HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA200900015 Legacy Document 2009-08-06�� OF ALBS
b$
�'IRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2009 -015 Changes to the
Property Lines of Nonconforming Lots
SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Work Session - Review and Discussion about
Changes Allowed for Nonconforming Lots Related
to Adoption of Resolution of Intent to Amend the
Zoning Ordinance.
STAFF: Amelia McCulley, Francis MacCall, Ron
Higgins and Bill Fritz
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August 11,
2009
BACKGROUND: In 2000 as a result of recurring setback variances (for additions to existing nonconforming homes), staff
proposed an amendment to the Nonconformities (Section 6) zoning regulations. With this amendment, the entire Section
6 relating to nonconforming uses, structures and lots was reformatted and rewritten. This zoning text amendment
(adopted June 14, 2000) has now resulted in recurring variance requests and therefore warrants further review. The
Virginia Code states in Section 15.2- 2309(2): "No variance shall be authorized unless the board finds that the condition or
situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the
formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance." In addition, staff finds that the
current regulations can (unintentionally) cause results which are contrary to sound planning principles.
In this report, we will first explain the legislative history of this issue. We will then explain some of the current dilemmas or
unintentional results. Finally, we will focus on the options and considerations for revision to the nonconforming lot
regulations. Because the Commission does not routinely deal with boundary line adjustments for nonconforming lots and
because this is not simply a straightforward single option amendment, staff thought a work session with the Commission
at the resolution of intent stage is the best process to provide direction for the zoning text amendment.
For the purposes of this discussion, please be aware of the definition of a nonconforming lot found in Section 3.1: "The
term "nonconforming lot" means a lawful lot of record existing on the effective date of the zoning regulations applicable to
the district in which the. lot is located, that does not comply with the minimum applicable size or other lot requirements of
that zoning district." Other lot requirements include the requirements for lot width and for road frontage on a road
approved by the County. In other words, an existing lot on a private road not approved by the County is nonconforming
as to the frontage requirement (Section 4.6.1) and is therefore a nonconforming lot.
PROPOSAL: To amend the zoning ordinance regulations relating to redivision of nonconforming lots. Staff proposes
focuses and limiting the scope of this amendment to the redivision or combination of existing nonconforming lots. We
propose that these amendments would not apply to subdivisions resulting in additional lots. For example this would apply
to the case of two nonconforming lots that are combined or redivided; however, it would not apply to two nonconforming
lots that are redivided and result in three (one additional) lots.
This amendment should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that it should not be for the purpose of
accommodating and encouraging development that might not otherwise occur.
DISCUSSION: As background for this discussion, staff will provide the legislative history and current regulations. We will
also formulate the issue utilizing several illustrations of actual scenarios. Finally, we will outline the options for addressing
the issue and will provide staff's recommendation.
1. Legislative History and Current Regulations
Zoning regulations relating to nonconformities in Albemarle have focused primarily on nonconforming uses and
structures rather than lots. The 1980 Zoning Ordinance language relating to nonconforming lots addresses the
setback and use of those lots and not how they can be combined or redivided (boundary line adjustments).
Page 2
ZTA 2009 -015 Redivision of Nonconforming Lots
ZTA 89 -03 was adopted by the Board on June 14, 1989. The purpose of this ordinance amendment was expressly to
address the redivision and combination of nonconforming lots. As mentioned in the Board minutes (Attachment D),
this amendment was to address the same dilemma we are experiencing with the current ordinance. As Mr. Keeler
mentioned to the Board, this amendment was to avoid the requirement of a variance for redivision of nonconforming
lots that were (as a result) more conforming to the zoning regulations. He gave the example of three one -half acre
nonconforming lots that were combined but the resulting lot (now 1.5 acres) was still nonconforming and required a
variance.
There were minor / non - substantive rewordings to the nonconformities section over time. The applicable
nonconforming lot regulations prior to June 14, 2000 stated:
Lots recorded prior to the adoption of and not in conformity with this ordinance may be resubdivided and
redeveloped, in whole or part, at the option of the owner(s) of any group of contiguous lots therein; but every such
resubdivision shall conform to this ordinance and all other county ordinances currently applicable; provided,
however, that no such resubdivision which in the opinion of the zoning administrator shall be substantially more
conforming to the requirements of section 4.0, general regulations, and the area and bulk regulations of the
district in which such subdivision is situated shall be denied for failure to comply with the provisions of this
ordinance.
This prior ordinance language allowed resubdivision of nonconforming lots which were more substantially conforming
to the zoning district regulations (lot size, frontage, density, etc.) and the general regulations (area regulations related
to utilities, building site and septic requirements, setbacks related to height of structure, etc.). In other words, the
Zoning Administrator could approve the creation of resulting lot(s) that were still nonconforming provided they were
substantially more conforming in those two respects.
The nonconforming lot regulations were substantially amended with the ZTA adopted June 14, 2000. As a result, the
ordinance language now states:
C. Division, combination, or adjustment of boundary line of nonconforming lot authorized.
A nonconforming lot may be divided, combined with any other lot, or have one or more of its boundary
lines adjusted, provided.
1. The resulting lot or lots comply with the requirements applicable to the district
in which the lot is located and all other applicable requirements of the Albemarle County Code; or
2. In the opinion of the zoning administrator, the resulting lot or lots more
substantially conform to the requirements of section 4.0 (general regulations) of this chapter and the area
and bulk regulations applicable to the district in which the lot is located, and comply with all other
applicable requirements of the Albemarle County Code.'
As previously noted, the primary purpose of this ZTA was to address additions to nonconforming structures. There is
no clear legislative intent (through the staff reports or the minutes) to raise the standard for approval of the redivision .
of nonconforming lots. The underlined and bolded new language has been interpreted to require the resulting lots of
a redivision to be conforming to the zoning ordinance.
2. Explanation and Examples of the Issue (See Attachment A)
The current regulations prevent the following from being approved without approval of a variance:
a. Example A: Father and son each own property on an unapproved private road. One parcel is over 21
acres and the other is under 20 acres. Because these lots are not located on an approved road, they lack
required frontage and are nonconforming lots. Father and son are trying to put their property in a
conservation easement and the minimum acreage required is 20 acres. Therefore, they will need to do a
boundary line adjustment (BLA or redivision).
b. Example B: The septic field (or well) on Lot X fails and needs to be replaced and there is no suitable area
within Lot X on which to locate the replacement. Naturally, the Lot X owners want to own the property on
which their septic field (or well) is located. They will need to do a boundary line adjustment with Lot Y.
Page 3
ZTA 2009 -015 Redivision of Nonconforming Lots
c. Example C: The Smiths have discovered that their fence and a portion of their pasture are partially on
their neighbor's property. Therefore, they would like to do a boundary line adjustment with the
neighboring property to reflect their respective use of the property.
As the Commission can see in these examples, there are practical reasons for doing a boundary line adjustment
(BLA) between two nonconforming lots. Prohibiting this (BLA) without approval of a variance can be contrary to
sound planning principles and /or to our Comprehensive Plan goals. An example of this is with the scenario listed in a
involving the use of conservation easements. These easements are consistent with the intent for the Rural Areas as
well as with our strategic plan goals. In addition to the practical reasons and the planning purposes for allowing
certain BLAs, the variance remedy is not always an appropriate one. The State Code criteria for a variance are strict
and require a finding of undue hardship.
3. Options to Address the Issue
The options available to address this issue cross a broad spectrum ranging from a limited administrative authority for
redivision that results in more conforming lots - to allowing all redivision of nonconforming lots provided the result is
not less conforming. A more complete list of options for the Commission to consider follows:
A. Exclude lots on unapproved roads from the definition of nonconformin lots. ots. While this amendment
would address the example in #2 a, it would not fully address the issue. The other examples (if the
lots are nonconforming for reasons other than the road approval, would remain as issues and would
require approval of a variance.
B. Return the lanquage to what was intended by the 1989 ZTA. Approval of redivisions under this
language requires a finding that the resulting lots more substantially comply with the general
regulations and zoning district regulations. While more permissive than A, this would limit approvals
to those that can be found to substantially improve the nonconforming situation in key areas. Those
key areas include building site, septic system location and size, lot size, frontage, etc.
C. Allow redivision that is more conforming to the zoning ordinance in general. This would be more
permissive than option B.
D. Allow redivision as long as the resulting lots are not in any respect LESS conforming. This option is
the most permissive and allows nonconforming lots to maintain their nonconformities. It follows the
guidance of "do no harm" — or do not become less conforming.
RECOMMENDATION
We recognize that nonconformities can legally be maintained. We hope that in certain cases they are temporary and
can be made to become more conforming over time as changes occur that are subject to review. After consideration
of these options, staff recommends option B, a return to the prior ordinance standard. This allows redivision only after
positive findings that the resulting lot or lots better meets certain key standards. As previously stated, we recommend
limiting the scope of these amendments to the combination of redivision of nonconforming lots. The division of
nonconforming lots would remain subject to more rigid standards.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Illustrations
Attachment B: Resolution of Intent
Attachment C: Prior Ordinance — Nonconforming Lots
Attachment D: Board minutes for ZTA 89 -03 Nonconforming Lots
Attachment A
ZTA 2009 -015 Redivision of Nonconforming Lots
Page 1 of 3
Example A
In the scenario below the lots conform in all respects to the ordinance except that the road ,
that provides the lots access is not a public street and was never reviewed and approved
as a private street. It is simply a right -of -way that was established in the 1930's and
provides access to a number of lots, none of which have ever been subdivided.
PARCEL A ff= PARCEL B
19 acres + 2 acres
50 acres — 2 acres 21 acre resulting
48 acre residue
C1d Frriii
The proposal is to transfer 2 acres from Parcel A to Parcel B in order to increase the size
to 21 acres. This would allow Parcel B to be placed under a conservation easement or
under forestry land use. The proposed transfer does not make either lot more
nonconforming.
Attachment A
ZTA 2009 -015 Redivision of Nonconforming Lots
Page 2 of 3
Example B
In the scenario below the lots conform in all respects to the ordinance expect that they are
below the 2 acre minimum lot size for the rural areas.
1.5 acres + 0.1 —0.1 = 1.5 acres
PARCEL B
1.5 acres + 0.1 — 0.1 = 1.5
acres
l` ic�l ...................................•..... ............................... -------
The proposal is to transfer equal acreages from Parcel A to Parcel B and vice versa to
allow for an existing fence and field that meander across the existing lot lines to be
placed entirely on one lot. No change in total acreage or frontage occurs.
Attachment A
ZTA 2009 -015 Redivision of Nonconforming Lots
Page 3 of 3
Example C
In the scenario below the lots conform in all respects to the ordinance except that they
have less than the required frontage.
The proposal is to transfer the land including a septic field (serving parcel A) from Parcel
B to Parcel A.
Attachment B
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Section 6.4, Nonconforming Lots, of the Zoning Ordinance establishes regulations
pertaining, among other things, the division, combination, or adjustments of boundary lines of nonconforming
lots; and
WHEREAS, the County has received a number of variance applications pertaining to the division,
combination or adjustment of the boundary lines of nonconforming lots in recent years; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 15.2- 2309(2) provides in part that when a condition or situation of a
property is of a general or recurring nature created by the zoning regulations, the recurring condition or situation
should be addressed by amending the zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, County staff has found that the current regulations pertaining to the division, combination
or adjustment of the boundary lines of nonconforming lots can lead to results that are contrary to sound planning
principles.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to amend Zoning Ordinance §6.4 and any other regulations of the Zoning Ordinance deemed
appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
6.0
6.1 CONTINUATION
6.1.1 Any use, activity,
effective date of
to the provisions
district in which
;... in accordance with
(Amended 9- 21 -88)
lot or structure in existence on the
this ordinance which does not conform
of this ordinance relating to the
the same is situated, may be continued
the provisions of .this section.
6.1.2 No change in title to any property subject to the
provisions of this section, including but not limited to
the demise, renewal, expiration, termination or
modification of any leasehold interest, shall impair the
nonconforming status of such property.
6.1.3 Any such use, activity or structure which is discontinued
for more than two (2) years shall be deemed abandoned and
shall thereafter conform to the provisions of this
ordinance relating to the district in which the same is
situated.
6.1.4 Whenever any such use, activity or structure is changed
to a conforming or a more restricted nonconforming use,
activity or structure, the original use shall be deemed
abandoned.
6.2 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
6.2.1 On any building devoted in whole or in part to any
nonconforming use, work may be done on ordinary repairs
or on repair or replacement of nonbearing walls,
fixtures, wiring or plumbing, to such extent that the
structure is kept in a usable condition. Nothing in this
ordinance shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or
restoring to a safe condition of any structure or part
thereof declared to be unsafe by any official charged
with promoting public safety upon order of such official,
including, whether by order or voluntary, improvements to
promote fire safety and handicapped access (reference
4.9).
6.2.2 Nothing in this ordinance shall be deemed to preclude the
zoning administrator from authorizing issuance of permits
for the installation of potable water supply, toilets,
and other sanitary facilities including such building or
structural expansion as may be necessary to house such
facilities; provided that:
a. Such facilities are not duplicative of facilities
available within such building or structure; and
b. Any such building or structural expansion shall be
limited in area to that necessary to house such
facilities; and
Attachment C
C. That usage of such building or structural expansion
shall be devoted wholly and only to such sanitary
facilities.
6.3 CHANGES IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Whenever the boundaries of a district are changed, any
uses of land or buildings which become nonconforming as a
result of such change shall become subject to the
provisions of this section.
6.4 EXPANSION OR ENLARGEMENT
6.4.1 The use of any building or structure shall conform to the
provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in
which the same is situated whenever such building or
structure is enlarged, extended, reconstructed or
structurally altered.
Exeept- thftt; -ft Nothing in this section shall prohibit the
replacement of a nonconforming mobile home with a larger
mobile home, provided the mobile home is labelled to
indicate compliance with either the Virginia
Industrialized Building and Mobile Home Safety
Regulations or with the Federal Manufactured Home
Construction and Safety Standards adopted by HUD, 1974,
as amended; and, further provided that the conditions of
section 5.6.2 are met if applicable. (Added 3 -5 -86)
6.4.2?eept -th t; - as- etl�e�rse- pe�elee�-- seete -3B . -5;
(Amended Any building or
9- 21 -88) structure located or constructed ate- Beeembe -�; -969
and prior to the adoption of this ordinance may be
expanded, enlarged, or extended in accordance with the
rear, side, and front yard and setback regulations of the
prior zoning ordinance- eeet- at -tl9e- time- e- �aeaten
e- eenstt�eter�. In all other cases, the rear, side and
front yard and setback regulations of this ordinance
shall apply. (Added 9- 21 -88)
6.4.3 A nonconforming activity may be extended throughout any
(Added part of a structure which was arranged or designed for
9- 21 -88) such activity at the time of enactment of this
ordinance.
6.5 NONCONFORMING LOTS (Amended 9- 21 -88)
6.5.1 Any lot of record at the time of the adoption of this
(Amended ordinance which is less in area and /or width than the
9- 21 -88) minimum required by this ordinance may be used in a
manner consistent with the uses permitted for a lot
having the minimum area and /or width so. required;
provided that the rear, side and front yard and setback
requirements of this ordinance shall be maintained; and
provided further that no such use shall be permitted which is
determined by the zoning administrator to constitute a danger
to the public health, safety and general welfare.
6.5.2eept -as- ether °�aee- pe*aelee- n- seeters -36 -5; - seenie
Added.. n the case of any subdivision.... :..
9- 21 -88) approved as defined as such pursuant to Chapter 18 of
the Code of Albemarle after December 22, 1969, and prior
to the adoption of this ordinance and which was of record
at the time of the adoption hereof, the rear, side and
front yard and setback regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance in effect at the time of such approval shall
apply to all lots within such subdivision. In all other
cases, the rear, side and front yard and setback
regulations of this ordinance shall apply. (Addition
4- 15 -81) (Amended 9- 21 -88)
6.5.3 For purposes of this section, any lot shown on a pre -
(Added liminary or final subdivision plat which was approved by
9- 21 -88) the proper authority of the county in accordance with law
prior to the adoption. of this ordinance, and which plat
was subsequently recorded in due course, shall'be deemed
to be a lot of record at the time of the adoption of this
ordinance.
6.5.4 Lots recorded prior
to the adoption of and not in conformity with this.
ordinance may be resubdivided and redeveloped, in whole
or part, at the option of the owner(s) of any group of
contiguous lots therein; but every such resubdivision
shall conform to this ordinance and all other county
ordinances currently applicable; provided, however, that
no such resubdivision which in the. opinion of the zoning
administrator shall be substantially more conforming to
the requirements of section 4.0, general regulations,. and
the area and bulk regulations of the district in which
such subdivision is situated shall be denied for failure
to comply with the provisions of this ordinance. (Added
6- 14 -89)
6.6 RESTORATION OR REPLACEMENT
6.6.1 Whenever any nonconforming structure, except signs, or
structure the use of which is nonconforming is damaged as
a result of factors beyond the control of the owner
and /or occupant thereof, such structure may be repaired
and /or reconstructed and the nonconforming use thereof .
continued as provided in this section provided that such
repair and /or reconstruction shall be commenced within
twelve (12) months and completed within twenty -four (24)
months. from the date of such damage; and provided further
that no such structure shall be enlarged or expanded'as a
part of such repair and /or reconstruction.
r
June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting} 70
(Page 33)
acres may not have validity any longer. He said the staff tried to look at
the whole issue as to the public purpose to be served, rather than the desires
of the property owners because desires today could-possibly be complaints
tomorrow.
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that if a State standard road is required, mainte-
nance is never going to be a local issue. Ha said this means that there will
be no complaints coming to the County about the road and the property owners
will not have periodical expenses that sometimes they cannot afford. Having
this problem eliminated seems to be ane major reason of having a State scan
dard road, and Mr. Lindstrom believes that it is a legitimate reason. He went
on to say that -this conflicts from time to t.�me with sound environment prac-
tices because State roads are unnecessarily urge. That is why the private
road standard exists. He added, that .if the County wants to avoid creating an
incentive to development in the rural areas with private road's, the County
could have a regulation stating that all of the roads in the urban area will
meet private road standards, and all of the toads in the rural areas will meet
State standards. He said the regulation couta be such that it would not
matter whether the area is rural or urban, the same •arguments could be used
for each area. If this is the case, Mr. Lindstrom commented that the ordi-
nance would have to be administered very con$cien-
tiously because of the number of requests. As added that just because an area
is urban, it does not mean that a road cannot be an environmental problem.
Mr..Bain commented that mountain land iii rural areas has been developed
that could not have been if the State road s�andard had been applied. Devel-
opment occurs in these areas regardless of w ether the County desires it
there, because of private roads.
Mr. Lindstrom asked,if, under this ord in" ance•, a private road can be
approved where a State road could not be appri'oved. Mr.' Keeler answered,
"yes." He stated that a public road would require 30 percent more grading.
"i
Mr. Way reminded the Board that Mr. Keeler has asked for a deferral of
this ordinance. Mr. Bowie asked how long thmatter will be deferred. Mr.
Keeler replied that he would like to have anii�'ndefinite deferral. Mr. Bain
yR
asked Mr. Keeler why he wants an indefinite d;�ferral. Mr. Keeler responded
that his understanding is that some people w t to do a comparison of the
various road alignments to see exactly what e 30 percent grading requirement
for public roads involves. Mr. Bowie asked i,W 60 to 90 days would be enough
time for the comparison to be made. Mr. Keeler answered "yes ".
tai
Motion was then .offered by Mr. Bowie an.4 seconded by Mr. Bain to defer
STA -89 -02 to September 13,1989, to allow staff time to review language
regarding.lot.size to determine conformity torlthe Comprehensive Plan and to
gather information regarding the Virginia D4.rtment of Transportation's
standards for road alignment and width. Roll -iwas called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Board recessed at 3:42 P.M. and reconvened at 3:57 P.M.)
i�
Agenda Item No, 18. ZTA- 89 -03. To amend the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, Section 6.0, Non - Conforming Lots, o provide for combination and /or
redivision of non - conforming lots (deferred•f'om June 7, 1989).
4
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report as[,follows:
"Public Purpose:. To provide for•improve3 development; to provide for
uniform regulation.
Staff Comment: The Subdivision Ordinance contains a provision which
permits combination and /or redivision of bon- conforming lots provided
the result is more conforming to the requirements of the ordinance.
No such language exists in the Zoning Ordinance, and, therefore, even
though a result may be more conforming t zoning regulation, variances
t
a
Attachment D
f^
I
June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
73-
are required.' Staff opinion is that .improvement should be achievable
without requirement of a variance in all cases.
Staff recommends the addition of section 6.5.4 to 6.0, Nonconformi-
ties,.of the Zoning Ordinance:
6.5 NONCONFORMING LOTS
6.5.4
Mr. Keeler explained that under the Sub
been approvals for combinations of lots and
lots conform more to the Subdivision and•Zon
been informed by the Zoning Administrator th
forms to the ordinance, a new nonconforming
are required. For example, he said, if Mr,
lots in the -rural area where the minimum lot
tions would permit Mr. Smith to combine.thes
would be one and a half acres in size. Howe
opinion is that this would still require a v
Ordinance. He then called attention to a si
in which an individual has a half acre lot w
requirements, nor does the frontage conform
the individual is adding an acre and a half
lot, but because the frontage does not confo
ordinance, as it is written, would indicate'
nonconforming 'lot which would require a vari
ordinance'mav be
the
vision Ordinance, there have
ditions of property that make
g Ordinances. He said he has
unless a lot completely con -
t is being created and variances
ith owned three one -half acre
ize is two acres, 'County. regula-
three lots to create a lot that
r, the Zoning Administrator's
iance in terms of the Zoning
ation currently being examined
ch does not conform to the area
the area requirements. He said
that he will have a two -acre
a strict reading of the
at this man is creating another
Mr. Keeler said this amendment.seeks to Out language into the Zoning
Ordinance that is similar to the language in; 'the Subdivision Ordinance. He
said Mr St. John has suggested deleting the ginal sentence of the amendment,
which states: "The Zoning Administrator may ;j at his discretion, refer the
matter to the Board of Zoning Appeals in acc dance with the provisions of
Section 34.0." Mr. Keeler said the staff corj:urs with Mr. St. John's sugges-
tion since anyone can appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator to the
BZA. hl'
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Keeler if an ownee,*could build on a half-acre lot
if the lot was declared a lot before the Zoni�}�g Ordinance went into effect.
Mr. Keeler answered, "yes ", if the lot can me,�t the health requirements. He
said it did not make sense to the staff if so(ueone had a nonconforming• lot and
was trying to improve the situation, for'the County to require that person to
go into a public hearing before the Board of honing Appeals.
Mr. St. John -remarked that the Board of
ria that it is supposed to consider in makin
the BZA applies common sense in cases that a
but it is sometimes criticized for not folio
said, if the BZA followed this criteria exac
al of the lot that was mentioned by Mr. Keel
that a person could build on a half acre wit
and a half in order to build, but the BZA co
hardship involved and the variance would be
in the Zoning Ordinance that has been cured
ning Appeals has strict crite-
ts decision. He said sometimes
not covered by the ordinance,
g the criteria. However, he
it would have to deny..approv-
He said the BZA could say
.t having.to have another acre
.also indicate that there is no
ied. He said this is a defect
the past with variances that do
r
i
June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
72
not literally follow the criteria. He said this amendment will cure the
problem.
Mr. Bain asked if this ordinance is limited only to owners of a group of
contiguous lots. Mr. St. John replied, "yes:"
Mr. Lindstrom said the owner would have•to take title to the other piece
of land separately before it is added to the:original.parcel. He does not
think that the owner could acquire the lot from someone else to make it more
don'
onforming.
Mr. Bain disagreed and said that the owner could buy the lot from someone
else as long as the lot was of record before ±the ordinance.was adopted.
Mr. Lindstrom then gave an example of someone buying an acre and a half
of land from someone else to make his lot mote conforming. He was concerned
that, under the language in the ordinance, the proposal for the variance would
not be coming from the owner of the contiguous lots, but instead would come'
from the other person. He said he does not -Want to avoid one problem and
create others. Mr. St. John responded that � contract purchaser would be
treated as an.owner. He added that this is true in all other cases..
Mr. Bowie commented'•that if the situati n is better than- it was before,
he supports the amendment.
.t
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that an "s" be placed after the word "owner" in
Section 6.5.4. Mr. St. John agreed that the�;ordinance should read, "owner or
owners of any contiguous lots." l�
Motion was then offered-by Mr. Bowie an seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt
the ordinance as -presented and amended and s,'et out below. Roll was called and
the motion carred by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messis. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND RENACT
CHAPTER 6, NONCONFO` ITIES
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY 7sONING ORDINANCE
SECTION 6.5, NONCONFORMING TOTS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Sup&visors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Chapter 6, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, be
amended and reenacted in Section 6.5, N nconforming Lots, by the
addition of subsection 6.5.4, the entirei section to now read as
follows:
6.5 NONCONFORMING LOTS Y
6.5.1
6.5.2
Any lot of record at the time
ordinance which is less in ar
minimum required by this ordi:
consistent with the uses perm
minimum area and /or width so
rear, side and front yard and
ordinance shall be maintained
such use shall be permitted V
zoning administrator to const
health, safety and general we
Except as otherwise provided
overlay district, in the case
and defined as such pursuant
Albemarle after December 22,
of this ordinance and which w
adoption hereof, the rear, si
regulations of the Zoning Ord
such approval shall apply to
ision. In all other cases, t.
f the adoption of this
and /or width than the-
nce may be used in a manner
ted for a lot having the
quired; provided that the
etback requirements of this
and provided further that no
ch is determined by the
ute a danger to the public
section 30.5, scenic areas
f any subdivision approved
Chapter 18 of the Code of
69, and prior to the adoption
of record at the time of the
and front .yard and setback
ance in effect at the time of
1 lots within such subdiv-
rear, side and front yard
r
i
i
:
June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
and setback regulations of this' ordinance shall apply. .
7:3
6.5,3 For purposes of this section,: any lot shown on a. preliminary
or final subdivision plat which was approved by the proper
authority of the county in accordance with law prior to the
adoption of this ordinance, and which plat was subsequently
recorded in due course, shalt be deemed to be a lot of
record at the time of the adoption of this ordinance.
6.5.4 A subdivision recorded or de
and not in conformity with t
vided and redeveloped, in wb
the owner(s) of any group of
every such resubdivision she
.all other county ordinances
however, that no such resubd
the zoning administrator sha
forming to the requirements
tions, and the area and bulk
which such subdivision is si
failure to comply with the p
oped prior to•the adoption of
ordinance may be resubdi-
or part, at the option of
ntiguous lots therein; but
conform to this ordinance and
rently applicable; provided,
Sion which in the opinion of
be substantially more con -
section 4.0, general regula-
gulations of the district in
ted shall be denied for
isions of this ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 19. ZTA- 89 -04. To ame#id the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance to require a special use permit fo uses not served by public water
for excessive consumption or for uses not sewed by public sewer for discharge
of sewage other than domestic wastes (deferred from June 7, 1989).
Mr. Keeler presented the staff's report;?,as follows:
"Public Purpose To Be Served: To protept surface and groundwater
supplies from overdraft and pollution.
.iy
.Origin: Planning staff.
Comment: In 1985, the Board amended th*' industrial zoning districts
to require a special use permit for a u�a, not served by public. water,
involving water consumption exceeding 410 gallons per day-per site
acre or a use, not served by public sew r, involving disposal of other
than domestic wastes. Those amendments 1 were prompted by a proposal to
develop. a biological laboratory in a rural area.
Theses current recommended amendments ha` also been prompted by a
development proposal remote from public�tilities. A shopping facili-
ty at North Garden would be served by a :,wall and package sewage
treatment plant. Initially, water consumption would be about 6000
gallongs per day, however, the sewage p�#nt would have a treatment
capacity of 20,000 gpd. This represents ".-;a withdrawal rate of 1500 -
5000 gpd /site acre, far in excess of the;;limitations placed on indus-
trial uses. c
Staff recommends amendments to the commercial zones identical to those
made to the industrial zones in 1985. Exp'lanation.of-the amendments
follows: ;14
Water Withdrawal Limitation:
r
1. Health Department regulations employ a water usage rate of 150
gpd per bedroom. Therefore, a four,:'bedroom dwelling would.have a
daily consumption of 600 gallons;
r.,
2. Minimum lot size for a dwelling not served by public water and
public sewer is 60,000 square feet.; Therefore, per acre consump-
tion would be about 400 gpd. (Thisi`.figure assumes that public
sewer would not be available if public water were not available);
3. Staff recommends a commercial water "withdrawal limitation of 400
gallons per acre of site per day unless special use permit is
obtained; �;