Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA200900015 Legacy Document 2009-09-30STAFF: Francis H. MacCall, Amelia G. McCulley PLANNING COMMISSION: October 06, 2009 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: December 2, 2009 ZTA 2009 - 00015: Nonconforming lots — definition and regulations regarding combinations and boundary line adjustments that involve nonconforming lots ORIGIN: Planning Commission Resolution of Intent (Attachment B) PROPOSAL: Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance sections 2.1.4 - Reduction of lots or areas below minimum prohibited, 3.1 - Definition of nonconforming lot, and 6.4 - Nonconforming lot regulations. PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: The proposed change would: 1. Allow for the nonconforming lot section of the ordinance to be more easily understood by staff and the public. 2. Allow the public to adjust the boundary line(s) of their property without the need for variance granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). This has become a recurring variance; therefore, we are directed by Virginia Code to review our regulations. 3. In many cases, a nonconforming lot combination or boundary line adjustment better serves a public purpose. Examples of this public purpose include a) combining two lots that are below the minimum lot size to create one larger lot; b) adjusting boundary lines to 1) allow the septic system serving the house to be located on the same lot; 2) allow the house or other structure which does not meet structure setbacks to be setback further from the property lines and 3) allow acreage shifts between lots such that property can be placed into conservation easements or land use. BACKGROUND: Zoning Ordinance Section 6.4 allows for boundary line adjustments (BLA) between conforming and nonconforming lots. Currently there are two ways the Zoning Ordinance allows the property lines of nonconforming lots to be adjusted. First, there needs to be at least one lot that is a conforming lot and the "...adjustment does not make the conforming lot nonconforming or the nonconforming lot more nonconforming." Second, if both of the lots are nonconforming, the adjustment must either make all lots conforming or must be determined by the zoning administrator to "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." This high standard for adjustments to nonconforming lots has precipitated variance requests. When variances are repeatedly requested for the same reason, the locality must then look at the regulations that are being varied and determine if those regulations need to be amended. In addition, the current high standard does not adequately serve the public interest (see #3 in public purpose to be served by the ordinance amendment). Staff has reviewed our current nonconforming lot regulations and has determined that the sections proposed are the appropriate sections for amendment. Further background is provided in the staff report presented to the Planning Commission in work session on August 11, 2009 (Attachment C). The Commission discussed the boundary line adjustments of nonconforming lots and adopted the Resolution of Intent (Attachment B). The standard established for review of the BLA or combination is that no lot may become less conforming to the regulations. In addition, the Commission specifically determined that there should be no net increase in the number of lots as a result of the BLA or combination. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed text addresses these issues. STAFF COMMENT: The draft ordinance amends Zoning Ordinance Sections 2.1.4, 3.1 and 6.4. This amendment will establish consistent requirements for combination and boundary line adjustment involving one or more nonconforming lots. The proposed ordinance establishes regulations for four different scenarios that can arise when nonconforming lots are altered: 1) subdivisions that include nonconforming lots, 2) combination of nonconforming lots, 3) boundary line adjustments between conforming and nonconforming lots and 4) boundary adjustments between two or more nonconforming lots. 1. A lot is proposed to be divided into new lots. One or more nonconforming lots may be included in the subdivision provided that the resulting lots fully comply with the applicable regulations. The nonconformities would no longer exist thus the purpose and intent of the ordinance is met. 2. Two or more nonconforming lots or a nonconforming lot and a conforming lot are combined into one. This essentially eliminates a nonconforming lot and makes the resulting lot more conforming than the individual lot(s). 3. A conforming lot and a nonconforming lot lines are adjusted (BLA). This is permitted as long as the nonconforming lot does not become more nonconforming. 4. The property lines of two or more nonconforming lots are adjusted (BLA). This is permitted as long as neither lot becomes more nonconforming. The proposed amendments include the following: 1. Section 2.1.4 establishes a description that will be consistent with the new ordinance language. 2. The definition of the term "nonconforming lot" in Section 3.1 is revised to be consistent with administrative practice which recognizes that a lot without a building site is a nonconforming lot. ADMINISTRATION / REVIEW PROCESS: This amendment will better enable staff and the public to have a clearer understanding of what is allowed. This should eliminate time currently spent (by staff and the public) in meetings discussing the requirements and in variance applications. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY: No impacts have been identified. IMPLICATIONS TO STAFFING /STAFFING COSTS: See response in "administration /review process." This will reduce staff time currently spent on these reviews. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the draft ordinance found in Attachment A. ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT A: Draft Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Sections 2.1.4, 3.1, and 6.4 ATTACHMENT B: Resolution of Intent ATTACHMENT C: Staff report PC work session August 11, 2009 F? Draft: 09/29/09 ORDINANCE NO. 09 -18( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND 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 I, General Provisions, and Article H, Basic Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Definitions Sec. 6.4 Nonconforming lots By Amending and Renaming: Sec. 2.1.4 Reduction of lots or areas below minimum prohibited Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Sec. 2.1.4 Reduction of lots or- r-eas below minimum prohibited TT let e r.,_„w„) existing at the time e f- pa,sage of t1is ,.,- ,mane The size, frontage and width of any lot of record existing on the effective date of this chanter shall not be reduced in below the minimum requirements set f �ffi herein of the zoning district in which the lot is located and section 4 of this char except f r- the „ :•fp^s° of meeting or exceeding fiaAh herein e: as a the result of the dedication of land to public use to or the exercise of eminent domain by a public agene entity. L-t p" created after the effective date of this epee chi shall meet 1g1i& at least the minimum requirements established by this e -dii °° of this chanter, except for lots created for age use by a public agency entity to the extent that the same b 'c e may be justifiable under tie powers of eminent domain. (Amended 9 -9 =92) Sec. 3.1 Definitions Nonconforming lot: 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 section 4 of this chanter and the minimum applicable size frontage, width, building site or other lot requirements of that zoning district. (Added 6- 14 -00) Article H. Basic Regulations Sec. 6.4 Nonconforming lots A nonconforming lot may continue, subject to the provisions, conditions and prohibitions set forth herein. lie the we e- n& Draft: 09/29/09 b let maybe adj'asted EA. Uses allowed on a nonconforming lot. A nonconforming lot may be used as though it satisfies the zoning regulation that makes it nonconforming, provided that: 1. The use is either a nonconforming use or is a use that complies with the zoning regulations applicable to the district in which the lot is located; and 2. The zoning administrator determines that the lot may be occupied consistently with the public health, safety and general welfare. iieneeBkniiiig let may be divided, eembined with any at-her let, er- ha-ve ene er- Mer-e ef its be:bmdary lilies adjusted, Fide the let is lee4erd aiad anther appheable r-eqi&emepAs of the Ahema-le Cep Cede,• –er A li a ffi 4e (`.,,,,,4., !'Cede E. Subdivision that includes a nonconforming lot. A nonconforming lot may be Hart of a subdivision provided that all of the resulting lots comply with the requirements of the zoning district in which they are located and all other applicable requirements of the Albemarle County Code. C. Combination of a nonconforming lot with another lot. A nonconforming lot may be combined with a conforming lot or a nonconforming lot provided the s_ i_z_e area or frontage of the resulting lot is increased_ to make it conforming or not more nonconforming. D. Boundary line adjustment between a nonconforming lot and a conforming lot. One or more boundary lines between a nonconforming lot and a conforming lot may be adjusted provided: 1. The boundary line adjustment does not make the conforming lot nonconforming or the nonconforming lot more nonconforming and 2. The boundary line adjustment does not result in an increase in the number of lots or dwelling units that could otherwise be established on each lot. E. Boundary line adjustment between nonconforming lots_. O_ _n_ e or m_ ore boundary lines between two or more nonconforming lots may be adjusted provided: 1. The boundary line adjustment does not make either nonconforming lot more nonconforming:—and 2. The boundary line adjustment does not result in an increase in the number of lots or dwelling units that could otherwise be established on each lot. Draft: 09/29/09 F. Subdivision, combination, or adjustment of boundary line ofnonconforminz lot; country stores. A nonconforming lot may be subdivided, combined with any other lot. or have one or more of its boundary lines adjusted provided the resulting lot or lots serve a country store. Class A or B. and the subdivision combination or boundary line adjustment is required to allow the country store use to meet the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health and the location of all structures on the resulting lot or lots will not become nonconforming or more nonconforming, and the size of the resulting lot or lots will not become more nonconforming G. Change to nonconforming lot resulting from public dedication or eminent domain. The area of a nonconforming lot may be reduced by the dedication of land for public use or by the exercise of eminent - -- domain. DH. Setbacks applicable to a nonconforming lot. The current front, rear and side yard minimum setbacks applicable to the district in which the lot is located shall apply to a nonconforming lot; provided, that if any such setback is thereafter reduced as a result of an amendment to the setbacks applicable to the district in which the lot is located, and in effect when an existing structure is extended or enlarged, then that reduced setback shall apply. El. Effect of change of ownership. A change of the ownership or occupancy of a nonconforming lot shall not affect the status of the nonconforming lot. ( §§ 20- 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.4, 12- 10 -80, 4- 15 -81, 9- 21 -88, 6- 14 -89, 9 -9 -92; § 18 -6.4, Ord. 98 -A(l), 8 -5- 98; Ord. 00- 18(4), 6- 14 -00; Ord. 08- 18(7), 11- 12 -08) State law reference— Va. Code § 15.2 -2307. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Ave Nay Mr. Boyd Mr. Dorrier Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker Mr. Slutzky Ms. Thomas Clerk, Board of County Supervisors 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. • 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 doncerned 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 staffs 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 1. 4, 2000 stated: Lots recorded prior to the adoption of and not in conformity with this ordinance may be resubdivided and redeveloped, in whole or pan`, 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. 9. 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 Al 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. 2 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. Ontions 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 nonconforming lots. 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.lanauage 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 I 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. 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. I 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. 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, lot or structure in existence on the effective date of this ordinance which does not conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in which the same is situated, may be continued ;... , , .. in accordance with the provisions of ,this section. (Amended 9- 21 --88) 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 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 a. 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- tl�atp -n 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, 19741 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 -that; - as- at�ie�rse- peelee� - -seet #ems -39 -5; (Amended, seenle- areas - overlap- diStriet; -a 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 ordinancex- eeet- eet -tl9e- time- e- eeate�i e�eensttteten. 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. 6:5.2 Ecept-as- ether° wise- pevielee�- in- seetier�- 36- 5;- eeertie Added. areas - everlay ;.d!strlet; ^4:. In 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 A- subdivisien- reearded- er- develeped 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. F. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting (Page 33) 70 acres may not have vdlidity any longer. He said the staff tried to look at the whole issue as to the public purposg 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 one'majoi xeason of'haviug 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 t1me with aound enviro=m nt prac- tices bacause 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 kith 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 oads in the rural areas will meet State standards. He said the regulation could be such that it would not matter whether the area is rural or urban, tt's same 'arguments,codld be used for each area. If this is the case, Mr. Lindstrom commented that the ordi- nance would have to be administered very conRcien- tiously because of the number of requests. ale added that just because an area is urban, it does not mean that a road cannot an environmental problem. MT. -Bain commented that mountain land i�' rural areas has been developed that could not have been if the State road standard had been applied. Devel- opment occurs in these areas regardless of lather the County desires it there, because of private roads.; Mr. Lindstrom askad,if, under this or approved vhare a State road could not be a, "yes." He stated that a public road would Mr. Way reminded the Board that Mr. Kee this ordinance. Mr. Bowie asked how long th Keeler replied that be would like to have an asked Mr. Keeler why he wants an indefinite that his understanding is that some people w various road alignments to see exactly what for public roads involves. Mr. Bowie asked time for the comparison to be made. Mr. Kee Motion was then .offered by Mr. Bowie STA -89 -02 to September 13, .1989, to allow regarding.lot.size to determine conformity gather information regarding the Virginia:I standards for road alignment and width. R carried by the following recorded votes AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Me NAYS• Nan_ a private road can be Mr; Keeler. answered, B 30 percent more grading. s has asked for a deferral of matter will be deferred. Mr. ndefinite deferral. Mr. Bain .ferral. Mr. Keeler responded :t to do a comparison of the ,a 30 percent grading requirement 60 to 90 days would be enough r answered "yes ". seconded by Mr. Bain to defer J! time to review language the Comprehensive Plan and to rtment of Transportation's was called and the motion . Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. (Note: The Board recessed at 3:42 P.M. and reconvened at 3:37 P.M.) .Agenda Item No. 18, ZTA- 89 -03. To amen the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Section 6,0, Non-Gonforming Lots, o provide for combination and /or redivision of non - conforming lots (deferred•f om June 7, 1989). Mr. Keeler presented the staff report as.[;follows: "Public Purpose:. To provide for•improve3 development, to provide for uniform regulation. J Staff Comment: The Subdivision Ordinanc contains a provision which permits combination and /or redivision of non- conforming lots provided the result is more conforming to the req iraments 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 Attachment D i I I I F. June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting (Page 33) 70 acres may not have vdlidity any longer. He said the staff tried to look at the whole issue as to the public purposg 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 one'majoi xeason of'haviug 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 t1me with aound enviro=m nt prac- tices bacause 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 kith 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 oads in the rural areas will meet State standards. He said the regulation could be such that it would not matter whether the area is rural or urban, tt's same 'arguments,codld be used for each area. If this is the case, Mr. Lindstrom commented that the ordi- nance would have to be administered very conRcien- tiously because of the number of requests. ale added that just because an area is urban, it does not mean that a road cannot an environmental problem. MT. -Bain commented that mountain land i�' rural areas has been developed that could not have been if the State road standard had been applied. Devel- opment occurs in these areas regardless of lather the County desires it there, because of private roads.; Mr. Lindstrom askad,if, under this or approved vhare a State road could not be a, "yes." He stated that a public road would Mr. Way reminded the Board that Mr. Kee this ordinance. Mr. Bowie asked how long th Keeler replied that be would like to have an asked Mr. Keeler why he wants an indefinite that his understanding is that some people w various road alignments to see exactly what for public roads involves. Mr. Bowie asked time for the comparison to be made. Mr. Kee Motion was then .offered by Mr. Bowie STA -89 -02 to September 13, .1989, to allow regarding.lot.size to determine conformity gather information regarding the Virginia:I standards for road alignment and width. R carried by the following recorded votes AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Me NAYS• Nan_ a private road can be Mr; Keeler. answered, B 30 percent more grading. s has asked for a deferral of matter will be deferred. Mr. ndefinite deferral. Mr. Bain .ferral. Mr. Keeler responded :t to do a comparison of the ,a 30 percent grading requirement 60 to 90 days would be enough r answered "yes ". seconded by Mr. Bain to defer J! time to review language the Comprehensive Plan and to rtment of Transportation's was called and the motion . Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. (Note: The Board recessed at 3:42 P.M. and reconvened at 3:37 P.M.) .Agenda Item No. 18, ZTA- 89 -03. To amen the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Section 6,0, Non-Gonforming Lots, o provide for combination and /or redivision of non - conforming lots (deferred•f om June 7, 1989). Mr. Keeler presented the staff report as.[;follows: "Public Purpose:. To provide for•improve3 development, to provide for uniform regulation. J Staff Comment: The Subdivision Ordinanc contains a provision which permits combination and /or redivision of non- conforming lots provided the result is more conforming to the req iraments 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 Attachment D i I O is June 14, 1989 (Regular Dsy Meeting) 73- (Page 34) 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 NONCONPOMNG LOTS 6.5.4 A, subdivision recorded or developed prior *to the adoption of r and not in conformity with this•ordivance'miy be resub-'. divided and redeveloped, in whole or part, at the option.of i I Mr. Keeler explained that under the Sul been approvals for combinations of lots and lots conform more to the Subdivision and•Zoi been informed by the Zoning Administrator V forms to the ordinaneq, a new nonconforming are required. For example, he said, if Mr, lots in the -rural area where the minimum loi tidns would permit Mr. Smith to combine.tliei would be one and a half acres in size. How4 opinion is that this would still require a Ordinance. He then called attention to a s: in which an individual has a half acre lot i requirements, nor does the frontage conform the individual is adding an acre and a half lot, but because the frontage does not conf ordinance, as it is written, would indicate nonconforming 'lot which would require a var; vision Ordinance, there have ditions of property that make g Ordinances. He said he has unlass a lot completely con - t is being created and variances Xth owned three one -half acre ize is two acres, 'County. regula- three lots to create a lot that r, the Zoning Administrator's fiance in terms of the Zoning ation currently being examined al does not conform to the area the area requirements. He said that he will have a two -acre i, a strict reading of the at this ;man is creating another Mr. Keeler said this amendment. seeks to�put language into the Zoning Ordinance that is similar to the language in the Subdivision Ordinance. He said Mr St. John has suggested deleting the ina1 sentence of the amendment, which states: "The Zoning Administrator may; at his discretion., refer the matter to' the Board bf Zoning Appeals in•act dance with the provisions of Section 34.0." Mr. Keeler said the staff cod urs with Mr, St. John's sugges- tion since anyone can appeal the decision of. he Zoning Administrator to the BZA, Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Keeler if an owner3'could build on a half• -acre lot if the lot was declared a lot before the Zon'pg Ordinance went into effect. Mr. Keeler answered, "yes ", if the lot can mart the health requirements. He said it did not make sense to the staff if s4aona had a nonconforming. lot and was trying to improve the situation, for'the County to regiuira that person to go into a public hearing before the Board of -toning 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 follo said, if the BZA followed this criteria exec al of the lot that was mentioned by Mr. Keel that a person could biyild on a halt acre wit and a half in order to build, but the BZA qo hardship involved and: the variance would be 'in the Zoning Ordinance that has been cured oning Appeals has strict crite- its decision. He said sometimes not covered by the ordinance, ng the criteria. However, he y, it would have to deny.•approv- He said the BZA could say Lit having.to have another acre d also indicate that there is no vied. H& -said this is a defect the past with variances that do June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) 72 (Page 35) not literally follow the criteria. He said this hmeitdmeiit will ctire the. problem. Mr. Bain asked if this ordinance is limited only to owners-of a group of contiguous lots. Mr. St. John replied, "yest" Mr. Lindstrom said the owner would have. to take title to the other piece of land separately before it is added to thei original. parcel. He does not think that the owner could acquire the lot f =om someone else to make it more r• carifoziniri&. Mr. Bain disagreed and said that the owner could buy the lot from someone else as long as the lot was of record baforelthe 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 move conforming. He was concerned that, under the language in the ordinance, the proposal for the variance would i not be coming from the owner of the contiguous lots, but instead would come' from the other person. He said he does not 4nt 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 rue in all other cases.. t! Mr. Bowie commenced *.that it the situati n is batter than•it was before, he supports the amendment. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that an "s" be placed after the word "owner" in Section 6:5.4. Mr. St. John agreed that thej,;ordinance should read, "owner or I owners of any contiguous lots." j Motion was then offered. by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the ordinance as •presented and amended. and s4 out below. Roll was called and the motion carred by the following recorded?ote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. ! NAYS: None. S AN ORDINANE TO AMEND AND R4,9NACT OHATTER 6, NONCONY01g4ITIES OF THE ALBMWLE COUNTY BONING ORDINANCE SECTION 6.5, NONCONpRMING LOTS BR IT ORDAINED by the Board of Sup &visors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 6, of the Albema,`4l- e County Zoning Ordinance, be amended and reenacted in Section 6.5, N nconforming Lots, by the addition of subsection 6.5.4, the entirec�`"section to now read' as follows: 6.5 NONCONFORMING• LOTS4 4 615.1 Any lot of record at the time•!pf the adoption of this ordinance which is less in ardi and /or width than the minimum required by this ordinance may be used in a manner consistent with the uses permuted for a lot having the minimum area and /or width so rquired; provided that the rear, side and front yard and �etback requirements of this ordinance shall be maintained, and provided further. that no �•••, such use shall be permitted vhi ch is determined by the zoning administrator to constitute a danger tp the public health, safety and general we are. 615.2 Except as otherwise provided if section 30.5, scenic areas overlay district, in the case f any subdivision approved and defined as such pursuant t Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle after December 22, Z fig, and prior to the adoption of this ordinance and which we. of ieeo ;d at the time of the. adoption hereof, the rear, sid and front yard and setback regulations of the Zoning Ordi ance in effect at the time of such approval shall apply to aA;.l lots within such subdiv- ision. In all other oases, the rear, side and front yard H June 14, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) and setback regulations of this' ordinance shall apply. . 6.5.3 ?or purposes of this section,. any lot shown on a, preliminary or final subdivision plat wbi4h was approved by the proper - authority of the county in accordance with law prior to the adoption of this ordinance, anal 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 A subdivision recorded or developed prior to "the'adopiion of and not in conformity with thks ordinance may be resubdi- ` vided and redeveloped, in who',ie or part, at the option of the owner(s) of any group of ontiguous lots therein; but every such resubdivision shat, conform to this ordinance and ,hll other county ordinances cOrrently applicable; provided, however, that no such resubdi�i.sion which in the opinion of . the zoning administrator shall be substantially more con- forming -to the requirements of section 4.0, general regula- tions, and the area and bulk regulations of the district in which such subdivision to s14ated shall be denied-for failure to comply with the prgvisions 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 (deferrk'd from June 7, 1989). Mr. Keeler presented.the staff's report.�as follows; "Public Purpose To Be Served: To prote,t surface and groundwater supplies from overdraft and pollution. i Origin: Planning staff. Comment: In 1985, the Board amended th• industrial zoning distticts to require a special use permit for a use., not served by public.water, involving water consumption exceeding 4b gallons per day, par site acre or a use, not served by public sew r, involving disposal of other than domestic wastes. Those amendments pere prompted by a proposal to develop. a biological laboratory in a xu I area. These 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:, ell acid package sewage treatment plant. Initially, water cons uuj�:n tion would be about 6000 gallongs per day, however., the sewage pent would have a treatment capacity of 20,000 gpd. This representsj,a withdrawal rate of 1500 - 5000 gpd /site acre, far in excess of the limitations pleced on indus- trial uses. t' Staff recommends amendments to the commepcial zones identical to those made to the industrial zones in 1985. A lanation.of•the amepdments follows: �I a, Water Withdrawal Limitations i 1. Health Department regulations empl a water usage rate of 150 gpd per bedroom. Therefore, a foul bedroom dwelling would.have a daily consumption of 600 gallons; { r; 2. Minimum lot size for a dwelling notlserved by public water and public sewer is 60,000 square feet.' Therefore, per acre consump- tion would be about 400 gpd. (Thisa'.figure assumes that putilic 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 untess special use permit is obtained; r