
Graham; Benish
BACKGROUND:
The Mountain Protection Ordinance Committee presented a proposal for protection of the County's mountain resources at
a work session on May 10,2006. Following the MOD work session, a second work session was held to consider the
recommendations of the Planning Commission for Rural Areas Phasing and Clustering frameworks.
At that meeting, the Board directed staff to have two informational open houses to give citizens opportunities to gain an
understanding of these proposals. The Board also directed staff to schedule a joint Planning Commission and Board
meetings to receive public comments on the proposals.
Open Houses: Two informational open houses for the public have been scheduled: Tuesday July 25 for the MOD and on
Thursday July 27 for Rural Areas phasing and clustering frameworks.
Public Comment Meetings: Two opportunities for the public to comment in person to the Board and Commission have
been scheduled: Tuesday August 1 for the MOD and on Thursday August 3 for the RA phasing and clustering
frameworks.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2.1: Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character.
Goal 2.2: Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources.
DISCUSSION:
The public comment meetings on August I and August 3 will provide opportunities for citizens to comment on the
proposed frameworks in person. For those not able to attend the public comment meetings, citizen comment sheets will
be available at both open houses and at the County Fair during both public comment meetings. The comment sheets will
be copied and provided to the Board and Commission when they have all been received.
Staff does not expect that the Board and Commission to provide direction regarding the proposed frameworks at the
public comment meetings.
I Page 1 of2 I
A work session can be scheduled for September, for the Board and Commission to give direction regarding ordinances to
implement MOD, phasing, and clustering of subdivisions, which provides the Board and Commission time to consider all
of the comments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission receive public comment on the proposed
Mountain Overlay District plan and the proposed phasing and clustering subdivision frameworks. Staff recommends
that the Board schedule a work session in September to consider proceeding on ordinances for the MOD and for
phasing and clustering of subdivisions.
ATTACHMENTS:
A Mountain Overlay District Committee Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources
B Planning Commission Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors Phasing, Clustering, Family Divisions
Framework Plan
Page 2 of2 I
Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources - April 17, 2006 SUBMITTED.doc
Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources
by
The Mountain Overlay District (MOD) Committee
On June 4, 2003, the Board of Supervisors appointed a Mountain Overlay District Committee.
The Board asked the Committee to craft "an acceptable and effective ordinance to protect
mountain resources and implement the Mountain Protection Plan" (a section of the
Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1998).1 The Committee's diverse membership was also asked
to use a consensus process.2 The Committee worked for two years, from April 2004 through
April 2006. All 12 of the Committee's members support this proposal. 3
The Mountain Overlay District (MOD) Committee recommends a three-part program to protect the
economic, cultural, and natural resources of Albemarle County's mountains, The recommended
program includes: a mountain ordinance focused on protecting the MOD environment; principles
that would mandate and govern Rural Cluster Subdivisions in the mountains; and public
acquisition of interests in land. Each of these elements is outlined below.
The program, as a whole, is designed to get development off critical slopes and out of stream
buffer areas and to protect habitats and watersheds, scenic and historic resources, and
agricultural and forestal uses of the mountains. It is also designed to conserve properties and
their values both within and outside the MOD. Several aspects of this proposal, such as
enhanced protection for critical slopes, might also be appropriate for general application in the
County's Rural Areas. Because the Committee's charge related to the MOD, however, we have
not included broader applications in our proposal.
A. Outline of a Mountain Overlay District Ordinance
1. Findings
a. Ensuring public safety is of particular concern in Albemarle's mountains. In a few clearly
defined areas, unstable mountain slopes are a clear threat to life and property, as
evidenced by past debris flows. More generally, difficult access can make successful fire
and rescue operations problematic in the mountains.
b. The mountains of the County are almost entirely in forest cover with the remaining acres
in orchards and pasture. They support a viable forest and agricultural industry that is
important to the County's economic well-being. Mountain areas provide critical services
in collecting, storing, filtering and releasing water for human consumption and other uses
at lower elevations. Maintaining forest cover and protecting headwaters and stream
buffers in the mountains are necessary for adequate quantity and quality of water. The
mountain forests (like all forests) also protect air quality and help stabilize climate.
c. Mountain landowners have important interests in maintaining the use, enjoyment and
economic value of their land. Landowners, businesses and citizens throughout the
County have important economic and quality-of-life interests in preserving the natural,
historic and scenic qualities of the mountains. These economic interests include a
substantial tourism industry.
d. Mountain areas are a system of slopes that extend for greater distances and may be
considerably steeper than slopes at lower elevations. Disturbance of steep slopes in
these areas is of particular concern because of the presence of more erodible soils than
in other areas and the length of the grade on such slopes.
1 "Mountain Overlay District" memorandum from Joan McDowell to the Mountain Overlay District
Committee, March 16, 2004.
2 Ibid. and "Mountain Overlay District Committee Meeting Notes," April 5, 2004.
3 A 13th member, Katie Hobbs, moved to Georgia in late 2005.
Page 1 of 5 Pages
A IT ACHMENT A I
Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources - April 17, 2006 SUBMITTED.doc
e. The mountain areas support native biological diversity and offer prime habitat for hunting
and wildlife observation. Declines in diversity are threatened by fragmentation of habitat
- the dividing of large areas into smaller parcels - and the resulting disruption of forest
cover.
f. The mountains provide an important and unique aesthetic and cultural resource. The
relatively pristine, wooded character of the County's high elevations - the blue backdrop
of the mountains - defines much of the character of Albemarle County and has served as
an inspiration and cultural landmark for residents since colonial times.
2. Purposes of Ordinance
Based on these findings, the Committee proposes an ordinance to achieve the following
purposes in mountain areas:
a. Protect public safety
b. Protect headwater streams, water quantity and quality, and public drinking water
reservoir capacity
c. Reduce impacts of development on native biological diversity (natural heritage)
d. Preserve properties and their values both within and outside the MOD
e. Protect agricultural and forestal soils and uses
f. Protect scenic qualities and cultural and other historical resources
3. Definitions
a. Mountain Ordinance District (MOD). The ordinance would use the same lower
boundary lines for the MOD as the proposed 1998 ordinance. It would apply to parcels
that lie wholly or partially within those boundary lines.
b. Ridge Area. A "ridge area" within the MOD would be defined as within 100 vertical feet
or 250 horizontal feet of a crest, whichever is more restrictive.4
4. Terms of the MOD Ordinance
a. Critical SloDes
No residential construction or related road or driveway construction, except for the improvement
of a road or driveway that existed on the date of the ordinance, would be permitted on critical
slopes. This ban on construction would not apply to roads built for forestry, agricultural, and
horticultural purposes.s Neither would this ban apply to lots of record created on or before
December 10, 1980, in order to establish the first single family residence, provided there is no
alternative building site and no alternative route for the road.
Any roads built on critical slopes for forestry, agricultural, or horticultural purposes after the date
of the ordinance would not be convertible to residential use after the date of the ordinance. This
limitation would not apply to lots of record created on or before December 10, 1980, in order to
establish the first single family residence, provided there is no alternative building site and no
alternative route for the road.
b. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
4 Virginia Code ~ 15.2-2295.1 defines "crest" to mean "the uppermost line ofa mountain or chain of
mountains from which the land falls away on at least two sides to a lower elevation or elevations."
5 See Albemarle County Code ~ 18-4.2.1 (definition of "building site").
Page 2 of 5 Pages
A TT ACHMENT A
Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources - April 17, 2006 SUBMITI'ED.doc
Land disturbing activities exceeding 2500 square feet will require an effective erosion and
sediment control plan explicitly designed to address erosion control and water infiltration for the
long term. Guidelines for drafting these plans should encourage flexible and innovative
approaches.
c. Stream Buffers
No residential construction would be permitted within 200 feet of an intermittent or perennial
stream or river or other body of water shown on a U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle
topographic map. No hard-surface or impermeable surface roads, including gravel on compacted
base, or driveways would be permitted in this area except by special use permit.
When disturbance is necessary to cross streams to access a portion of the property as set forth
above (or as otherwise allowed in the MOD), best management practices would be imposed.
Development in a stream buffer mal be authorized in the following circumstances, provided that
a mitigation plan? is submitted to, and approved, by the program authority:
. 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; or
. On a lot of record created on or before December 10, 1980, 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.8
d. Heiaht Restrictions
No building within the ridge area would be permitted to exceed 35 feet in height or to exceed the
height of an adjacent crest, whichever is more restrictive.9
e. Safe Access
Building sites within the MOD will not be approved unless the applicant can demonstrate that fire
and rescue vehicles will be able to safely access the site.
f. Waiver or Modification
An administrative waiver or modification from one or more of these requirements would be
available. Such waiver or modification could be granted only upon a finding that alternatives
proposed by the developer would advance each of the purposes of the ordinance to an equivalent
or greater degree than strict application of these requirements.10 In making this determination,
the appropriate body-the Program Authority or the Planning Commission-would take into
account the effects of the developer's overall plan for the property (including residential
construction and related road or driveway construction or road or driveway improvement), and if a
6 Albemarle County Code ~ 17-321 provides that the activities "may" be authorized by the program
authority, but the authority does not have to pennit the activities in all cases.
7 The mitigation plan mandated by Albemarle County Code ~ 17-322(C)(2) requires, among other things,
that the activity be located so that it is the least disruptive to the functions of the stream buffer.
8 See Albemarle County Code ~ 17-321.
9 It is the Committee's intention that "adjacent" refers to a crest on which a residential dwelling could be
constructed.
10 Compare with Albemarle County Code ~~ 18-4.2.5 and 18-5.1(a).
Page 3 of 5 Pages
A TT ACHMENT A
Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources - April 17, 2006 SUBMITTED.doc
waiver were issued, it would include any conditions on development necessary to protect the
purposes of the ordinance.
A variance would be available in cases of undue hardship under existing regulations.11
Application of the Ordinance may result in inability to use all division rights 12 that have been
allocated to properties in the MOD - that is, because of measures in the Ordinance, parcels may
not be able to be developed as extensively as they would without these measures. Property
owners would have the ability to moderate the effect of these measures through waivers and
modifications.
B. Guidelines for Incorporation into a Future Rural Cluster Subdivision Ordinance for the
MOD
For Rural Preservation Developments (RPDs) in the MOD, rural preservation parcels (RPPs) will
include any ridge area in the RPD or as much of it as feasible consistent with utilization of all
development rights otherwise available to the parcel. The RPP will retain a development right.
The RPP will be configured and conditioned to minimize adverse impacts on hydrology,
biodiversity, aesthetics, cultural and other historical resources, agricultural and forestal soils and
uses, public safety, and to preserve property values within and outside the MOD.
Development lots outside the RPP will be configured and conditioned to minimize impacts on
these same resources and property values.13
Construction in RPDs in the MOD will also be subject to the generic requirements in the MOD
Ordinance, as above.
C. Additional Protection for Mountain Resources
The County's Comprehensive Plan makes specific provision for acquisition of property interests,
such as purchase of development rights (PDR), to protect the mountains. The Committee
proposes expanded efforts within the MOD to:
. Promote conservation easements
. Promote riparian buffer easements
. Encourage voluntary reduction of development potential
More specifically, beyond the ordinance and clustering proposed in this document, the Committee
believes the Board of Supervisors must develop innovative and flexible approaches to protecting
Albemarle's mountains. It has generated the following list of ideas, although it is not endorsing
any single one. The list is certainly not intended to be exhaustive; rather, the Committee
encourages the Board to think creatively.
. Grant complete or partial tax-exemption to any real estate placed in a permanent
"riparian buffer" easement, even if the landowner chooses to impose stream buffers that
are wider than those recommended in the Stream Buffers section of this proposal.14
11
See Albemarle County Code S 18-34.2.
12 The term "division rights" includes "development rights."
13 See Mountain Design Standards, Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan, which is a component of
the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, pp. 116-117; Strategies, Rural Areas Plan, which is a
component of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, pp. 37-38; and Memorandum to Planning
Commission from Stephen P. Waller (May 24,2005) (Ragged Mountain Farm RPD).
Page 4 of 5 Pages
ATTACHMENT A
Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources - April 17, 2006 SUBMIITED.doc
. Change the ACE Program's criteria to evaluate properties and allocate the currently
available and potentially new funding resources as follows:
0 Mountain value: Modify the ACE ranking to add a category for land located
inside the MOD.
0 Scenic value: Modify the ACE ranking to add a category for scenic lands.
. Lease scenic rights. Develop a Scenic Land-Lease Program that would pay a fair price
to landowners for very long (30-99 years) scenic leases on the highest ridge spines.
. Develop a Watershed Protection Fund. Work with the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority to develop a user fee that would be
earmarked-as supplemental ACE funding-for the MOD sections of the watershed that
feed the local public water supply system.
. Abate all property taxes on the Ridge Areas within the MOD as long as they remain
undeveloped. If conversion occurs later, a rollback of all abated taxes would be levied,
with interest at 10% on accrued rollback balances compounded annually.
. Develop a transfer of development rights (TOR) ordinance (using recent enabling
legislation) whereby development rights within the MOD may be sold and transferred to
parcels wholly outside the MOD.15
Enactment of one or more of these approaches would not be designed to compensate
landowners for the impact of the proposed ordinance. Instead, they would create additional
protections for the MOD beyond what may be accomplished by regulation.
It is the Committee's desire to avoid adverse impacts on the viability of the ACE program as well
as on any other similar program or regulatory provision in the County.
14 S 58.1-3666. Wetlands and riparian buffers. Wetlands, as defined herein, that are subject to a perpetual
easement permitting inundation by water, and riparian buffers, as defined herein, that are subject to a
perpetual easement permitting inundation by water, are hereby declared to be a separate class of property
and shal1 constitute a classification for local taxation separate from other classifications of real property.
The governing body of any county, city or town may, by ordinance, exempt or partial1y exempt such
property from local taxation. "Riparian buffer" means an area of trees, shrubs or other vegetation, subject
to a perpetual easement permitting inundation by water, that is (i) at least thirty-five feet in width, (ii)
adjacent to a body of water, and (iii) managed to maintain the integrity of stream channels and shorelines
and reduce the effects of upland sources ofpol1ution by trapping, filtering, and converting sediments,
nutrients, and other chemicals. "Wetlands" means an area that is inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency or duration sufficient to support, and that under normal conditions does
support, a prevalence of vegetation typical1y adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, and that is subject
to a perpetual easement permitting inundation by water. (1998, c. 516.)
15 Approved by the Governor-Chapter 573 (effective 7/1/06). Transfer of development rights. Al10ws
localities to provide for the transfer of development rights from a parcel of property located in the locality
to another parcel of property located elsewhere in the locality.
Page 5 of 5 Pages I
A TT ACHMENT A
Attachment B Page lof2
Planning Commission Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors
Phasing, Clustering, Family Divisions Framework Plan
Phasing:
The following list contains the framework of the major components of the proposed text amendment that would
limit the rate of subdivision in the Rural Areas.
1. Subdivision rate: a maximum of two lots in ten years (not including the parent parcel).
2. No changes in the original assignment of development rights (as of December 1980).
3. Phasing time clock begins with first subdivision following the adoption of this ordinance.
4. Exceptions: family divisions; subdivisions for properties subject to conservation easements; lot line
adjustments that do not create a new lot.
Clustering:
The following list contains the framework of the major components of the proposed text amendments that would
address the design of the Rural Areas. This framework addresses clustering exclusively.
1. Clustering would be the mandated form of subdivision in the Rural Areas.
2. Exceptions: family divisions; properties that would not result in the preservation of a parcel too small to
further the goals of the Guiding Principles for the Rural Areas (Attachment D); subdivisions of properties
subject to conservation easements; lot line adjustments that do not create a new lot.
3. The unfragmented preservation of resources identified in the Comprehensive Plan's first Guiding Principle
for Rural Areas are the primary considerations for defining the areas to be protected.
4. Pre-application conferences would be required to identify areas to be preserved (the no-build areas).
5. As currently required, a sketch plan would be required to determine the actual number of potential divisions
with the preliminary subdivision (conventional subdivision sketch plan),
6. A maximum of one preservation parcel per cluster, unless it can be ascertained that one additional
preservation parcel would further the preservation of resources, as identified by the Guiding Principles for
Rural Areas.
7. All residential lots would be required to be accessed from interior roads,
8. Some areas to be preserved, such as critical slopes, could be located within residential lots, if left
undisturbed and where that location furthers the unfragmented preservation of resources.
9. One primary residential dwelling unit would be allowed on the preservation parcel; one secondary
residential unit, requiring the use of a development right and compliance with all zoning ordinance
regulations, also could be permitted on the preservation parcel, to serve a farm manager.
10. If it could established that the maximum 2-acre residential lot could not accommodate a well and/or septic
and that redesign of the subdivision would not reduce or eliminate the need for additional acreage,
administrative approval to achieve a maximum of one additional acre would be available,
11. "Pods" or small clusters of lots in more than one area within the subdivision may be permitted, if it can be
established that these pods/small clusters would have a greater benefit to the resources to be preserved.
12. Maximum lot size of 2-acres for residential parcels that would be required to be clustered together to
minimize fragmentation of preservation areas.
13. There would be no limit to the number of residential lots contained in a Rural Cluster subdivision.
14. Encourage the connectivity of conservation land wherever feasible by locating the conservation easement
adjacent to other conservation easement properties.
Phasing and Clustering Combined:
Combining phasing and clustering presents some unique considerations. In addition to the major
components of phasing and clustering (listed above), the following lists the major components related to the
simultaneous operation of both ordinances.
1. Preservation parcel would be recorded with the first phase, in order for the County to determine
links/connections to other potential preservation parcels and easements and ensure the permanent
file://C:\Documents and Settings\dmullins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKE... 7/25/2006
Page 2 of2
Attachment B
protection of resources.
2. Preservation parcel would be exempt from phasing requirements.
3. First phase could include a minimum of four lots (parent parcel, two new residential lots, and the
preservation parcel), thereby, triggering a requirement for a public road standard.
4. Each parcel (created prior to December 1980) could use its phasing potential to locate into one
cluster development (as with current RPDs).
5. Future development rights would stay with the parent parcel.
Family Divisions:
If excluded from phasing and clustering regulations, the Commission recommends a concurrent ZTA to extend
the time of ownership to 5 years before and 5 years after the creation of a family division, The current regulations
do not have a time of ownership prior to the family division and require family ownership for the two years
following the division.
GQ..tQ...attactlment...E:
Return to executive summary
file://C:\Documents and Settings\dmullins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKE... 7/2512006