The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-11-11 FIN A L 7:00 P.M. November 11, 1992 Room 7, County Office Building 1) Call to Order. 2) Pledge of Allegiance. 3) Moment of Silence. 4) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. 5) Consent Agenda (on next sheet). 6) Public Hearing on a request from Our Lady of Peace for Tax Exempt Status. 7) ZMA-92-6 & SP-92-33. Donnie & Catherine Dunn. Public Hearing on a request to apply the Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District & to permit spring water bottling on 49.4 ac zoned RA. Property on W side of Rt 601 approx 0.47 mi N of Rt 749. TM7,P37&38. White Hall Dist. (Property does not lie within a designated growth area.) 8) ZTA-92-08. Public Hearing to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordi- nance in the Rural Areas and Village Residential Districts to allow individual mobile homes by-right. 9) CP A -92-02. SOl1Ht -Fork-E.afle!-q'rl1sh--P6.hlie-Heariftg-tC5-Mlefle!-HoHymeae! - - - - - €ommttnity-to-ineltte!e-af)f)rox - 39-ae-fflr-low-e!eflsity-resitiefltial-l1se7 Prof)erty-ofl-R t-643, -l-mi- E-of- Rt-29N ':' - -q'M46,P22€ &98A ,:,--R:t'\i'"aflfla Bish--fBeferree!-from-Al1gtist-12,-1992, (Applicant requests deferral until January 13, 1993.) 10) CPA-92-05. Towers Land Trust. Public Hearing to amend Comprehensive Plan to expand the Growth Area Boundary of the Hollymead Community to include Regional Service, Office Service & Low & Medium Density Residential uses. Area under consideration for these designations is E of Rt 29N, S of North Fork Rivanna River, W of Rt 785 and N of Proffit Rd (Rt 649). 11) Approval of Minutes: December 4 and December 11, 1991; and August 5, 1992. 12) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. 13) Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 5.1 Request to Divide Buck Mountain Road into Seven Smaller Segments and Change Road Name. FOR INFORMATION: 5.2 Copy of Minutes for Planning Commission for October 6 and October 20, 1992. /' .,~ Edward H. Bin, Jr. Samuel Mil er COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R. Marshall. Jr. Scottsville David P. Bo erman Charlottesv lie Charles s. Martin Rivanna Charlotte Y. umphris Jack Jouet Walter F. Perkins White Hall MEMORANDUM Amended Board Actions of November 11, 1992 TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director/Planning & Community Development FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC ~ DATE: November 16, 1992 S Board Actions of November 11, 1992 (Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 5.1. Request to Divide Buck Mountain Road i to Seven Smaller Segments and Change Road Name. APPROVED as set out in full below: 1. Retain Buck Mountain Road from 743 in Earlysville to Route 601 in Free Union. 2. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Millington Road from Route 601 in Free Union to Route 614. 3. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Garth Road on Route 614 to Route 810 in White Hall (thus providing for the continuation of Garth Road from Route 654 to Route 810 - see Attachment B). 4. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Browns Gap Turnpike from Route 810 to Route 680 (thus providing for the continuation of Browns Gap Turnpike from Route 240 to the end of Route 629 - see Attachment B). 5. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to White Hall Road from Route 680 to Route 788 in Crozet. 6. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Railroad Avenue from Route 789 to Route 684. * Printed on recycled paper 1'1 To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg November 16, 1992 2 D~te: P~ge: 7. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Lane Town Road from Route 685 Intersection to Route 691. 8. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Half Mile Branch Road from Route 691 to Route 797 at Yancey Mill. L~N/jnh cc: Robert B. Brandenburger Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne White Bruce Woodzell Amelia G. McCulley George R. st. John File Edward H. B in, Jr. Samuel Mill r COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R. Marshall. Jr. Scottsville David P. Bow rman Charlottesvil e Charles S. Martin Rivanna Charlotte Y. umphris Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins White Hall MEMORANDUM TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director/Planning & Community Development Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC~ November 13, 1992 FROM: DATE: S Board Actions of November 11, 1992 (Night Meeting) Following is a list of actions taken by the Board at its eting on November 11, 1992 (night meeting): Agenda Item No.1. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p m. Agenda Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda f om the PUBLIC. Mr. Edward Eitelberg came forward and asked if the Board c uld request City Council to lower its golf rates at Pen Park f r County residents who are senior citizens. Agenda Item No. 5.1. Request to Divide Buck Mountain Road i to Seven Smaller Segments and Change Road Name. APPROVED as set out in full below: 1. Retain Buck Mountain Road from 743 in Earlysville to Route 601 in Free Union. 2. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Millington Road from Route 601 in Free Union to Route 614. * Printed on recycled paper To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg November 13, 1992 2 DFite: P~ge: 3. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Garth Road on Route 614 to Route 810 in White Hall (thus providing for the continuation of Garth Road from Route 654 to Route 810 - see Attachment B). 4. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Browns Gap Turnpike from Route 810 to Route 680 (thus providing for the continuation of Browns Gap Turnpike from Route 240 to the end of Route 629 - see Attachment B). 5. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to White Hall Road from Route 680 to Route 788 in Crozet. 6. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Lane Town Road on Route 684 from Route 788 to Route 691. 7. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Half Mile Branch Road on Route 684 from Route 691 to Route 797 at Yancey Mill. Agenda Item No.6. Public Hearing on a request from Our L~dy of Peace for Tax Exempt status. ADOPTED the attached resolution supporting the tax exempt r~quest for Our Lady of Peace. Copies have been forwarded to the G~neral Assembly members. In addition, the Board authorized the County Attorney to d~aft the agreement for Our Lady of Peace ln accordance with the f~llowing policy (which will be used for all future requests of a s milar nature): (a) provide at all times a minimum of 20 percent of total assisted living beds to the indigent of Albemarle County. Indigent shall be defined as not exceeding 130% of the income eligibility guidelines for the Virginia Auxiliary Grant Program. Such provision of available bed space shall be at no cost to the Albemarle resident participating in the program; (b) agree to a service fee, to be paid in the same fashion as real estate taxes are paid, in the amount of 20 percent of the real estate tax liability owed on the exempted property to cover the costs of basic governmental services provided; To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg November 13, 1992 3 Agenda Item No.7. ZMA-92-6 & SP-92-33. Donnie & Catherine nn. Public Bearinq on a request to apply the Natural Resource traction Overlay District & to permit spring water bottling on .4 ac zoned RA. Property on W side of Rt 601 approx 0.47 mi N o Rt 749. TM7,P37&38. White Hall Dist. (Property does not lie w'thin a designated growth area.) DEFERRED ZMA-92-6 & SP-92-33, Donnie and Catherine Dunn, to cember 16, 1992 to allow staff time to review all material nded in by Ms. Marjorie Maupin Paul and make sure that erything to do with water hydraulic, is addressed, to seek ofessional help as to the questions centering on adjacent operty owners and their ability to continue to get water as a sult of issuance of this permit. The Board also asked staff to find a way to determine the aning of the word "minimum" as suggested by the League of Women ter's statement. Agenda Item No.8. ZTA-92-08. Public Bearinq to amend the bemarle County Zoning Ordinance in the Rural Areas and Village sidential Districts to allow individual mobile homes by-right. ADOPTED the attached ordinance. Amended Zoning Ordinance s eets will follow under separate cover. Agenda Item No.9. CPA-92-02. South Fork Land Trust. blic Bearinq to amend Hollymead Community to include approx 30 for low density residential use. Property on Rt 643, 1 mi E Rt 29N. TM46,P22&98A. Rivanna Dist. (Applicant requests ferral until January 13, 1993.) DEFERRED to January 13, 1993 at the request of the a plicant. Agenda Item No. 10. CPA-92-05. Towers Land Trust. Public arinq to amend Comprehensive Plan to expand the Growth Area undary of the Hollymead Community to include Regional Service, fice Service & Low & Medium Density Residential uses. Area der consideration for these designations is E of Rt 29N, S of rth Fork Rivanna River, W of Rt 785 and N of Proffit Rd (Rt 9) . DEFERRED to be heard no later than September 30, 1993. The ard requested that staff undertake a study of the entire area cluding the Hollymead community, Piney Mountain Village, the To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. v. Wayne Cilimberg November 13, 1992 4 D~te: P~ge: Sbuth Fork Land Trust request, UREF's property and the urban g~owth areas. This was done with the ~nderstanding that this r~quest will supersede work planned on the next five year update o~ the total comprehensive Plan. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda f~om the BOARD. The Board requested a staff report at the November 18, 1992, m~eting on the feasibility of real estate tax relief for people w~ose homes have been improved by AHIP and who cannot now afford tb pay their taxes. Also discussed the possibility of this being sbmething that would require legislation from the General A~sembly with possibly discussion of this during the joint m~eting with legislators on December 2nd. Cancelled joint meeting with city council on November 13, 1~92, and rescheduled this meeting for December 11, 1992. The tl~o bodies will discuss the Child and Youth Commission's proposal flpr a Teen Center and consolidation of purchasing services. L~N/jnh A tachments (2) Cl~: Robert B. Brandenburger Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne White Bruce Woodzell Amelia G. McCulley George R. st. John File ,. ,.- RESOLUTION ENDORSING LEGISLATION TO GRANT A TAX EXEMPTION FOR IIOUR LADY OF PEACE" WHEREAS, Our Lady of Peace has asked this Board to endorse an amendment to T'tle 58.1 of the Code of Virginia granting its property exemption from taxa- t'on, state and local, pursuant to Article X, Section 6 (a) (6) of the Consti- tltion of Virginia: and WHEREAS, Our Lady of Peace is a non-profit organization operated for the purpose of providing life care and other services to those persons over sixty- five years of age; and WHEREAS, this Board has considered, at a public hearing duly advertised as rEquired by Section 30-19.04 of the Virginia Code, held on November 11, 1992, wtether property of Our Lady of Peace should be exempt from taxation; and WHEREAS, this Board has considered the provisions of Section 30-19. 04(B) ard finds that Our Lady of Peace: 1) Is exempt from federal taxation pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; 2) Holds no license from the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; 3) Pays no compensation to any officer or director in excess of reasonable allowance for services rendered; 4) Does not distribute any part of its net earnings to any individual; 5) Provides services for the common good including housing and services for the limited and moderate income elderly of Albemarle County; 6) Does not and will not have a substantial part of its activities including carrying on propaganda, influencing legislation or participating in political campaigns; 7) Has no rule, regulation, policy or practice discriminating on the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex or national origin; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle COI.mty, Virginia, hereby endorses, supports and approves the adoption of an am~ndment to Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia exempting property of Ou Lady of Peace located in Albemarle County from taxation, state and local; anl1 . ." FURTHER, after exannn1ng Section 30-19.04.B of the Code of Virginia, the Bard recommends that Our Lady of Peace be classified as a charitable organiza- t.on for the purpose of obtaining this tax exempt status; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to convey c rtified copies of this resolution to the members of the General Assembly r presenting Albemarle County. * -;I{ "Ie -;'" ;', I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, co rect copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Al emarle County, Virginia, on November 11, 1992. ',- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Cpunty, Virginia, that certain sections of the Albemarle County Zpning Ordinance be amended, reenacted, or replaced, all as fpllows: * * * * * s~ction 3.0 DEFINITIONS. Amend and reenact the definition of Mobile Home to read as fpllows: Mobile Home: A building unit constructed on a chassis for towing to the point of use, and designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation for continuous year round occupancy as a dwelling; or, two (2) or more such units separately towable, but designed to be joined together at the point of use to form a single dwelling, and which is designed for removal to and installation or erection on other sites. This definition shall not include an industrialized building unit which is labelled as meeting the Building Official and Code Administration Code (BOCA) for one- and tWO-family units. * * * * * Section 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS. Repeal the wording under 5.6 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS in its entirety and adopt in its place the following language: While the code of Virginia specifically provides for the restriction of mobile homes solely to mobile home parks among other regulatory provisions applicable to mobile homes, Albemarle County, in an effort . to provide for affordable housing for all residents, permits mobile homes to be situated on individual lots in certain zoning districts. To ensure usage of such mobile homes for residential purposes, the following regulations shall apply: a. Such mobile home approved pursuant Building Code; shall be located on a foundation to the Virginia Uniform statewide b. Such mobile home shall not be used for any purpose other than a primary place of residence. * * * * * \. sEction 10.0 RURAL AREA DISTRICT. RA Repeal 10.2.2.10 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS in its e ~tirety and adopt as a use by-right section 10.2.1.19 MOBILE HOMES O~ INDIVIDUAL LOTS (reference 5.6). * * * * * section 12.0 VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL VR Repeal 12.2.2.10 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS in its e ltirety and adopt as a use by-right section 12.2.1.14 MOBILE HOMES O~ INDIVIDUAL LOTS (reference 5.6). * * * * * I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance .unanimously adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at its meeting held on November 11, 1992. ~~ors r :~:~ ; / : .- i {- - q 2_ c. "~ -..... _.......... ,.\.r,_ ," County of Albemarle EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA ITLE: Road N e Change for Buck Mountain Road AGENDA DATE: November 11, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: , LiZ.! l! I (c':".JJ ACTION: INFORMATION: SUBJECT Request length smaller PROPOSAL RE UEST: approval to divide the 21 f Buck Mountain Road into segments. mile seven CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION:~ INFORMATION: Brandenburger, Cilimberg, ATTACHMENTS: Yes (1 ) AI! REVIEWED BY: ~ - STAFF C Messrs. Weaver BACKGRO During he Enhanced 911 road naming process, a 21-mile length of road from Earlysville to Yancey ills was named Buck Mountain Road. Further review of this road by our emergency service providers and Mr. Campagna has identified the length to be a problem in providing efficie t and responsive services. In order to address this safety/service concern, staff recomme ds creating seven smaller road lengths. Of these seven roads, three are new road names a d the remaining four are previously approved roads or extensions of previously approve roads that follow a more natural road alignment. The attached staff report outlines the spe ific recommended changes. ing these changes at this time, there will be no additional cost impact to property r the County as these additional changes can be accommodated by our consultant, by sign manufacturer/installation and by the post office and telephone companies. ents on the three new roads want to change the name, they may do so through the es outlined in the road name change policy. name changes as shown in the attached staff report. 92.166 COUNTY OF ALEUv1AHLE. . f -h'(IJ f: ' ( .;.:! ~ ~ E>~~(:iJ"i'i\iC~ U"J~:'ICE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Albemarle County Planning Commission 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (For the November 11, 1992 Consent Agenda - For Approval) 1W Tex Weaver, Information Resource Planner DATE: November 4, 1992 RE: Buck Mountain Road Due to the excessive length and orientation of Buck Mountain Road through several communities (Earlysville, Free Union, White Hall, Crozet, and Yancey Mills), County Emergency Service Providers have requested that Buck Mountain Road be broken down into shorter, more manageable road segments. This request was made by Wayne Campagna (Director of the Emergency Operations Center), Mike Schlemmer (Fire and Rescue Coordinator), and the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association (JCFRA) to facilitate more efficient and effective response times to emergencies. No other roads have been identified by County Emergency Service Providers as presenting this type of undesirable situation. After consulting with Steven Meeks, Chairman and White Hall representative of the Road Naming Committee, the following recommendations for approval by the Board have been made (see Attachment A): 1. Retain Buck Mountain Road from Route 743 in Earlysville to Route 601 in Free Union. 2. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Millington Road from Route 601 in Free Union to Route 614. 3. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Garth Road on Route 614 to Route 810 in White Hall (thus providing for the continuation of Garth Road from Route 654 to Route 810 - see Attachment B). 4. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Browns Gap Turnpike from Route 810 to Route 680 (thus providing for the continuation of Browns Gap Turnpike from Route 240 to the end of Route 629 - see Attachment B). 5. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to White Hall Road from Route 680 to Route 788 in Crozet. 6. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Railroad Avenue from Route 789 to Route 684 (thus providing for the continuation of Railroad Avenue from Route 810 to Route 684 - see Attachment C). 7. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Slabtown Road from Route 781 to Route 797 in Yancey Mills. By approving the ::~mmendations outlined above at this time, staff will be able to coordinate these changes with our road sign contractor prior to installation of road signs in this area of the County. Should you require additional information regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg Robert B. Brandenburger Peter Parsons Maynard Sipe Wayne Campagna Mike Schlemmer Steven Meeks ~ I ATTACHMENT A I .... i !: C:> ~ /\~ ~ /-1 - ~ ~ ~ / i) _~ 0 ~ / ~~~I ~ ;~ g !ll ~ ' ~ ~~ ~ i'l .. ,u ,if ~~/ '~,,1 i / '> ~ \~ "_ Z i :f ~ ~, == i a: ~ ~ ;;. :iE ~,' . i ,~~ ~ i . ~ ~ J: ~ < 0 ~.I.' ) :! ~'~ l'\, -~'~) -l ~ ~L-- :~,~ '- . ''''''\ ~J ",~, oil ~.>f. \~- @ '" 0 co r"~ ! ..':'\'''~' Il: r;;] L~;V,",- \ ,', .~:. ~~ ~ L~"';:'~~ 't"J" _.,01" ' \ <Q 0 I 0 EJ r;l , .-. J ;;~ ~';'! [~ "r .-'>. 0':>0 , ~ ~ ~ -( ... 1-'7 0,) '\ L \ , .......'61'......-_ \_..' ~'" o ,s. "....~ G) a. :J 7t-o\I< CO '~, "'W c: G G) .r:::.> . en I-ft-O' c:( , c: ~~X1'" 3:'!JI-fS"C' :: 1:--~ CO~r o ~ '''' 0" '- J '- m 0\1 J") - "C 0,) "m CO a:. 0 Ja: c: :: o - ..0 CO - en J") ~ J") t- \. ~ l'I [ATTACHMENT cl , " ", '\ \. , '. " r Crozet "'0 CG o a:. c ~ o - .0. CG - (I) ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ 797 1230 ,. ,IA e A a "'" Yancey .- \ 825JMillS -- --- 1 " I ATTACHMENT B/ r- "..--' \, " "') V' , ct> --- ~ ~ '<b ~ d ~E I ct> ,...... : ~ ...- ""'-0..: -q,: ~ ,........ <.D / .".:'.-. '--", j, ;/-., . b (;' ~ ;..1 \\ \ , ,'. ~ ...- o r- . ,,,--'---' .- .,,,,.- /' ,/ / . .. / .\10 / ~ut~9\~ . . .d~S G~9 / ~tO"'" b & Q: ~ S - o .:z; ~ co g> CI) ~ <b .~ "- ~ S ~~. " ~ e CO ../ I' / " ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ? .~ '" f//" ( \ Il~ "f,. RES 0 L UTI 0 N ENDORSING LEGISLATION TO GRANT A TAX EXEMPTION FOR "OUR LADY OF PEACE" WHEREAS. Our Lady of Peace has asked this Board to endorse an amendment to T'tle 58.1 of the Code of Virginia granting its property exemption from taxa- t'on. state and local, pursuant to Article X, Section 6 (a) (6) of the Consti- tltion of Virginia: and WHEREAS, Our Lady of Peace is a non-profit organization operated for the plrpose of providing life care and other services to those persons over sixty- f've years of age; and WHEREAS, this Board has considered, at a public hearing duly advertised as required by Section 30-19.04 of the Virginia Code, held on November 11, 1992, wI ether property of Our Lady of Peace should be exempt from taxation; and WHEREAS, this Board has considered the provisions of Section 30-19. 04(B) ard finds that Our Lady of Peace: 1) Is exempt from federal taxation pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; 2) Holds no license from the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; 3) Pays no compensation to any officer or director in excess of reasonable allowance for services rendered; 4) Does not distribute any part of its net earnings to any individual; 5) Provides services for the common good including housing and services for the limited and moderate income elderly of Albemarle County; 6) Does not and will not have a substantial part of its activities including carrying on propaganda, influencing legislation or participating in political campaigns; 7) Has no rule, regulation, policy or practice discriminating on the basis of religious conviction. race, color, sex or national origin; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Ccunty, Virginia, hereby endorses, supports and approves the adoption of an amendment to Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia exempting property of Our Lady of Peace located in Albemarle County from taxation. state and local; and ~ J'r- FURTHER, after exannnwg Section 30-19.04. B of the Code of Virginia, the rd recommends that Our Lady of Peace be classified as a charitable organiza- n for the purpose of obtaining this tax exempt status; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to convey tified copies of this resolution to the members of the General Assembly resenting Albemarle County. * ).{ ole ..,'( -/e I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, co rect copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Al emarle County, Virginia, on November 11, 1992. D;STr~~~:t;~..;:""', T^.:~ ~:',.:_' .:) N\ ..-:,,'u':~,H~ il i q'z.. ON _.:...;,,:,,!,,l___~"__- County of Albemarle EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing - Tax Exempt status - Our Lady 0 Peace AGENDA DA~: November 11, 1992 ITEMRUMBER: qZ. iOD'l.05.3 ACTION:---1L- INFORMATION: Our X, of CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY:~ Huff BACKGR On Octo er 7, 1992, the Board authorized a public hearing of Our Lady of Peace for their assisted care facility. conside ing a policy to cover future similar requests. to consider the tax exempt status In doing so, the Board will be adopt a resolution of support, state statute requires that the following considered at a pubic hearing: 1. the organization is exempt from taxation pursuant to 501(c) of the Internal Code of 1954; 2. ether a current annual alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages has en issued by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to such organizations, for use on s ch property; 3. ether any director or officer of the organization is paid compensation in excess of reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services which ch director or officer actually renders; 4. ether any part of the net earnings of such organization inures to the benefit of any dividual, and whether any significant portion of the service provided by such ganization is generated by funds received from donations, contributions or local, ate, or federal grants. As used in this subsection, donations shall include the oviding of personal services or the contribution of in-kind or other material rvices; 5. the organization provides services for the common good of the public; 6. ether a substantial part of the activities of the organization involves carrying on opaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation and whether the ganization participates in, or intervenes in, any political campaign on behalf of any ndidate for public office; 7. rule, regulation, policy, or practice of the organization discriminates on the basis religious conviction, race, color, sex or national origin; and 8. yother criteria, facts and circumstances which the governing body deems pertinent the adoption of such resolution. Public Novembe Page 2 Please listed Exempt status - Our Lady of Peace ind attached a letter dated September 14, 1992 which answers each of the questions bove in a satisfactory fashion. Our Lad of Peace has agreed to enter into an agreement that they will make available 20% of their a sisted living beds to Albemarle residents who do not exceed 130% of the income eligibi ity guidelines for the State Auxiliary Grant Program. Additionally, this agreement would c ntain a provision for Our Lady of Peace to pay to the County a 20% service fee, to be paid in the same fashion as real estate taxes are paid to cover the costs of basic governm ntal services provided. These proposals have been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office nd found to be legally acceptable. RECOMME I f the B 1. A f to act favorably on the request, the following actions are recommended: attached resolution supporting the tax exempt request which will then be to the General Assembly. 2. A thorize the County Attorney to draft the agreement as outlined above and in a cordance with the following policy to be used for all future requests of a similar n ture: 92.167 provide at all times a minimum of 20% of available beds to the indigent of Albemarle County. Indigent shall be defined as not exceeding 130% of the income eligibility guidelines for the Virginia Auxiliary Grant Program. Such provision of available bed space shall be at no cost to the Albemarle resident participating in the program; agree to a service fee, to be paid in the same fashion as real estate taxes are paid, in the amount of 20% of the real estate tax liability owed on the exempted property to cover the costs of basic governmental services provided; and appropriately address the questions articulated in Section 30-19.04 of the Code of Virginia which the Board of Supervisors is required to consider. CiS",- r~~:'L'~-~-,:) T.: CIN ..,.~ /0 .-c;~ - 5)Jh~ County of Albemarle / EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA ITLE: Tax Exe pt Request - Our Lady of Peace AGENDA DATE: October 7, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 9.< " / cJ C';' t..' y' SUBJECT PROPOSAL RE UEST: Request for public hearing pursuant to Section 30-19.04 to consider a resolution support'ng or refusing to support an exempti n from taxation pursuant to Article X, Sect on 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virgini ACTION: ~ INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: STAFF C Messrs. ATTACHMENTS: Yes Huff REVIEWED BY: ".------ { BACKGRO On Septe 14, 1992, the County received a request from the Board of Directors of Our Lady of Peac to reconsider an earlier request to support tax exempt status for their assisted care facility. The minutes from their earlier request on November 14 and December 19, 1990 are att ched for the Board's review. Our Lad residen Grant P thereby not to of Peace has agreed to make available 20% of its assisted living beds to Albemarle s who do not exceed 130% of the income eligibility guidelines for the State Auxiliary ogram. This would allow a maximum monthly income not to exceed $866.00 per month, eeting a need for the truly indigent. These guidelines also provide for a net worth xceed $2,000. In discu sions with Mr. Scott Hillis, Director of Fiscal Services for Westminster Canterbury of the lue Ridge, Mr. Hillis indicates that his facility does not participate in the Virgini Auxiliary Grant Program. Any scholarships which are offered are distributed on a case-by-case basis and do not have firm income guidelines. In some cases, scholarships are used to artially offset their "entrance fees" but more likely are used to help with monthly expenses. This precludes them from serving the indigent population that Our Lady of Peace is atte ting to serve. of Peace has also offered to pay a 20% "service fee" in lieu of taxes to cover essential services. This is the maximum allowed under state statute for this category of exempt e tities and is in line with Roanoke County's approval for a similar facility. DISCUSSI If the B decides to hold a public hearing to consider the tax exempt request, it will be asked to pass a resolution of support which would then be forwarded to the General Assembly. Should he Board choose to enter into an agreement for a 20% service fee, it could be incorpor ted into the resolution approving the request or done as a separate memorandum of agreemen. Roanoke City has incorporated their service fee into the approving resolution, Roanoke ounty has executed a separate memorandum of agreement and the City of Virginia Beach does not participate in a service fee arrangement at all. In order to address the Board's desire for the staff to develop recommended criteria for this type of equest, the following"is offered for consideration. Any facility offering licensed home for adult beds to the community, in order to receive tax exempt status, must: Agenda ~itle: Tax Exempt Request - Our Lady of Peace October 7, 1992 Page 2 (c ) provide at all times a m~n~mum of 20% of available beds to the indigent of Albemarle County. Indigent shall be defined as not exceeding 130% of the income eligibility guidelines for the Virginia Auxiliary Grant Program. Such provision of available bed space shall be at no cost to the Albemarle resident participating in the program; (1 ) agree to a service fee, to be paid in the same fashion as real estate taxes are paid, in the amount of 20% of the real estate tax liability owed on the exempted property to cover the costs of basic governmental services provided; and (c ) appropriately address the questions articulated in Section 30-19.04 of the Code of Virginia which the Board of Supervisors is required to consider. RECOMMEIInATION: If the oard chooses, staff would recommend a public hearing date of November 11, 1992 to consideI the tax exemption request of Our Lady of Peace. 92.136 COUNTY OF ALBF.}jlARLE. r.: :;~.:......)~jL,_~~j ~. 1 I.. .:.: .',.' 1 it 1"9? ~~.i SEP ~ ~,.. ; ~ %) . .' 1 li!~' .... 'n-- - ';-" ..' ..: ... _~ I i J~':'?: '<~.;.' ~. '~~ EXf~CU'nV[ OFfICE Our JLady of peace A Caring Retirement Community September 14, 1992 Mr. Richard E. Huff, II Deputy County Executive County of Albemarle Office of County Executive 401 McIntyre Road Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596 Dear Mr. Huff: Our Lady of Peace Board of Directors herewith respectfully requests that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors reconsider Our Lady of Peace's real estate tax exemption request. The following information is provided for your review. A. Our Lady of Peace is prepared to pay a 20% service fee, as provided by the state statute. B. Our Lady of Peace will make available 20% of its assisted living beds, known as licensed Home for Adult beds, for Albemarle residents who do not exceed 130% of the income eligibility guidelines for the State Auxiliary Grant Program. C. The following information is provided in accordance with Subsection B of Section 30-19.04, as amended in the 1950 Code of Virginia: 1. Our Lady of Peace is a tax exempt organization under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(C)(3). The exemption is under a group ruling issued August 12, 1988, which exempts all agencies and instrumentalities operated, supervised, or controlled by the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. 2. Our Lady of Peace will not have an alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages. 751 Hillsdale Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 804/973-1155 Richard Huff September 14, 1992 Page Two 3. No Director or Officer of Our Lady of Peace is paid any compensation whatsoever. 4. No earnings or remuneration of the organization adheres to the benefit of any individual. The Our Lady of Peace retirement community is being constructed utilizing tax exempt bonds. 5. Our Lady of Peace will provide housing and services for the limited and moderate income elderly of the greater Albemarle County. An Endowment Fund will be provided from the Diocese of Richmond to provide assistance to Our Lady of Peace residents who may not be able to afford the cost of care in the future. 6. Our Lady of Peace is not involved in carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation nor does Our Lady of Peace participate in or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for political office. 7. No rule, regulation, policy, or practice of Our Lady of Peace discriminates on the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex, or national origin. 8. Our Lady of Peace will provide any additional facts which the governing body of the County of Albemarle deems pertinent to the adoption of the aforementioned resolution. D. The need for a program to assist the limited income frail elderly within Albemarle County appears to be substantial. Although Our Lady of Peace has done no advertising, networking or case work, we currently have 19 limited income frail elderly from Albemarle County who have requested admission. E. Lastly, in an effort to distinguish Our Lady of Peace from other facilities offering assisted living in Albemarle County, the following information is offered. Our Lady of Peace is a 501 (C) ( 3) non-profit retirement community designed to meet the needs of the middle, moderate, and limited income elderly residents of the Richard Huff September 14, 1992 Page Three Albemarle area. As a 501 (c) ( 3) organization, Our Lady of Peace must make a commitment to take care of its residents should they run out of money after entering the facility. This will be done through a Diocesan Endowment Fund. Our Lady of Peace does not require any type of founders or entrance fees-:-- Further, it does not require potential residents to have specific kinds of expensive insurance in place before admission. Our Lady of Peace offers a month to month lease with a thirty-day notice provision and a $350 refundable security deposit. Our Lady of Peace is an effort by the three local Catholic Churches and the Diocese of Richmond to meet the needs of a frail and vulnerable population, not people who can live completely independently in apartments or single family houses. The average ages of the residents at the other three Diocesan facilities are: Our Lady of the Valley, Roanoke, VA st. Mary's Woods, Richmond, VA Marian Manor, Virginia Beach, VA 83 years 83 years 84 years In addition to providing care for the middle and moderate income elderly of Albemarle County, Our Lady of Peace hopes to address the needs of a certain number of very low income local residents needing assisted living services. Each of the three other tax exempt Diocesan facilities in Roanoke, Richmond, and Virginia Beach, devotes up to 20% of their assisted living beds to very low income (indigent) older adults. Many of these persons are screened and referred through the local Department of Social Services Auxiliary Grant Program. Others who are just a few dollars above the maximum allowable income for the State Grant Program ($600) are referred through other social service agencies assisting the elderly. Both the local Our Lady of Peace Board of Directors and Bishop Sullivan ardently desire to offer the same type of help currently being given in the other three Diocesan facilities to the frail poor elderly of Albemarle County. Richard Huff september 14, 1992 Page Four It is our earnest hope that you will give favorable consideration to Our Lady of Peace's request for tax exemption so that we may aid the most vulnerable among us. Sincerely, '),' /} /( ~ -r~ L~1 i':-:~- Ruth DePiro President Board of Directors RD/amm pc: Most Reverend Walter F. Sullivan Robert McNichols RESOLUTION ENDORSING LEGISLATION TO GRANT A TAX EXEMPTION FOR "OUR LADY OF PEACE" WHEREAS, Our Lady of Peace has asked this Board to endorse an amendment to Ie 58.1 of the Code of Virginia granting its property exemption from taxa- n, state and local, pursuant to Article X, Section 6 (a) (6) of the Consti- ion of Virginia: and WHEREAS, Our Lady of Peace is a non-profit organization operated for the pose of providing life care and other services to those persons over sixty- e years of age; and WHEREAS, this Board has considered, at a public hearing duly advertised as uired by Section 30-19.04 of the Virginia Code, held on November 11, 1992, ther property of Our Lady of Peace should be exempt from taxation; and WHEREAS, this Board has considered the provisions of Section 30-19.04(B) finds that Our Lady of Peace: 1) Is exempt from federal taxation pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; 2) Holds no license from the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; 3) Pays no compensation to any officer or director in excess of reasonable allowance for services rendered; 4) Does not distribute any part of its net earnings to any individual; 5) Provides services for the common good including housing and services for the limited and moderate income elderly of Albemarle County; 6) Does not and will not have a substantial part of its activities including carrying on propaganda, influencing legislation or participating in political campaigns; 7) Has no rule, regulation, policy or practice discriminating on the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex or national origin; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Co mty, Virginia, hereby endorses, supports and approves the adoption of an am ndment to Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia exempting property of Ou Lady of Peace located in Albemarle County from taxation, state and local; an FURTHER, after exammmg Section 30-19.04.B of the Code of Virginia, the Bo rd recommends that Our Lady of Peace be classified as a charitable organiza- ti n for the purpose of obtaining this tax exempt status; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to convey ce tified copies of this resolution to the members of the General Assembly re resenting Albemarle County. "1'< * ,I( "/: * DATE \'\~OVQ fY\.Ct ( AGENDA ITEM NO. AGENDA ITEM NAME DEFERRED UNTIL Form.3 7/25/86 ("'(lC) ") \ I ,-',~/i L- (),'l I I '~1 1-- \ I I i , ,....- i I ...-) i.-+- \.y' I ~r V' /. / ;. /1 ., .---, c,,' ~.-I I - /., j'''') ., J L- ./..;' t -."""\ , ,J(\ '''''-,I . \ \_( I 3!1l1 D - (12 'C{p -::j -") . . .'. ' , f..'.., , , .. I " ' (/ ,v l., ) lc,1 I.oj "" L-l'l CC 'i ul.. < . ( --) ,/ / " (~ - \,~./; \. ;.,,_.~'\.. \- ~ I , Edward H Bin, Jr Samuel Mil er COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R. Marshall. Jr Scottsville David P. Bo erman Charlottes v He Charles 5 Marlin Riv<mna Charlotte Y. Umphris Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins White Hall January 12, 1993 M . Ruth DePiro p esident Bard of Directors o ~ Lady of Peace 7 1 Hillsdale Drive C arlottesville, Virginia 22901 At its meeting on November 11, 1992, the Board of Supervi- s rs authorized the Chairman to sign the attached agreement. Ms. DePiro: D If you need any additional information, or I can be of f rther assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, & tX- );r<(1~ Ella~W. Carey, , erk, Board of Superv, sors CMC c Melvin Breeden Richard Huff ......~ '"~.~ ~ * Printed on recycled paper --. t if 4 .- -;; ~ ~...-/Ja - COUNTY OF ALBEMARLI Office of County Attorney 416 Park Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Telephone 296-7138 '" -f_ ,~!::~., ,..'~ ,.)'"'.~ ';1 y--- ~/ /' ..~ p c...;.t"i., V r.JU'~ JY'n ' c.", .. . ( I '~I " ,". ~,! (--r-- ~ 5a,y) /fig/'.lh-I't"; , 1, ./ --;I)A/~ J t?... GEORGE R. ST.JOHN COUNTY A liORNEY December 23, 1992 JAMES M. BOWLING, IV DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY R'chard Huff D puty County Executive 4 1 McIntire Road C arlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 'Re: Agreement with Our Lady of Peace, Inc. 'r Rick: Enclosed please find an executed agreement with Our Lady of ce, Inc. Will you please have the Chairman of the Board of ervisors execute the agreement? Thank you. Very t~Yours, / / , James ~. Bowllng, IV Depu~y County Attorney JM /tlh En losure .~ '.... ,....,. "~ . '-'"'~<"_ r t '. _ .. _.. ._ Ct;...} ~ ,,' J'c\l 'r P01 ~~: 'i):;, , ; ;'- ,.... ~ A.......... . r. .' ,( AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made for purposes of identification this 24th da of November, 1992, by and between OUR LADY OF PEACE, INC., a vi ginia non-profit corporation, party of the first part, and th COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, party of the second part; WIT N E SSE T H WHEREAS, at a duly called meeting on November 13, 1992, the Bo of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle adopted a supporting the tax exempt request of Our Lady of re Pe Inc., pursuant to Virginia Code Section 30-19.04, which re elution has been forwarded to the General Assembly of the Co onwealth of Virginia for consideration; and WHEREAS, in consideration of the adoption of such resolution, Ou Lady of Peace, Inc., agreed to certain matters, which are me prialized in this Agreement; THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, the Co of Albemarle, Virginia and Our Lady of Peace, Inc., do as follows: The Director of Finance of the County of Albemarle shall as a service fee to cover the cost of basic government vices provided Our Lady of Peace, Inc., to be paid as real es ~te taxes are paid, in the amount of twenty percent (20%) of : real estate liability owed to the property described in attached hereto. Taxes are due and payable in full by : due date provided by law, with penalty and interest to rue as provided by law if taxes are not paid when due. ,. . Co 2. Our Lady of Peace, Inc., agrees to provide at all times a inimum of twenty percent (20%) of total assisted living beds, kn wn as Licensed Horne for Adults to the indigent of Albemarle Co rty, Virginia. Indigent shall be defined as not exceeding 13 % of the income eligibility guidelines for the Virginia Au :iliary Grant Program. Such provision of available bed space in orne eligibility guidelines for the Virginia Auxiliary Grant If at some point in the future sh be at no cost to the Albemarle County resident pa ticipating in the program. Pr ~ram are no longer in existence, Our Lady of Peace, Inc. and I th I County of Albemarle agree to adopt similar guidelines. This re ~irement shall continue for so long as Our Lady of Peace, In '" has an assisted care facility on the property described in Ex A attached to this Agreement. Al Our Lady of peace,~e~ to provide the County of Virginia, with ^ access to its records or such as the County may request from time to time to as ~re compliance with paragraph 2 of this Agreement. Our Lady of Peace, Inc., on an annual basis on or before December 5 of year! shall provide a certification to the Director of ea Pi of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that it is ln co with the requirements of paragraph 2 of this Ag the following signatures and seals: OUR LADY OF PEACE, INC. ley /iU ~6~ . '-- . .. r.. , COUNTY_OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ..... "",-.) By //'~:r~:~/?~~--- ',~~ Chairman, Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle, Virginia ST TE OF VIRGINIA CO TY OF ALBEMARLE The foregoing was acknowledged before me this i/ti-(;J7!3{/Z- , 1992, by 111 /"{;. day of .d4z// ~/L:?>J _ Notary Public My Commission Expires: Lj) -50/0/5 ST TE OF VIRGINIA CO TY OF ALBEMARLE foregoing was acknowleqged before me this , 199J, by ba vi d...- P> f!:xrwu tv.<< '" laPA !1J ~ Notary Public v My Commission Expires: M-aj ZC( I /71 ~ I(~ day of o COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 401 MciNTIRE ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901-4596 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors CMC~ OM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, TE: November 13, 1992 RE: Supplement No. 70 to the Zoning Ordinance A tached are new sheets to be inserted in your copy of the Zoning o dinance. This supplement was occasioned by amendments made on N vember 11, 1992. L N/jnh c Robert W. Tucker, Jr. George R. st. John Richard E. Huff, II Robert B. Brandenburger Water Resources Manager Amelia McCulley Clerk Livestock: Domestic animals normally raised on a farm such as draft horses, cows, swine, goats, sheep. Lot: A parcel of land either ~ described by metes and bounds c Lot, Corner: A lot abutting or their intersection. The front deemed to be the shortest of tr except where existing developme have defined the front of such r!/j #ufnJ cord or ption. eets at 1 be streets already Lot Interior: Any lot other tr Lot, Width of: The average hOl lot lines. l\7een side Lot of Record: A lot, a plat c which is of record in the Cler} Court of Albemarle County, Vir~ )tion :::uit Manufacture and/or Manufacturing: The processing and/or converting of raw, unfinished materials or products, or either of them, into articles or substances of different character, or for use for a different purpose. Medical Center: Establishment wherein medical care is provided on an outpatient basis as distinguished from a hospital or a professional office. Mobile Home: An industrialized building unit constructed on a chassis for towing to the point of use, and designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation for continuous year round occupancy as a dwelling; or two (2) or more such units separately towable, but designed to be joined together at the point of use to form a single dwelling, and which is designed for removal to and installation or erection on other sites. This definition shall not include an industri- alized building unit which is labelled as meeting the Building Officials and Code Administrators Code (BOCA) for one- and two-family dwelling units. (Amended 3-5-86) Mobile Home Lot: An area of land for the placement of a single mobile home and for the exclusive use of its occu- pants. Mobile Home Park: One (1) or more contiguous parcels of land in which three (3) or more rental lots are provided for mobile homes. (Amended 3-5-86) Mobile Home Subdivision: A subdivision of land for the purpose of providing lots for sale for mobile homes. -16- (Supp. #31, 3-5-86) I 5.6 5.6.1 5.E .1.1 5.1>.1.2 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS PROCEDURE This section provides for administrative approval of mobile homes on individual lots in certain cases as hereinafter provided. In all other cases, individual mobile homes may be authorized in accordance with sections 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and/or 31.0 of this ordinance, as the case may be. Permits for the location of individual mobile homes may be issued by the zoning administrator upon a determination that the proposed location of the mobile home will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and that the same will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. Prior to making any such determination, and for purposes thereof the zoning administrator shall cause to be made an on-site inspection of the property in question. NOTIFICATION No such permit shall be issued unless and until the zoning administrator shall have caused all parties concerned to be notified of his intent to issue such permit. Such notifi- cation shall consist of the following: a. By sending of a first class letter to the last known address of each adjacent property owner; and (Amended 6-3-81) b. By sending notification of such intent in writing to the secretary of the commission and the clerk of the board of supervisors; and c. By the posting of signs of a size and design approved by the zoning administrator upon the subject property and adjacent to the nearest state highway at the point of access to the subject property; and d. By publication on at least one occasion in a newspaper of general circulation in the county not less than fifteen (15) nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the proposed date of issuance of such permit. (Amended 11-16-83) OBJECTION, ACTION In the event that no person so notified shall object in writing to the proposed location of the mobile home within fifteen (15) days of such notice, the zoning administrator may issue the permit sought. In the event of any such objection, or if the applicant disagrees with any proposed condition of approval, the application shall be referred to the commission and the board of supervisors for their approval and shall thereafter be processed in accordance with the provisions of section 31.0 of this ordinance. -77.2- (Supp. #31, 3-5-86) II 5. p.1.3 5.~.2 5.~.2.1 5.~.2.2 ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE At the time of application, the applicant may request processing in accordance with section 31.0 of this ordi- nance. In such case, notice shall be in accordance with section 31.2.4.2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The issuance of a permit under this section shall be subject to the following conditions which shall be met by the applicant prior to the issuance of a certificate of occu- pancy and which shall thereafter be complied with: a. Albemarle County building official approval; b. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is located; c. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; (Amended 3-5-86) d. provision of potable water supply and sewerage facil- ities to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator and approval by the local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations; (Amended 3-5-86) e. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die. (Amended 3-5-86) REVOCATION Any permit issued pursuant to this section may be revoked by the zoning administrator, after hearing, for wilful noncom- pliance with this ordinance or any condition imposed under the authority of this section. Prior to holding any such hearing, the zoning administrator shall notify the permit holder of his intent to hold the same at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date thereof. ABANDONMENT In the event that no mobile home shall be located pursuant to the permit within eighteen (18) months of the date of issuance thereof, the same shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereby shall thereupon terminate. -77.3- (Supp. #31, 3-5-86) I 10~2.2 10. Temporary sawmill (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 11. Veterinary services - off-site treatment only. 12. Agricultural service occupation (subject to performance standards in 4.14). 13. Divisions of land in accordance with section 10.3. 14. Tourist lodging (reference 5.1.17). 15. Mobile homes, individual, qualifying under the following requirements (reference 5.6): a. A property owner residing on the premises in a permanent home wishes to place a mobile home on such property in order to maintain a full-time agricultural employee. b. Due to the destruction of a permanent home an emergency exists. A permit can be issued in this event not to exceed twelve (12) months. The zoning administrator shall be authorized to issue permits in accordance with the intent of this ordinance and shall be authorized to require or seek any information which he may determine necessary in making a determination of cases "a" and "b" of the aforementioned uses. 16. Temporary mobile home in accordance with section 5.7. (Amended 11-8-89) 17. Farm winery (reference 5.1.25). (Added 12-16-81) 18. Borrow area, borrow pit, not exceeding an aggregate volume of fifty thousand (50,000) cubic yards including all borrow pits and borrow areas on anyone parcel of record on the adoption date of this provision (refer- ence 5.1.28). (Added 7-6-83) BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT I. Community center (reference 5.1.4). 2. Clubs, lodges, civic, patriotic, fraternal (reference 5.1.2). 3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9). 4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 5. Private schools. -90- (Supp. #51, 11-8-89) II 6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances, unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances. 7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). 8. (Repealed 3-5-86) 9. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5). lOa Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6). 11. Hog farms. 12. Horse show grounds, permanent. 13. Custom slaughterhouse. 14. Sawmills, planing mills and woodyards (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 15. Group homes and homes for developmentally disabled persons as described in section 15.1-486.2 of the Code (reference 5.1.7). -90.1- (Supp. #51, 11-8-89) I 122.2 3. Cluster development of permitted residential uses. 4. Rental of permitted residential uses and guest cot- tages, provided that yard, area and other requirements of this ordinance shall be met for each such use whether or not such use is on an individual lay-out. 5. (Repealed 9-2-81) 6. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding multi-legged tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise ex- pressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. 7. Accessory uses and buildings including home occupation, Class A (reference 5.2) and storage buildings. 8. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). 9. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89) 10. Tourist lodgings (reference 5.1.17). 11. wayside stands for the display and sale of seasonal agricultural products (reference 5.1.19). 12. Homes for developmentally disabled persons (reference 5.1.7). 13. Agriculture. BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: I. Community center (reference 5.1.4). -98- (Supp. #49, 11-1-89) 2. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2) . 3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9). 4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 5. Private schools. 6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). 7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6) . 8. (Repealed 3-5-86) 9. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5). 10. Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6). 11. Agricultural service occupation. 12. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). 13. Hog farms. 14. Cemeteries. IS. Churches. (Added 9-2-81) -99- (Supp. #31, 3-5-86) . . F D COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 401 MciNTIRE ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901.4596 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors CMC~ Supplement No. 70 to the Zoning Ordinance /jnh cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. George R. st. John Richard E. Huff, II Robert B. Brandenburger Water Resources Manager Amelia McCulley Clerk Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, November 13, 1992 tached are new sheets to be inserted in your copy of the Zoning dinance. This supplement was occasioned by amendments made on ember 11, 1992. . Livestock: Domestic animals normally raised on a farm such as draft horses, cows, swine, goats, sheep. Lot: A parcel of land either shown on a plat of record or described by metes and bounds or other legal description. Lot, Corner: A lot abutting on two intersection. The front of a corner shortest of the sides fronting on development of such lot shall already lot. (2) or more streets at their lot shall be deemed to be the streets except where existing have defined the front of such Lot Interior: Any lot other than a corner lot. Lot, Width of: lines. The average horizontal distance between side lot Lot of Record: A lot, a plat or other legal description which is of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia. Manufacture and/or Manufacturing: The processing and/or converting of raw, unfinished materials or products, or either of them, into articles or substances of different character, or for use for a different purpose. . Kedical Center: Establishment wherein medical care is provided on an outpatient basis as distinguished from a hospital or a professional office. Mobile Home: A building unit constructed on a chassis for towing to the point of use, and designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation for continuous year round occupancy as a dwelling; or, two (2) or more such units separately towable, but designed to be joined together at the point of use to form a single dwelling, and which is designed for removal to and installation or erection on other sites. Thi-s definition shall not include an industrialized building unit which is labelled as meeting the Building Official and Code Administration Code (BOCA) for one- and two-family units. (Amended 3-5-86; 11-11-92) Mobile Home Lot: An area of land for the placement of a single mobile home and for the exclusive use of its occupants. Mobile Home Park: One (1) or more contiguous parcels of land in which three (3) or more rental lots are provided for mobile homes. (Amended 3-5-86) Mobile Home Subdivision: A subdivision of land for the purpose of providing lots for sale for mobile homes. . -16- (Supp. #70, 11-11-92) . . . 5.6 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS (Amended 3-5-86; 11-11-92) While. the Code of Virginia specifically provides for the restriction of mobile homes solely to mobile home parks among other regulatory provisions applicable to mobile home, Albemarle County, in an effort to provide for affordable housing for all residents, permits mobile homes to be situated on individual lots in certain zoning districts. To ensure usage of such mobile homes for residential purposes, the following regulations shall apply: a. Such mobile home shall be located on a foundation approved pursuant to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code; b. Such mobile home shall not be used for any purpose other than a primary place of residence. -77.2/77.3- (Supp. #70, 11-11-92) . . . 10.2.~ 10. Temporary sawmill (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 11. Veterinary services - off-site treatment only. 12. Agricultural service occupation (subject to performance standards in 4.14). 13. Divisions of land in accordance with section 10.3. 14. Tourist lodging (reference 5.1.17). 15. Mobile homes, individual, qualifying under the following require- ments (reference 5.6): a. A property owner residing on the premises in a permanent home wishes to place a mobile home on such property in order to maintain a full-time agricultural employee. b. Due to the destruction of a permanent home an emergency exists. A permit can be issued in this event not to exceed twelve (12) months. The zoning administrator shall be authorized to issue permits in accordance with the intent of this ordinance and shall be authorized to require or seek any information which he may determine necessary in making a determination of cases "a" and "b" of the aforementioned uses. 16. Temporary mobile home in accordance with section 5.7. 11-8-89 ) (Amended 17. Farm winery (reference 5.1.25). (Added 12-16-81) 18. Borrow area, borrow pit, not exceeding an aggregate volume of fifty thousand (50,000) cubic yards including all borrow pits and borrow areas on anyone parcel of record on the adoption date of this provision (reference 5.1.28). (Added 7-6-83) 19. Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6). 11-11-92) (Added BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1. Community center (reference 5.1.4). 2. Clubs, lodges, civic, patriotic. fraternal (reference 5.1.2). 3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9). 4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 5. Private schools. -90- (Supp. #70, 11-11-92) 6. . 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. . . Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil t~ansmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances, unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1. 6). (Repealed 3-5-86) Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5). (Repealed 11-11-92) Hog farms. Horse show grounds, permanent. Custom slaughterhouse. Sawmills, planing mills and woodyards (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 15. Group homes and homes for developmentally disabled persons as described in section 15.1-486.2 of the Code (reference 5.1.7). -90.1- (Supp. /170, 11-11-92) . . . 12.2.~ 3. Cluster development of permitted residential uses. 4.' Rental of permitted residential uses and guest cottages, provided that yard, area and other requirements of this ordinance shall be met for each such use whether or not such use is on an individual lay-out. 5. (R~pealed 9-2-81) 6. Electric. gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding multi- legged tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. 7. Accessory uses and buildings including home occupation, Class A (reference 5.2) and storage buildings. 8. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). 9. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facili- ties such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89) 10. Tourist lodgings (reference 5.1.17). 11. Wayside stands for the display and sale of seasonal agricultural products (reference 5.1.19). 12. Homes for developmentally disabled persons (reference 5.1.7). 13. Agriculture. 14. Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6) (Added 11-11-92) BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 1. Community center (reference 5.1.4). -98- (Supp. #70, 11-11-92) .. . .. . . 2. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2). . 3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9). 4. Swim, golf,. tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 5. Private schools. 6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). 7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). 8. (Repealed 3-5-86) 9. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5). 10. (Repealed 11-11-92) 11. Agricultural service occupation. 12. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). . 13. Hog farms. 14. Cemeteries. 15. Churches. (Added 9-2-81) . -99- (Supp. #70, 11-11-92) I " AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Cpunty, Virginia, that certain sections of the Albemarle County Z pning Ordinance be amended, reenacted, or replaced, all as fpllows: * * * * * section 3.0 DEFINITIONS. Amend and reenact the definition of Mobile Home to read as fpllows: Mobile Home: A building unit constructed on a chassis for towing to the point of use, and designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation for continuous year round occupancy as a dwelling; or, two (2) or more such units separately towable, but designed to be joined together at the point of use to form a single dwelling, and which is designed for removal to and installation or erection on other sites. This definition shall not include an industrialized building unit which is labelled as meeting the Building Official and Code Administration Code (BOCA) for one- and two-family units. * * * * * Section 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS. Repeal the wording under 5.6 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS i~ its entirety and adopt in its place the following language: While the code of virginia specifically provides for the restriction of mobile homes solely to mobile home parks among other regulatory provisions applicable to mobile homes, Albemarle County, in an effort "to provide for affordable housing for all residents, permits mobile homes to be situated on individual lots in certain zoning districts. To ensure usage of such mobile homes for residential purposes I the following regulations shall apply: a. Such mobile home approved pursuant Building Code; shall be located on a foundation to the Virginia Uniform S"tatewide b. Such mobile home shall not be used for any purpose other than a primary place of residence. * * * * * ... S ction 10.0 RURAL AREA DISTRICT RA Repeal 10.2.2.10 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS in its tirety and adopt as a use by-right section 10.2.1.19 MOBILE HOMES INDIVIDUAL LOTS (reference 5.6). * * * * * ction 12.0 VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL VR Repeal 12.2.2.10 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS in its tirety and adopt as a use by-right section 12.2.1.14 MOBILE HOMES INDIVIDUAL LOTS (reference 5.6). * * * * * I Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance .unanimously adopted by the Bard of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at its meeting h ld on November 11, 1992. Clerk, CMC, Board of Super " ;" . . ,: . . . l.>L' J:stnGuted to Boan1' ! - <,' . ..~.. ~.....~......--.........-....-., .. - d ' ... ' (/, ") ( <.:::c. i!;-.;en a Iterrl :'..J. -:Lk: . <';'.:::-j COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 EMORANDUM: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning~ October 8, 1992 E: ZTA-92-08 To Amend RA, Rural Areas and VR, Village Residential Zones To Allow Individual Mobile Homes By-Right he Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on ctober 6, 1992, by a vote of 3-2, recommended approval of the bove-noted zoning text amendment. Attached please find a staff eport which outlines this amendment. f you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to ontact me. Bob Brandenburger 'f f FF PERSON: NNING COMMISSION: RD OF SUPERVISORS: RONALD S. KEELER OCTOBER 6, 1992 NOVEMBER 11, 1992 AMEND RA RURAL AREAS AND VR VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL INDIVIDUAL MOBILE HOMES BY-RIGHT Planning Commission resolution of intent of September 1, PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: To increase opportunities for a fordable housing; to reduce housing costs associated with vernmental review; to remove uncertainty related to special use rmit process. FF COMMENT: ckground information for these amendment is provided in the tached September 1, 1992 worksession report to the Commission. bsequently, after discussion with the Inspections Department a e-word change is recommended to the definition of mobile home. COMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Amend 3.0 DEFINITIONS as follows: Mobile Home: An induotrializcd A building unit constructed on a chassis for towing to the point of use, and designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation for continuous year round occupancy as a dwelling; or two (2) or more such units separately towable, but designed to be joined together at the point of use to form a single dwelling, and which is designed for removal to and installation or erection on other sites. This definition shall not include an industrialized building unit which is labelled as meeting the Building Official and Code Administration rnn~ (BOCA) for one- and tWO-family units. .......... - 2. Under 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, repeal 5.6 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS and replace with the following: 5.6 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS While the Code of Virqinia specificallv provides for the restriction of mobile homes solelY to mobile home parks amonq other requlatorv provisions applicable to mobile homes. Albemarle County. in an effort to provide for affordable housinq for all residents. permits mobile homes to be situated on individual lots in 1 I certain zoning districts. To ensure usaae of such mobile homes for residential purposes the following reaulations shall apply: ~ Such mobile homes shall be located on a foundation approved pursuant to Virginia Uniform Statewide Buildina Code; ~ Such mobile home shall not be used for anv purpose other than a primary place of residence. 3. In the RA zone, repeal 10.2.2.10 and add: 10.2.1.19 Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6). 4. In the VR zone, repeal 12.2.2.10 and add: 12.2.1.14 Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6). 2 1(0\- ORK SESSION: RONALD S. KEELER DAVID B. BENISH SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 TAFF PERSONS: ISPOSITION OF MOBILE HOMES: Initially, this report will discuss strategies and recommendations of the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC) related o mobile homes. While the Commission has discussed this issue, no clear position has been established by the full Commission. s you will see, this report will suggest that certain HAC recommendations may be inconsistent with the primary intent of increasing the affordable housing stock. In addition, staff will offer for discussion options for the Rural Areas, Village esidential and Light Industrial zones we believe in keeping with the HAC's intent to provide for affordable housing. 1 II HAC MOBILE HOME STRATEGY: OVERVIEW: ~ AS TO ANY HOUSING COUNSELLING PROGRAM, THE INDIVIDUA~'S SITUATION AND FUTURE PLANS SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY ANALYZED PRIOR TO RECOMMENDING INVESTMENT IN A MOBILE HOME. ~ NO ANALYSIS AS TO THE EFFECTS OF IMPLEMENTING T~E MOBILE HOME STRATEGY IS OFFERED. THAT ONE OBJECTIVE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WILL RISE ABOVE ANOTHER IS UNAVOIDABLE, HOWEVER, TO MAKE SUCH DECISION, THE BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY ARE WARRANTED. . COUNTY ZONING REGULATION DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE AFFECTED (POSITIVELY OR NEGATIVELY) THE MIX OF MOBILE HOMES TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLINGS IN THE TWENTY YEARS SINCE ADOPTION OF ZONING. . ABOUT 97% OF ALL MOBILE HOME PETITIONS ARE APPROVED. FOUR OUT OF FIVE PETITIONS ARE ISSUED WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM ADJOINING LANDOWNERS INDICATING TOLERANCE IF NOT ACCEPTANCE IN MOST CASES. . THE COMMISSION AND BOARD SHOULD DETERMINE IF THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED BY CONTINUING THE CURRENT REVIEW PROCESS. . ARRIVING AT A REGIONAL CONSENSUS AS TO UNIFORM TREATMENT OF MOBILE HOMES IN THE IMMEDIATE SHORT TERM MAY BE OPTIMISTIC. RELAXING MOBILE HOME REGULATIONS IN ALBEMARLE MAY HAVE NO IMMEDIATE ADVERSE EFFECT ON SURROUNDING JU~ISDICTIONS, HOWEVER, SUCH ACTION MAY PROVE AS BELLWETHER FOR SIMILAR DEMANDS FOR POLICY CHANGES. IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO SEEK COMMENT FROM ADJACENT LOCALITIES. 2 AC MOBILE HOME OBJECTIVES: . (MH1) RECOMMENDATIONS ARE DIRECTED TOWARDS ~KING MOBILE HOMES MORE COMPATIBLE TO CONVENTIONAL DWELLINGS. IN STAFF RECOLLECTION, NO SIMILAR CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BY THE COUNTY UNDER CURRENT REGULATION. ADOPTION OF OBJECTIVE MHl COULD INCREASE THE COSTS TO A MOBILE HpME OWNER AS COMPARED TO CURRENT PRACTICE. . (MH2) REGARDING RENTAL OF MOBILE HOMES HAS BEEN RESOLVED CONSISTENT WITH HAC RECOMMENDATION. . (MH3) APPEARS AS A RESTATEMENT OF THE MOBILE HOME STRATEGY, HOWEVER, TERMINOLOGY IS UNCLEAR. . (MH4) DISPOSITION OF MOBILE HOME PARKS AND SUBDIVISIONS WILL BE DEPENDENT ON COUNTY TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUAL MOBILE HOMES. STAFF HAD PREPARED AMENDMENTS TO SIMPLIFY AND RELAX REGULATION AS WELL AS INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARKS AND SUBDIVISIONS PRIOR TO THE HAC REPORT. . (MH5) RECOMMENDS EXPANDED ROLE FOR NON-PROFIT HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS. STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND EXPANDED COORDINATION AND OVERSIGHT OF SUCH ORGANIZATION EFFORTS TO ENSURE ENDEAVORS ARE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER COUNTY POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND REGULATIONS. STAFF ALSO OFFERS THAT THE COUNTY CAN TAKE A LEAD ROLE IN ESTABLISHING A MOBILE HOME PARK IN THE COUNTY. . (MH6) WOULD REQUIRE MOBILE HOMES TO MEET STANDARDS ABOVE THOSE REQUIRED UNDER THE VIRGINIA UNIFORM STANDARD STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE AND COULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE COST OF MOBILE HOMES AS WELL AS (TOTALLY) DEVALUE EXISTING UNITS . LOCALLY. IN STAFF RECOLLECTION, NO SUCH CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON MOBILE HOMES UNDER CURRENT PROCEDURES. . IN SUMMARY, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT IMPLEMENTATION OF HAC OBJECTIVES AS COMPARED TO CURRENT REGULATION COULD: . MAKE LOCATION OF MOBILE HOMES MORE EXPENSIVE; AND . REDUCE AVAILABLE MOBILE HOME STOCK; AND . (LOCALLY) DEVALUE EXISTING UNITS. 3 OR DISCUSSION ALLOW ALL MOBILE HOMES BY RIGHT IN THE RURAL AREA AND VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL ZONES SUBJECT To THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS: /J. ~O~ c.ooe. .c.t'~"FO'-LE.~ SUCH MOBILE HOME SHALL BE LOCATED ON PERM..7\_lJEM FOUNDATION: . SUCH MOBILE HOME SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN A PRIMARY PLACE OF RESIDENCE. I. ALLOW MOBILE HOME PARKS AS A BY-RIGHT USE WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. II. ALBEMARLE COUNTY TO TAKE A LEAD ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MOBILE HOME PARK. 4 . c_ I I I I ~AC MOBILE HOME STRATEGY: OVERVIEW ~his section of the report will, discuss various issues that arise ~rom the mobile home strategy setforth in the HAC' Report. pomments provided as to certain statements and figures in the HAC peport are intended to present an expanded or different ~erspective. . . Mobile Home Strateqy: (G2) Allow both sinqle and double wide manufactured housinq by riqht in rural and growth areas if they meet criteria consistent with other types of housinq. Cooperation with neiqhborinq iurisdictions should be souqht. Comments in the housing report text (paragraphs 2 and 3, p. 69) should be evaluated in light of Purchase Prior, Other Purchasinq Costs. Financing, Life of Structure. and Taxes (pp 66-67). Simply stated, the question as to whether investment in a mobile home is the wisest financial decision would be dependent on several factors including the future housing goal of the individual. AS TO ANY HOUSING COUNSELLING PROGRAM, THE INDIVIDUAL'S SITUATION AND FUTURE PLANS SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY ANALYZED PRIOR TO RECOMMENDING INVESTMENT IN A MOBILE HOME. NO ANALYSIS AS TO THE EFFECTS OF IMPLEMENTING THE MOBILE HOME STRATEGY IS OFFERED in the housing report. Objection to mobile homes appears to be attributed to the NIMBY sentiment (para 3, p. 70; NIMBY is generally an irrational or unfounded negative response to change). On the other hand, Mr. st. John's memorandum (Attachment A) states that: "Several years ago, the Circuit Court of Fluvanna County upheld Fluvanna's ordinance...Fred Payne defended Fluvanna, and its ordinance is similar to ours. What is required to defend a case of this kind, is expert evidence to the effect that the regulations are based on reasonably valid economic, health or welfare considerations and not on pure aesthetics or prejudice. In the Fluvanna County case, Fred had testimony that mobile homes devalue nearby land, and thus a rational basis for the ordinance was established." A "task at hand" review can become narrow in scope and direction to the detriment of other community policies and objectives. As staff has repeatedly stated, the Comprehensive Plan contains many goals and objectives which can (and will) conflict with one another in implementation. 5 - THAT ONE OBJECTIVE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WILL RISE ABOVE ANOTHER IS UNAVOIDABLE, HOWEVER, rO MAKE SUCH DECISION, THE BEST AVAILABLE I~FORMATION AND EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. Staff would echo prior recommendation that "particular consideration" be afforded to the suggestion of the County Attorney (Attachment A) : "We f~rther suggest, that if the Board is of mind to review its treatment of mobile homes, then it should take testimony by qualified people, and make findings of fact, as to the effect of mobile homes on surrounding land, the need for them as low cost housing, the market, and so forth, as underpinning for any regulations and conditions they put into the ordinance." Staff concurs with the County Attorney and suggests that ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY ARE WARRANTED in order to make decision justifiable to all County citizens and in harmony w.ith community goals and objectives. One area that clearly needs additional study is how current regulation affects the number of mobile homes in the County and would changing the regulations appreciably increase the housing stock for low and moderate income families. This after all, is the primary aim of this report. In 1970, mobile homes represented 6.7% of the housing stock in the County. Zoning had been in effect for about two years and, therefore, could not have had much affect on the number of mobile homes. By 1990, mobile homes represented 6.3% ~or 7.2% using comparable category from the Census) of the total number of dwellings in the County. The "unzoned" 1970 mix and the "zoned" 1990 mix of mobile homes to total dwellings are comparable. Therefore, it appears that COUNTY ZONING REGULATION DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED (POSITIVELY OR NEGATIVELY) THE MIX OF MOBILE HOMES TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLINGS IN THE TWENTY YEARS SINCE ADOPTION OF ZONING. An unknown factor is whether or not mobile homes would have increased as a percentage of total dwellings without zoning. Comparing Albemarle to surrounding jurisdictions and their experiences may not provide an accurate picture due to differences in the real estate markets. In the last ten years, 13 of 390 mobile home petitions have been disapproved. Of the 13 petitions disapproved, 4 were for weekend or storage use. Therefore, ABOUT 97% OF ALL MOBILE HOME PETITIONS ARE APPROVED. Of note is that FOUR OUT OF FIVE PETITIONS ARE ISSUED WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM ADJOINING LAND OWNERS INDICATING TOLERANCE IF NOT ACCEPTANCE IN MOST CASES. 6 The'mix of mobile homes to total dwellings has not significantly changed in. twenty years and the vast majority of mobile home petitions ~re approved. The commission and Board made positive determination recently not to restrict rental of mobile homes. Individual members have commented that morally the current process is distasteful and d~eaning. It is unknown as to whether or not allowing mobile homes by right would prove substantive or symbolic regarding affordable housing. However, that issue aside, THE COMMISSION AND BOARD SHOULD DETERMINE IF THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED BY CONTINUING THE CURRENT REVIEW PROCESS. 1 . Finally, the HAC suggests that "cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions should be sought." From comments by Commission and Board members, it appears that immediate resolution of the mobile home issue is desired. The TJPDC mobile home study was completed five years ago and staff is unaware of any significant activity relative to that study to date.. ARRIVING AT A REGIONAL CONSENSUS AS TO UNIFORM TREATMENT OF MOBILE HOMES IN THE IMMEDIATE SHORT TERM MAY BE OPTIMISTIC. RELAXING MOBILE HOME REGULATIONS IN ALBEMARLE MAY HAVE NO IMMEDIATE ADVERSE EFFECT ON SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS, HOWEVER, SUCH ACTION MAY PROVE AS BELLWETHER FOR SIMILAR DEMANDS FOR POLICY CHANGES. IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO SEEK COMMENT FROM ADJACENT LOCALITIES. It should be noted that some other localities have no significant numbers of townhouses, duplexes, or apartments to augment affordable housing. 'Endemic in the process of developing a zoning ordinance and amendments thereto is the tendency to place uses in the "special se permit column" as opposed to the "by right column" with the notion that such uses could prove objectionable in some circumstances. This is evidenced by the fact that at the end of its 12 years the prior zoning ordinance had more uses by special se permit than by right. A primary purpose of the Rural Areas in the current Comprehensive Plan is the promotion of agriculture ~nd forestry, however, many agricultural and forestal uses are allowed only by special use permit in the rural areas zoning .istrict (primarily to protect rural subdivisions and omeowners) . 7 . HAC MOBILE HOME OBJECTIVES This section of the report will address specific objectives related to mobile homes as setforth by the HAC. Some objectives have also been subject to proposal by individual Commission members and while detailed analysis of all proposals is not provided, the overview will hopefully provide a basis for discussion. (MHl) Sinqle-wide mobile homes should be treated the same as anv other housing as long as they meet compatible criteria, such as: . placed on a permanent foundation with removal of axles and wheels, and removal of hitch where feasible, . . Building code requires that mobile homes be placed on a permanent foundation. However, this does not establish the mobile home as real property. Staff is unaware as to the public purpose to be served as to requiring wheels, axles, and hitch removal pa~ticularly if obscured by foundation treatment. According to the Inspections Department, in older mobile homes much of the transport structure also contributes to the structural integrity of the unit. In addition, financing agencies are reluctant to endorse removal of transport structure as some types of mobile homes until debt on the unit has been fully paid. Removal of the transport structure to staff recollection has never been required in the special use permit process and could represent complication and unnecessary cost. ~ J~ ~ . minimum square footage comparable to a site-built, sinqle ~amily dwellinq on the same lot ~ The County has no minimum square footage requirement for a single-family dwelling. It may be that the BOCA Code may operate without deliberate intention toward a minimum floor area, however, that is not a local code. Zoning ordinance(s) that seek to establish minimum floor area have been stricken by the court(s) as exclusionary and discriminatory (or otherwise unlawful). To staff recollection, in no case has the County imposed a minimum floor area requirement in review of any mobile home. ~ . certified as meetinq HUD Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards or found on inspection with written report to meet the Virqinia Uniform Statewide Building Code whether new or used. ~ew units must meet HUD standards. Older units are allowed under special provision of the building code, but are not required to ~eet current building code standards. Of the 1637 mobile homes in the County, 979 were constructed prior to HUD standards. To 8 equire these units to meet current building code standards would e a hardship and could siqnificantly reduce the number of ffordable dwellings in the County. To staff recollection, in no ase has the 'county imposed any special building code requirement n mobile homes. . comply with appearance standards similar to those required of all homes built in the county. County has no appearance standards for conventionally built ingle-family dwellings. Therefore, this recommendation is eaningless unless the intent is that mobile homes be made to ook like conventional housing. (Photos will be provided during he worksession which demonstrate that visually, many models onstructed under HUD standards have the appearance of pre-HUD obile homes). The fact that units are built under a particular ode does not mean that they are compatible in length , width, or ther dimension, siding, roof treatment or other factors to other ypes of dwellings. fact, the intent is that a mobile home should receive osmetic treatment to make it appear more like a conventional welling, then such regulation will increase the cost to the obile home owner. In staff recollection, in no case under urrent procedure has the County in the past 10 years imposed any osmetic treatment on mobile homes. f note, RECOMMENDATIONS UNDER MH1 ARE DIRECTED TOWARDS MAKING OBILE HOMES MORE COMPATIBLE TO CONVENTIONAL DWELLINGS. IN STAFF ECOLLECTION, NO SIMILARLY CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BY THE OUNTY UNDER CURRENT REGULATION. ADOPTION OF OBJECTIVE MH1 COULD NCREASE THE COSTS TO A MOBILE HOME OWNER AS COMPARED TO CURRENT RACTICE. should be ME3 Mobile homes should be allowed b ri ht in all areas ithout re uirin s ecial use Further seek re ional oordination on mobile home related re ulations: A use allowed y right does not require a special use permit. This objective ppears to be a restatement of the mobile home strategy (The HAC mployees the terms "manufactured housing" and "mobile homes" 'nterchangeably). Currently, individual mobile homes are allowed nly in the RA, Rural Areas and VR, Village Residential istricts. It is unclear as to whether the HAC is recommending obile homes by right in all zoning districts or all districts hich allow residences. Issues of regional cooperation have been reviously addressed. 9 MH4 site re uirements and re ulations for mobile home arks and ubdivisions should be reviewed and standardized to make them ub'ect to the same re uirements as an other subdivision unless learl 'ustified and needed for mobile homes: Since the HAC has ecommended that mobile homes be "allowed by right in all areas," 't would seem that the intent of this objective would be to ermit mobile home parks and subdivisions "by right in all areas" ince there would be no basis to discriminate between individual nits and concentrations of mobile homes. DISPOSITION OF MOBILE OME PARKS AND SUBDIVISIONS WILL DEPEND ON COUNTY TREATMENT OF NDIVIDUAL HOMES. STAFF HAD PREPARED AMENDMENTS TO SIMPLIFY AND ELAX REGULATION AS WELL AS INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARKS AND UBDIVISIONS PRIOR TO THE HAC REPORT. or anization involvement in and rovision of mobile home arks and subdivisions: Regulatory 'ncentives to provision of mobile home parks and subdivisions ave not been successful. In consideration of expanded roles for on-profit housing organizations. STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND EXPANDED OORDINATION AND OVERSIGHT OF SUCH ORGANIZATION EFFORTS TO ENSURE NDEAVORS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER COUNTY POLICIES, PROGRAMS AND EGULATIONS. o be proactive, STAFF ALSO OFFERS THAT THE COUNTY CAN TAKE A EAD ROLE IN ESTABLISHING A MOBILE HOME PARK IN THE COUNTY. See ection III of this report for further discussion. Significantly reduce the number of existing mobile homes; and (Completely) devalue some units in the Albemarle real estate market; and Cause significant expense to existing mobile home residents to remain in their units. he Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code contains more enient provision for continuation and relocation of pre-HUD odels. The County is committed to state building code equirements for other structures and should not discriminate gainst mobile homes in terms of that code (How many conventional wellings built before 1976 could comply with current building ode?) In staff recollection, no such conditions have been 'mposed upon mobile homes under current procedures. 10 R DISCUSSION: om prior observation in this report, it appears that commendations of the Housing Advisory Committee may not complish its intent to improve the situation of those seeking locate individual mobile homes in the County. To the ntrary, recommended measures may discourage or make more costly bile home locations. aff offers the following for discussion: ALLOW ALL MOBILE HOMES BY RIGHT IN THE RA AND VR ZONES SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS: e. SUCH MOBILE HOME SHALL BE LOCATED ON A BUILDING CODE APPROVED FOUNDATION. e SUCH MOBILE HOME SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN A PRIMARY PLACE OF RESIDENCE. gulation of mobile homes beyond that extent to which nventional housing may be regulated is permissible under the de of Virginia. Mobile home regulation typically falls in two eas: occupancy/use and aesthetics/physical characteristics. rrent County regulation of mobile homes differentiates between sidential and non-residential mobile homes. Furthermore, the ard of Supervisors approval of mobile home special use permits s traditionally been based on demonstration of residential ed. Aesthetics aspects have generally been addressed by ction 5.6.2 in the requirement of skirting and intenance/provision of landscaping/screening. e amendment presented would emphasize the provision of basic using with limited associated regulation and, therefore, inimal added cost. Occupancy would be stressed while aesthetics uld be left to the owner's discretion as it is with nventional housing. I. AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT MOBILE HOME PARKS IN THE LI, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. the recent past there have been several requests to develop bile home parks in areas designated for Industrial Service use the Land Use Plan. These requests have been based on the . plicant's desire to gain a return on the property and meet a ed in the market. However, such proposals are inconsistent ith the present Comprehensive 11 lan's standards for Land Use Designations and Residential Land ses, and are also not permitted under the current zoning egulations. Mobile home parks are not permitted in any ndustrial zones. t is recognized that industrially designated land often sits dle with limited opportunities for a financial return until arket demand "catches up" with the available inventory. This act along with the recognition that the availability of ffordable housing is a significant problem in the County, as is he particular need for spaces for mobile homes, suggests that here may be an arrangement which can address both issues. uch an arrangement would be to permit mobile home parks in lands esignated for Industrial Service uses. 1he intent of this hange would be to allow industrial land to be used for mobile ome parks until market demands dictate a change to an industrial and use. No specific time limit on the existence of the mobile ome park is anticipated to be set. These mobile home ,evelopments could also be allowed as a permanent secondary use n the site. n order to locate a mobile home park in a designated Industrial ervice area, the property would have to be rezoned LI, Light ndustrial. Parks would not be permitted in the HI, Heavy ndustrial district. ssues up additional areas for the location of mobile home parks. Allows owners of industrially designated/zoned properties an 'nterim use of their property. This may deter the number of omprehensive Plan Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment requests o change to other uses that are dictated by current market emands .' The nature of mobile homes and mobile home parks make them an 'deal interim use. Physical design characteristics and property wnership would allow for a relatively easy conversion to the ltimate intended use. ONS: Such development of mobile home parks could consume vacant 'nventory of industrial land. The County staff would consider hese areas as under-developed in its land use inventory and, herefore, available for industrial development. However, to 12 otential buyers/developers the existence of residential areas hat have to be removed to develop the site could be considered a egative and, therefore, ultimately affect the marketability of he property. This proposal does not ensure the provision of permanent mobile ome sites. Because property is zoned LI, Light Industrial, ther industrial uses would ultimately be anticipated. The parks eveloped under this scenario would be temporary in nature. How ong they remain would be dictated, in theory, by market demands or industrial land, the ultimate use intended for the property the property would be zoned LI) . It may be politically difficult to approve a subsequent "ndustrial development which could impact or eliminate an xisting residential neighborhood (mobile home park). This proposal differentiates between dwelling type in terms of he protection of those residential communities from dissimilar nd non-compatible uses. Mobile homes will be the only unit type ermitted within an industrial zoning district. Chan es taff believes such changes as presented below hold merit in the otential they provide for opening up areas to a type of more ffordable housing. Obviously, it is not an alternative without ts drawbacks, nor is it the total answer to the affordable ousing problem. Amendment: he amendments to the Plan would be text changes to the ndustrial Land Use Standards (p. 154): Industrial Land Use Standards The following GENERAL STANDARDS are recommended to guide industrial development: a. Locate industrial uses adjacent to compatible uses (commercial, public, or other industrial, etc.) as opposed to residential or other sensitive areas. Locate agricultural and forestal industries convenient to the uses they support. Where an industrial use desires a location near a sensitive area, consideration should be given to transitional uses such as commercial offices. b. Address objectionable aspects of an industrial use 13 through a combination approach including realistic performance standards, buffering, and special setback regulations. This approach should be flexible so as to accomplish the objective without creating burdensome and arbitrary regulations. At time of rezoning, the applicant should submit proposals to mitigate objectionable aspects. c. Encourage the location of industrial uses in areas where public utilities and facilities are adequate to support such uses. Upgrading and extension of roads, water, sewer, electrical, telephone, and natural gas systems should be considered in review of an industrial application. d. Locate industrial uses within a half-mile of highway, air, or rail transportation facilities not only for convenience of the industry, but also to avoid industrial traffic through residential and agricultural areas and on roads not designed for such traffic. e. Accomplish rezoning to an industrial designation for sites of fifty acres or more under a planned development zoning designation accompanied by a transportation analysis plan. f. Permit mobile home parks within industrial service areas as an interim use until the develo?ment of the site for industrial uses. Mobile home parks may be permitted as secondary uses to industrial development if part of a planned development concept and provided they are desianed to minimize impacts of noise. traffic. liaht and odors from the adiacent industrial uses and otherwise meet the Residential Land Use standards of the Plan (pP. 155-156). (See also Transportation section, Table 39: Design Standards, page 114 and Growth Area section, Table 46: Non-Residential Land Use Guidelines, page 161). he Non-Residential Land Use Guidelines, Table 46, would also be mended to indicate mobile home parks may be permitted as an nterim use of ~hese designated areas and as a potential 'econdary use under a planned development concept (See Attachment ) . Text Chan e: he Zoning Ordinance would also have to be amended. The LI, ndustrial zone would be amended to include mobile home parks as bv riaht-use. Additional regulations may need to be stablished to set criteria/standards for location relative to 14 rjacent non-residential uses. I I I ~I. ALBEMARLE COUNTY TO TAKE A LEAD ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MOBILE HOME PARK This recommendation is based on the impending need to accommodate mobile homes displaced from existing parks in the City and County that will likely be subject to re- development in the future. In 1976, there were 1029 mobile home park spaces, declining to 894 spaces in 1989. While no specific plans have been submitted or approved to redevelop these areas, an additional 100 spaces could be discontinued in the near future. This fact coupled with the lack of new mobile parks being developed in the County has lead to this recommendation. Such an effort by County could take a form similar to the Crozet crossing project, with assistance in the development and management of the park provided by non-profit and/or for profit organizations/businesses. 15 I ATTACHMENT A I MEMORANDUM r:~_..:"'''''''~.'?-~' J:i-D ~~..~ ..-: ~.~j V c' !lA1 ., l\ R. 2 7 ~n02 Il"""tt jZ;'... T V. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning . ~ '. .'~~'~-,:} ~~;:'r. F om: George R. st. John County Attorney Legal Parameters of Treatment of Mobile Homes Under Zoning and Report on Nearby Counties Treatment of Same D te: M~rch 25, 1992 In our opinion, Albemarle County's treatment of individual bile homes is within what is permitted by law, with the ception that the conditions under administrative approval s ould be the same as those which go to special use permit. ere follows an analysis, in support of this conclusion: First, the statutory framework: Virginia Code Section 15.1- 6.1 permits counties to designate areas where mobile homes or rks may be located. This section expressly applies whether or t the locality has a zoning ordinance. Code Section 15.1-486.4 tempers the effect of the above, by oviding that in municipalities having zoning ordinances, nufactured homes 19 feet or more in width ("double wides") st be permitted in agricultural districts subject only to andards equivalent to those applied to conventional site built ellings. This statute contains a provision that local vernment regulations enacted under it, shall not relieve lots parcels from the terms of private restrictive covenants. The Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Act, Code ction 36-70 through 36-85.1, establishes construction and fety standards but expressly leaves the local zoning power tact. The Virginia Fair Housing Act, Section 36-96.1 et seo., plies to mobile homes and mobile home parks, but is silent as zoning. From the above statutory framework, it is clear that the rginia legislature thusfar has intended to leave counties free enact restrictions on mobile homes, with the exception of uble wides in agricultural districts, which are not applied to nventional housing. In our opinion, this latitude extends from across-the-board right inclusion in all districts on the one hand, to total legation to mobile home parks, on the other. In between these '\TTACHMENT AI I Page 21 V. Wayne cilimberg Page 2 March 24, 1992 t 0 extremes is the system of individual mobile homes by special use permit with conditions, which is what we have in Albemarle. ~urning from statutes to case law, there has been very little in the Virginia courts recently. A good article on the national trend toward equal treatment of manufactured housing including Ci)bile homes, is contained in Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning, 19, in our office. But in Virginia, very few legal c allenges have been brought, possibly because attorneys feel hat in order to win a challenge they'would have to convince the Qurts to declare the statutory framework cited above, as iolative of the Federal or state Constitution. Several years ago, the Circuit Court of Fluvanna County pheld Fluvanna "s ordinance, which will be discussed below. red Payne defended Fluvanna, and its ordinance is similar to ~rs. What is required to defend a case of this kind, is expert vidence to the effect that the regulations are based on easonably valid economic, health or welfare considerations and ~t on pure aesthetics or prejudice. In the Fluvanna County ase, Fred had testimony that mobile homes devalue nearby land, nd thus a rational basis for the ordinance was established. Again, a review of the cases to date along with 'ndicate that a system of special use permits, so onditions are reasonable and the system is 'mpartially on a rational basis, will be sustained. the statutes long as the administered Next is a summary of how nearby counties treat individual obile homes: Buckinoham Countv interestingly has no zoning ordinance and nly regulates mobile homes in parks under its general county ode. Individual mobile homes are by-right in all residential istricts subject to a "placement permit" from the County ctministrator, which is mainly for tax purposes. Nelson County's ordinance is similar to ours and may have sed ours as a model. They issue permits administratively if no bjectioni if objection, by special use permit. But they do not ut on a condition against rent or alienation out of the family. Greene County uses what is called a conditional use permit nder which a certain set of facts triggers by-right use. Must ~ owner occupied and owner or family must show either a medical r financial hardshipi permit has four-year time limit 'for eview and either termination or renewal dependent on whether ardship still exists. This is all administered by their BZA. .. . . \TTACHMENT A I Ipage 3\ V. Wayne cilimberg Page 3 March 24, 1992 Louisa County only allows mobile homes in mobile home parks. e only county we contacted, which totally excludes individual bile homes. They did this in 1988 because of what they saw as problem of over-proliferation of individual mobile homes. Fluvanna County has provision for farm tenant and "temporary ile house being built", by administrative permit, and hardship owner by special use permit with flexible conditions. A copy of Fluvanna's application form, with the categories and rules elled out, is attached. This is the practice which was upheld litigation; I forgot to mention above that the plaintiffs in at case appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia but their a peal was rejected. Auausta County has individual mobile homes by-right in all r ral districts subj ect to a placement permit. Equi valent to conventional housing. Rockinaham Countv allows mobile homes by-right in one of its t 0 rural districts, and by special use permit in the other. ardship must be shown in the latter, but once shown there is no time limit or restraint against future rent or non-family occupancy. Rockbridae Countv uses special use permits, liberally issued ithout hardship or family limitation but always with three year enewals, to assure mobile homes and site are reasonably aintained to guard against nuisance potential and devalue of earby property. So you see from the above, there are many variations. The ttorneys in these counties believe that their particular ariations are permitted under Virginia law, and Ttle concur in heir belief. What is necessary in case of any challenge, is mpirical evidence to justify any particular restrictions and onditions imposed ih the particular county. Looking at conditions: As most people are aware, the basic undamental rule is that zoning, and permits issued thereunder, hould run with the land not the person. That is to say, they ttach to the land itself, not to the particular applicant. nder this rule, such limitations as "family only", "owner- ccupancy only", and time limits, do not pass muster. However, he trend is for these conditions to be upheld if rationally upportable, and the basic rule is now honored more in speech han in practice. Therefore, I think such conditions as we ave, including owner-occupancy, screening, time limitation, and o forth, are within what Virginia law permits. " . ... . 'TTACHMENT A I IPage 4\ V Wayne Cilimberg Page 4 March 24, 1992 I have always looked for the law to evolve either through I gislation or judicial decisions, to the point where mobile h mes would be treated exactly like any other type of housing, b t that has not occurred. The one thing we are doing which c ncerns me, is that our administrative permits do not restrict o cupancy to the owner or the owners family, whereas our special u e permits invariably do. This is because the Supervisors b gan doing this in every case, without putting a requirement f r this condi ticn in the ordinance. Of course I the a ministrator, not having any specific authority to impose this c ndition, ,did not and still does not do so. We suggest that the conditions for both types of issuance, be s elled out in the ordinance. We further suggest, that if the Bard is of a mind to review its treatment of mobile homes, then i should take testimony by qualified people, and make findings o fact, as to the effect of mobile homes on surrounding land, t e need for them as low cost housing, the market, and so forth, a underpinning for any regulations and conditions they put into t e ordinance. I am told that space in mobile home parks is v ry hard to come by, for example, and the Board may want to d al with this as part of its review both of mobile homes and t e housing situation in general. And the Commission and Board should be aware of the study e titled "A Study of Mobile Homes" undertaken by the TJPDC in 1 87. This document has valuable information on the number of e isting mobile homes in the various localities and their t eatment by locality; it also contains recommendations one of w ich is that the District Commission be brought into the p ocess as a clearing house for changes in mobile home zoning r gulations among the localities in the District. I believe t is document would be a good starting point for any proposed r vision in our practice. .. League of Won1en Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County 413 East Market Street, Room 203, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: (804) 972-1795 October 6, 1992 To: Albemarle County Planning Commission Fr m: League of Women Voters Charlottesville and Albemarle County Re: ZT A-92-08 To amend Rural Areas (RA) and Village Residential (VR) Zones to allow individual mobile homes by right Th Planning Commission staff has recommended that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow 'mobile ho nes by right on individual lots in Rural Area eRA) and Village Residential (VR) zones. The League of W men Voters opposes this proposal. While the League supports the goal of increasing the opportunities 1'0 affordable housing in the County, we do not believe that modifying the current permit system is de irable at th is time. . . In ts September I, 1992, work session, the Commission recognized that it and the Board should determine if ere is a substantial public purpose to be served by continuing the current review process. The staff, by proposing the amendment, apparently has concluded that such public purpose is not served. We dis gree. Th permit system, which has been in effect for a significant period of time, assures the public that mobile ho es will only be allowed if they meet the requirements established by the Zoning Ordinance. The re iew process allows concerned neighbors to be informed about potential nearby locations of mobile ho 11es and enables those who have chosen to live in RA and VR areas to participate in the permit process if hey feel a need to do so to protect their quality of life or their investment. The permit system seems to be working well. The staff reports that 97% of the permit applications are ap roved. There is no evidence that the process imposes a hardship on applicants or that it has interfered wi 1 the use of mobile homes as residences. To the contrary, the use of mobile homes has kept pace with th substantial amount of residential construction. The staff notes that" in 1970, mobile homes repre- se ted 6.7% of the housing stock in the County," while "by 1990 mobile homes were 6.3% (or 7.2% us ng comparable category from the Census) of the total number of dwellings" (staff report p. 6.) e staff comments that some people may find the permit process "distasteful and demeaning" (staff re ort p. 7.) This permit process is not significantly different from aprlications which must be approved be ore building permits for conventional housing arc issued. Any possible inconvenience of permitting do s not outweigh the benefits which are achieved. It s unclear from the staffs proposal if any requirements would apply to mobile homes placed on RA or V lots, other than having them on approved foundations and for primary places of residence. Would re ealing Section 5.6 eliminate the requirement that adequate potable water and sewerage facilities be av ilable, as an applicant must now provide under Section 5.6.2d of the Zoning Ordinance? Would any ar a or bulk requirements apply as now apply to detached single-family dwellings and side-by-side du- pI xes in RA zones under Sections 10.2.1.1 and 10.2.1.2? ovel' , .....a nonya tisan orBanlza 1 ion acaicatea 10 Ihc yromolion of i'1ji1Y"mcd- and acl ivc yarlic!;Ja 1 ion of citizens in Bovernment." Jf no c 'iteria are established, the removal of the permit process could lead to the placement of mobile h'omes in RA and VR zones with undesirable health and safety consequences for the County. The legal action 0 remove mobile homes which pose such threats would be far more time consuming and expensive for all oncerned than the present permit process. The L ague supports the County Attorney's suggestion that further investigation of the need for and impact of the egulation of mobile homes is appropriate before changes are made, As Mr. S1. John wrote in his memo 0 Mr. Cilimberg: [I]f the Board is of a mind to review its treatment of mobile homes, then it should take testimony by qualitied people, and make its findings of fact, as to the effect of mobile homes on surrounding land, the need for them as low cost housing, the market... as underpinnings for any regulations and conditions they put into the ordinance. [Attachment A to the staff report, pAl concur with the staff that an area for particular attention is how the current regulation affects the housin stock for low and moderate income famil ies and whether changing the regulations would apprecia- bly in rease housing for those families. In addition, the impacts of changes on other home owners and on develo ment in the County should be add ressed. Regar less of whether the County continues to require permits for mobile homes or not, the County must adopt trategies to increase the supply of affordable housing in the County. The League urges the Com- missio and the Board to undertake actions to develop mobile home parks in growth areas. Key to the development of mobile home parks is the availability of water and sewerage facilities. The Count should explore financing techniques and other incentives which would make the development of mobil home parks an economically attractive option for developers. The Comprehensive Plan sets forth some f the strategies that the County should consider. The L ague encourages the County to approach the issue of providing affordable housing in a comprehen- sive manner. The County should set a priority on examining ways to develop mobile home parks rather than Ii ing the restrictions on mobile homes on individual lots. We urge the Commission to reject the staff recom endation to amend the Zoning Ordinance for RA and VR zones. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 EMORANDUM Albemarle County Board of Supervisors II V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & communityU{)JC-/ Development October 23, 1992 ZTA-92-08 Mobile Homes - Information Submitted by Walter Johnson r. Johnson submitted the attached at the Tuesday, October 20 lanning Commission meeting and asked that it be included in the ecord of that meeting and forwarded to the Board of Supervisors or their information during review of ZTA-92-08. TACHMENT .. , .,/ f::0 Dct ot:'t~".' 1 '::.)';);-:' IYjr.:~ I') U f ,,"1 c1:: lJ 1.~E'[j h c. U ~;E'!'"=., 1 n f c.)"m"" t .1 c< n Source: County Finance Department .1 -:':;1'31 T'::1)( 1 nf e'I'~J"nr..1 t :1 c.n : (1) 1628 manufactured houses were on the tax rolls f C<)~ pr.:1 ymE?nt c..f "pF.~)..' ~::.c<n '::11 P )"C' PE')....t: y ,. t: d.>-: e~',;. ( 2 ) -r to) E' ~~ E~ t. c:\ ).; e ~:.~ ,:;1 .,.-. F! ;;":1 r::, ~;::" E-'> ~:" ;;::. E' c:J i:.. t t ,t-) f? II )'"' f? E.'I 1 f.? ~.;~, t c! t E' ) I 1'~<:1tf.? (3) Tc.t EI1 t Et.>-: .o",;<:e,E',o::,srnc'nt (.r-'C<U'=.;E'~::. c.n:! y, :1 i':,nc:! t d.>-:e~:::, not included)- $82,474 (1..) Fo)"~ the :1['~:::El lIn.it~=., t.r-,:is CC')"[)putE~'='. te, eoli", cIVE'i-'.:'<9c c<r $:::-:'0. 38 pE'''I.~ un:lt O.)C'lI!C:.f? e,nly, no 1 ".,nlj) . (5) Ta)-:e<:e, pc"1icJ to cJeod:p $72:,7'Jb; cJr-:'ficif'=>i,,"t:, but ,"".'C'J"nE' of' Io'!hich :15 in the py'e,cf"!",-"=' of fI1ult.ip.lE? pdyrnf?nt~,., $E\,E.~:3~: \ :1 (I. ~:;i.) (t=..) F 0,.-. :1 E.~::'E\ un it,"", r.:.i neJ <:, t: ".1.'.: ).'d t e c. f i; C> n 7 ~:: pF'i.' hUn(jl.~f?d, thE> <:1 \I F;')."a I] 1:"':> rnc~r'J-<E>t vc~.llJf3 of thE';".;:,e he'lIc.,:.F":::. :l C:'. $6, 997. ::';';01. Source: Staff report: \.1) l-.l.i't:hit., nlc'''-''J"ni:,<)"'lc? C:C<L1nty thc,;')".'E' :i,=.' a "\:".ul;,::.,1 cd" .1[<:;7 fJJa nu of.:~ ct lll""'f;?rJ he. LI !'"=.r~ ,-~.. ( Nc.t E' : .1 (,2:: E\ c< F t h E'!c:'P .:n .E? c.n t: h E; 1:: i_"1)< ~-'c<11 "'-' as "PE,,..'<:::,ona 1 p)"-c,pc;>,.-."t: y"_ (;:?) [If the .1i=,~:~7 unit!:::" 'J7':01 !",IE'j..'tC> ce')"<=.,t)"'uc-[C?cJ HUT) =.t .01 nd .:n.'(j ".. ~:i.i. nCE' HUt> "l;. cHiI:! ',il.~U !,,: I,,>ICY'E? :l )',i t :i dt: ccj the5:,f? (f:,(l~'~ of tr-lE' tul;.::d) i-'iP)"'[? con'c,."t:l-.uctet:l p,.-.:ie,)-. to .1~::'J7f._ t:) ).-. :i e, )".'. t Co ."l n .1 r:'17f,~ Se. u ).~CE': HE?r_'! d qua l"t E')..' <-'C., Md)', LI f':1 ct 1.1 )"I?d He, LI <:~.i. )'H}, I nt:! LI s.'.t: )....y : ( 1) 1 n .1 'J7 i::" t 1-, p ,;,., .',' l?)"-. ,,' q c,,' 'C.' ,:011 Eo "'.' Pl...:t CE', J"'1i.=I n 1.I f 0", ct U ).-.C?cj he<uSf?::'~ (fjf?livE'l.~E:'d--t:L1y')r, kE'y cC'l',d."lt.i.c.n~ ne< 1,:ind CC<!:':.t; inc:luclE'd) fo)"-. thf":' f"~y;t.l"-.f-? Un:iteej ~:~t<,)te"O i-'i':i~:; $;.1;:::,30(l. ( 2:> 1 )'", 1 '3 '::1 1 ~ t II [' ;.1 \ll~ Y' d ~) f.? '.'_,,:,.1 l:' c_, p )'1 C. L' f c. ).' t h P E' n t :1 ).. L' L.l)"'J i t: f:? cl ~:\t cl t t~ S f Ct',r'" fJ"J r::) n Ll f ':'1 C t Ll r-' E' d J-, Cll! ~:::' f.:-:'~. I") f.::~ ~; ~~i:::" )"' 1 -/ (J () .: ~:::\ i }$ ~.;{ 1 t.::) unite:s: $.1r9,'300~ r.JoubIE' un1tc:.: 1i'-3c.~r:l(0)_ In \).11.'q.1nld thE'!:-:.E" p","'i Cf~~~ y\IE?:r-'f:?; 1::'\/f;'r"'ElgE:~--"~i2L}'5 [~(l()., 5.i i"'J~.~ 1 EJ-n:~i.l E:\., -7()().os ["1eltltl} E'_u $2;L~, 800. \ I 'I · Auaress: ,.., '- ,-'- J<... ...< (p.. ~ 6~(c~-5t/'k~ "f;.. / ]7)4.::>( Telepi'lone: f.W-? 7.~ - l/t.fq / CONTRACT TO PURCHASE AND DEPOSIT AGREEMENT ('..I<J,fJJJ,'()/} k4'fJ~^-,q3 G 71;5 (_5"'u, Iyfld~ "'- /;;?e?Tr-/s4~~) ~ , NAME !t11didC~~ ADDRESS j~ fl'1..A.-Ui-7 MANUFACTUR R I MAKE . //?>>~;:, &'r:/ J.1~.Gh>.v CkJd ~u"JO -!:> SERIAL NUMfl RIM NEW I COLOR ~ ~ O-p-L)~ lOUSED I 6.u,y~- DATE /(:J.. Z - 9:!-- RES -7 TELEPHONE BUS. /(...'3 -6- 72--09 7e- I MODEL & YEAR \B. ROOMS I APPROX. SQUARE FOOTAGE /r/3 /'l9~'" 3 / COb IDElIVERE_Q TO: SALESPERSON C)/:'l.J;</CT"(;r '~L' /J i County State ~ \C..:f,'B -/ ./ /,!,' v~~ ,,-- . i IN MJ KE TRADE FOR: LE 'JGTH YEAR PAYOFF TO? SERIAL NO, WIDTH COLOR BEDROOMS TITLE WHERE? ACCT. NO. OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT, LABOR AND ACCESSORIES / . /1 $ 2 ~ 72 W ~,~ c:.. U(:'5bJ//.e<f' /075, -- Optional Equipment PRICE OF UNIT S /~ 9~c.> / 0 :7,"; 6-/ / ~L'-U()<)0 ffz?">-JI-e s SET UP AGREEMENT Oakwood 'I'!ill del'ver. blor.k, level ~ tie down. Customer furnishes all electriC par1s & laoor, waler 61 5."'.' va, ~.. , permits & steps. Wheels and axles remain proper1y 01 Oakwood. ~ ~52u SUB- TOT AL SA'S' ?7~ -- Sales Tax ~77, L~ Other Tax Homeowner's Ins. Premium / Yrs. /7'/ Family Protection Ins. Premium Yrs. Various Fees fI/u tv ///Le /e). - -- IcJet/ .t -Scpr;.c- .~CJ -- ( 1. CASH PRICE $ -?U-5:1""' z.-S TRADE-IN ALLOWANCE LESS BAL. DUE $ ON ABOVE NET ALLOWANCE $ ~:~~J>NOTWN 2JeC"y - To. LNNJ ~~~~R~t~~~~~D $ 2. LESS TOTAL CREDITS $ tVetI J Sr-ph~_ /tU.5i/JI!<:t{) REMARKS The underlllgned Purchaser(s) has agreed to purchase from Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. (the "Seller") the manufactured home described above (the "Home"). In the t connection, Purchaser(s) submits herewith a (check appropriate boxes) 7) [ ) Manufactured Home Credit Application and/or [ ) Nonrefundable Deposit of $ ,-:...-l7~ _ 7lJ ..(,tIY:::> Purchaser(s) a~rees that the above deposit shall apply toward the Cash Price or the Home indicated above. If Purchaser(s) fails to complete the purchase of the Home a d all related documents by A"ctl /5/ , ls1-kor otherwise falls to accept delivery of the Home, Purchaser(s) agrees that the above Deposit shall b~ forfeited by Purchaser(s) and retained by Seller, to the extent permitted by applicable law, as liquidated damages and to be applied toward the sallsfactiOI of the obligation of Purchaser(s) regarding the Home. " Purchaser(s) will obtain a loan to finance this purchase, Purchaser"s(s) obligation under this Agr ement is subject to Purchaser(s) obtaining a loan in the amount of the 'Unpald Balance of Cash Sale Price" set forth on line No.3 above at an annual inte est rate not to exceed _0/0 (fixed rate or Initial variable rate). Purchaser s) acknowledges and agrees that he/she Is of statutory age or has been legally emancipated; that he/she Is purchasing the above-described insurance volu tarily; that the trade-in described above, if any, is free from all claims, liens and encumbrances, except as noted; and that If any provision of this Agreemen Is unenforceable, the remaining provisions will be valid. I I 3. Unpaid Balance 01 Cuh Sale Price $ :.2-/ /.56- ~5 I~OI valid unles signed by an authorized representative of Seller. Approval by PurChaser(s) acknowledges receipt of a true copy of this Agreement and Seller Is subje t to acceptance by a bank or finance company, if applicable. that he has read and understands its terms. OAKWOOD MOBilE HOMES, INC. (Seller) t1 ~} I ,Ii_ .~rft{,u--- /~~~1/-. WHITE - OM Doc. 11 010~OB-OMH YELLOW - Sales Center !ft111/sd';;V--f ;/ ~ ~?'?:VC- /' Social Security No. I PINK - Purchuer GOLD - Copy By: .. .:. . f COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 972-4060 November 4, 1992 Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris 109 Falcon Drive, Colthurst Cha lottesville, VA 22901 Charlotte: attached information responds to your request for information on the upcoming age da item regarding single-wide mobile homes to be located in the Rural and Village Residential Areas by-right. I have included a copy of the complete staff rep rt that will be provided to the Board next week, but in response to your spe ific questions: 4 & 5. 1. The current zoning ordinance text excerpt is provided in Attachment A. 2. The proposed zoning ordinance text is provided in Attachment Band is also included in the staff report. 3. Staff maps major subdivisions in the County on two very large map sheets that would not be legible if reduced to 8~ x 11. These maps are updated annually in February. In an effort to respond to your question, the large map is on display in the Planning Department and can be made available at the Board meeting. In addition to the maps is a list of these subdivisions which I have included as attachment C. Staff does not have access to, nor records of, subdivision restrictive covenants other than those which may have been required as part of the subdivision approval process. As restrictions on mobile homes are not part of our review process, staff would have no record if other restrictive covenants were applied by the developer. 6. We have a homeowner's association list compiled from prior citizen requests to be added to a mailing list, but it is outdated. Being a voluntary list we are not informed when the name and address of the president changes. Ms. Andrea Trank experienced this in her efforts to survey associations during her recycling study. Any list we have would be incomplete at best and I caution against using it as a public notification process as it does not afford equal access to all members of the public who may be affected, either as proponent or opponent. 7. Subdivisions in the growth areas not affected by this proposed change are those not zoned RA or VR. Staff is in the process of annotating the subdivision list with this information and will provide this as soon as possible. Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris November 4, 1992 Page 2 8. Mobile homes are taxed as real property at the same tax rate as real estate. The County Assessor indicates mobile homes depreciate and this is reflected in our assessment guidelines as shown at Attachment D. 9 & 10. The average amount of assessment and taxes paid by single-wide mobile home owners for 1991 and 1992 are as follows: Number Assessment Tax 1991 1992 1,628 1,606 $7,064 $7,360 $50.76 $52.67 11. The County Attorney surveyed other jurisdictions and provided a summary which is included in the staff report in Attachment E. 12. I have contacted Mr. Payne regarding the information you requested and will forward it to you when I receive it. If you have additional questions regarding the information provided or if you need additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive RWT,Jr/dbm 92.183 .. ~ Edward H. Bain. Jr Samuel Miller David P. Bower an Charlottesville Charlotte Y Hu phris Jack Jouett COUNTY OF ALSErV~i\RlE K" 1 ~ -[ /'.< ..._~-~.- - ~i. t!,,;T OCT 23 1992 \1 ~ '.\,/;; ;~ ~ s. _-":-!-."~:.W'-'::f-':l" LJ . -.:0- _ I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R. Marshall. Jr ScollsviJle Charles S Martin Rivanna Walter F. Perkins While Hall October 22, 1992 Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive 40 I Mcintire Road Charlottesville, V A 22902-4596 Dear Bob: I am requesting some information in order to prepare for the November II Board of Supervisors meeting at which we will take up the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance which concerns single-wide mobile homes in the Rural Areas and in Village Residential areas by right. I need: 1. The zoning ordinance text as it is now written. 2. The zoning text as it is proposed to be changed. 3. A list of the all the subdivisions in the Rural Areas which would be affected by an ordinance change if the lots are not protected by restrictive covenants. 4. Do we know which of these subdivisions have restrictive covenants and which do not? 5. Ifwe do know, I would like a list separated in that way, those with restrictive covenants and those without 6. Do we have a list of persons to contact for each homeowners' association/subdivision? Is there a way to notify all the subdivi~ions which would be affected by a change in this ordinance so they will be aware of the proposed change and of the public hearing? 7. A list of all the subdivisions in the Growth Area which would not be affected by an ordinance change. Page 2 Robert W. Tucker, Jr. October 22, 1992 8. The manner in which mobile homes are taxed (i.e., real property or personal property). Related to this, do mobile homes appreciate or depreciate in value over time? 9. The average amount at which a single-wide mobile home is assessed in Albemarle County. IO. The average amount of tax paid by single-wide mobile homes. II. A brief statement as to under what conditions mobile homes are allowed in the surrounding counties of: Greene, Fluvanna, Madison, Nelson, Louisa, Orange and Buckingham. 12. A copy of the Fluvanna case handled by Fred Payne concerning the devaluing of surrounding properties by mobile homes. Thank you for your help in providing me with this information. Sincerely, C6 - ATTACHMENT A . ' Livestock: Domestic animals normally raised on a farm such as draft horses, cows, swine, goats, sheep. Lot: A parcel of land either shown on a plat of record or described by metes and bounds or other legal description. Lot, Corner: A lot abutting on two (2) or more streets at their intersection. The front of a corner lot shall be deemed to be the shortest of the sides fronting on streets except where existing development of such lot shall already have defined the front of such lot. Lot Interior: Any lot other than a corner lot. Lot, Width of: The average horizontal distance between side lot lines. Lot of Record: A lot, a plat or other legal description which is of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia. Manufacture and/or Manufacturing: The processing and/or converting of raw, unfinished materials or products, or either of them, into articles or substances of different character, or for use for a different purpose. Medical Center: Establishment wherein medical care is provided on an outpatient basis as distinguished from a hospital or a professional office. Mobile Horne: An industrialized building unit constructed on a chassis for towing to the point of use, and designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation for continuous year round occupancy as a dwelling; or two (2) or more such units separately towable, but designed to be joined together at the point of use to form a single dwelling, and which is designed for removal to and installation or erection on other sites. This definition shall not include an industri- alized building unit which is labelled as meeting the Building Officials and Code Administrators Code (BOCA) for one- and two-family dwelling units. (Amended 3-5-86) Mobile Horne Lot: An area of land for the placement of a single mobile home and for the exclusive use of its occu- pants. Mobile Horne Park: -One (1) or more contiguous parcels of land in which three (3) or more rental lots are provided for mobile homes. (Amended 3-5-86) Mobile Horne Subdivision: A subdivision of land for the purpose of providing lots for sale for mobile homes. ~ ~ -16- (Supp. ~31, 3-5-86) . . . ATTACHMENT B STAFF PERSON: PLANN NG COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: RONALD S. KEELER OCTOBER 6, 1992 NOVEMBER 11, 1992 ZTA-9~-08 - TO AMEND RA. RURAL AREAS AND VR. VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL ZONES TO ALLOW INDIVIDUAL MOBILE HOMES BY-RIGHT ORIGIN: Planning Commission resolution of intent of September 1, 1992. PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: To increase opportunities for affozdable housing: to reduce housing costs associated with goveznmental review: to remove uncertainty related to special use permit process. STAFli COMMENT: Backcround information for these amendment is provided in the attached September 1, 1992 worksession report to the Commission. SubsEquently, after discussion with the Inspections Department a one-~ord change is recommended to the definition of mobile home. RECOlIMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Amend 3.0 DEFINITIONS as follows: Mobile Home: An induGtri~lizcd A building unit constructed on a chassis for towing to the point of use, and designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation for continuous year round occupancy as a dwelling: or two (2) or more such units separately towable, but designed to be joined together at the point of use to form a single dwelling, and which is designed for removal to and installation or erection on other sites. This definition shall not include an industrialized building unit which is labelled as meeting the Building Official and Code Administration Code (BOCA) for one- and two-family units. 2. Under 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, repeal 5.6 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS and replace with the following: 5.6 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS While the Code of Vi'!'.qinia specifically provides for the restriction of mobile homes solely to mobile home parks amonq other requlatory provisions applicable to mobile homes. Albemarle County. in an effort to provide for affordable housinq for all residents. permits mobile homes to be situated on individual lots in 1 certain zoninq districts. To ensure usaqe of such mobile homes for residential purposes the followinq requlations shallapplv: ~ Such mobile homes shall be located on a foundation approved pursuant to Virqinia Uniform statewide Buildinq Code; ~ Such mobile home shall not be used for any purpose other than a primary place of residence. 3. In the RA zone, repeal 10.2.2.10 and add: 10.2.1.19 Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6). 4. In the VR zone, repeal 12.2.2.10 and add: 12.2.1.14 Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6). 2 . . ' 5.6 5.6.1 5.6. .1 5.6.1.2 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS PROCEDURE This section provides for administrative approval of mobile homes on individual lots in certain cases as hereinafter provided. In all other cases, individual mobile homes may be authorized in accordance with sections 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and/or 31.0 of this ordinance, as the case may be. Permits for the location of individtlal mobile homes may be issued by the zoning administrator upon a determination that the proposed location of the mobile home will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and that the same will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. Prior to making any such determination, and for purposes thereof the zoning administrator shall cause to be made an on-site inspection of the property in question. NOTIFICATION No such permit shall be issued unless and until the zoning administrator shall have caused all parties concerned to be notified of his intent to issue such permit. Such notifi- cation shall consist of the following: a. By sending of a first class letter to the last known address of each adjacent property owner; and (Amended 6-3-81) b. By sending notification of such intent.in writing to the secretary of the commission and the clerk of the board of supervisors; and c. By the posting of signs of a size and design approved ~ by the zoning administrator upon the subject property and adjacent to the nearest state highway at the point of access to the subject property; and d. By publication on at least one occasion in a newspaper of general circulation in the county not less than fifteen (15) nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the proposed date of issuance of such permit. (Amended 11-16-83) OBJECTION, ACTION In the event that no person so notified shall object in writing to the proposed location of the mobile home within fifteen (15) days of such notice, the zoning administrator may issue the permit sought. In the event of any such objection, or if the applicant disagrees with any proposed condition of approval, the application shall be referred to the commission and the board of supervisors for their approval and shall thereafter be processed in accordance with the provisions of section 31.0 of this ordinance. -77.2- (Supp. #31, 3-5-86) 5.6.1.3 5.6.2 5.6.2.1 5 . 6 .2. 2 ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE At the time of application, the applicant may request processing in accordance with section 31.0 of this ordi- nance. In such case, notice shall be in accordance with section 31.2.4.2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The issuance of a permit under this section shall be subject to the following conditions which shall be met by the applicant prior to the issuance of a certificate of occu- pancy and which shall thereafter be complied with: a. Albemarle County building official approval; b. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is located; c. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; (Amended 3-5-86) d. provision of potable water supply and sewerage facil- ities to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator and approval by the local office of the Virginia Depart~ent of Health, if applicable under current regulations; (Amended 3-5-86) e. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die. (Amended 3-5-86) REVOCATION Any permit issued pursuant to this section may be revoked by the zoning administrator, after hearing, for wilful noncom- pliance with this ordinance or any condition imposed under the authority of this section. Prior to holding any such hearing, the zoning administrator shall notify the permit holder of his intent to hold the same at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date thereof. ABANDONMENT In the event that no mobile home shall be located pursuant to the permit within eighteen (18) months of the date of issuance thereof, the same shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereby shall thereupon terminate. -77.3- (Supp. #31, 3-5-86) . ' 10.2.2 10. Temporary sawmill (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 11. Veterinary services - off-site treatment only. 12. Agricultural service occupation (subject to performance standards in 4.14). 13. Divisions of land in a~cordance with section 10.3. 14. Tourist lodging (reference 5.1.17). 15. Mobile homes, individual, qualifying under the following requirements (reference 5.6): a. A property owner residing on the premises in a permanent home wishes to place a mobile home on such property in order to maintain a full-time agricultural employee. b. Due to the destruction of a permanent home an emergency exists. A permit can be issued in this event not to exceed twelve (12) months. The zoning administrator shall be authorized to issue permits in accordance with the intent of this ordinance and shall be authorized to require or seek any information which he may determine necessary in making a determination of cases "a" and "b" of the aforementioned uses. 16. Temporary mobile home in accordance with section 5.7. (Amended 11-8-89) . 17. Farm winery (reference 5.1.25). (Added 12-16-81) 18. Borrow area, borrow pit, not exceeding an aggregate volume of fifty thousand (50,000) cubic yards including all borrow pits and borrow areas on anyone parcel of record on the adoption date of this provision (refer- ence 5.1.28). (Added 7-6-83) BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT C (ZlI,,& AL 1\ (2-c>f\) 1. Community center (reference 5.1.4). 2. Clubs, lodges, ci~ic, patriotic, fraternal (reference 5.1.2). 3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9). 4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 5. Private schools. -90- (Supp. #51, 11-8-89) 6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances, unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations- and appurtenances. 7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). 8. (Repealed 3-5-86) 9. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5). 10. Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6). 11. Hog farms. 12. Horse show grounds, permanent. 13. Custom slaughterhouse. 14. Sawmills, planing mills and woodyards (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 15. Group homes and homes for developmentally disabled persons as described in section 15.1-486.2 of the Code (reference 5.1.7). -90.1- (Supp. #51, 11-8-89) 1. Cluster development of permitted residential uses. 4. Rental of permitted residential uses and guest cot- tages, provided that yard, area and other requirements of this ordinance shall be met for each such use whether or not such use is on an individual lay-out. 5. (Repealed 9-2-81) 6. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding multi-legged tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise ex- pressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. 7. Accessory uses and buildings including home occupation, Class A (reference 5.2) and storage buildings. 8. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). 9. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89) 10. Tourist lodgings (reference 5.1.17). 11. Wayside stands for the display and sale of seasonal agricultural products (reference 5.1.19). 12. Homes for developmentally disabled persons (reference 5.1.7). 12.2 2 13. Agriculture. (- Vl L ~ /\ G c BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT (l 'C~, l)E i\. TI p.;0 The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 1. Community center (reference 5.1.4). -98- (Supp. ~49, 11-1-89) 2. Clubs, lodges, ClVlC, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2) . 3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9). 4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). S. Private schools. 6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas o~ oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substat~ons and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). 7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). 8. (Repealed 3-5-86) 9. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5). 10. Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6). 11. Agricultural service occupation. 2. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). 3. Hog farms. 4. Cemeteries. .5. Churches. (Added 9-2-81) -99- (supp. 131, 3-5-86) - . ATTACHMENT C. NUt:'IERIC !-ISTING BY KEY NUMBER January 1991 NUMERIC LISTING BY KEY Nl:MBER January 1991 AVa. AVa. KEY S \JBD IVISION TAX NO. LOT OPEN KEY SUBDIVISION TAX NO. LOT OPEN NO. NAME MAP LOTS SIZE SPACE NO. NAME HAP LOTS SIZE SPACE I Advance MI I s Village 02000 35 7.00 46 BurUln Property. Gordon T. onoo 6 1.20 2 Airport ~r ~ (Clover) 032AO 51 0.80 47 McCue. Purcell Estate 0.5<480 14 10.00 3 Albemarle 1 jake O4IAO 114 0.40 48 Calf Mountain 03800 21 11.60 4 Appleberry l:staUlS 10900 6 2.10 49 Wind River 042.043 16 5.80 y 5 Arbor Park O4..AO 22 2.80 50 CameRia Garden 061W2 30 0.10 6 Ardwoocl 045AO 16 4.70 51 Camelot 032EO 129 0.20 7 Ashcroft (P D) 078AO 102 1."2 Y 52 CandIewyck (PRO) OS9C3 35 1.21 Y 8 Ashmere 09300 20 6.10 53 Canterbury Hills 06000 155 0.50 --:- 10 Auburn Hil 078CO 67 2.75 54 Carnbrook 04SB 1-2 16-4 1.60 II Ballard Wo Pcb 059C3 12 1.75 55 Cas1Ie Rock Mountain 08400 II 6.90 12 Balmonl H ~ 076 EO 14 0.30 56 Cedar Creek 01800 II 3.60 13 Barlow & C orden Lots 07600 5 0.00 57 Cedar Hills 062CO 26 3.70 I" Barrac~1e 04100 I" 4.20 58 Cedar Ridge 05000 12 5.10 16 Barterbroo~ 061KO 38 0.30 59 Chapel Hills 061ZO 14 ...20 17 Beach ProF jerty. Earl 12300 4 2.00 60 Chestnut Grove 01900 23 2.60 19 Bedford Hi Is 045 EO 45 2.6-4 61 C1aytlOll Manor 05500 IS 0.67 20 Bellair 076CO 96 2.20 62 Oearview Knolls <>+f00 IS 2.10 21 Bellhaven 0..500 9 2.70 63 CIearview Meadows 0+400 9 1.80 .22 Bending 0 ~ 05800 5 2.30 6<4 Oover Farm 05600 7 7.00 23 8enningtOr Woods 060AI 3.. 0.16 65 Cover Hill 045AO 59 1.30 2.. BenningtOr T err:ace 060AI 6 0.21 66 CoIS1Dn 07300 12 10.33 y 2S BentMr 0..600 42 ".27 67 CoIdwrst Farm 06OCO 6S 2.00 26 Berkeley 061MO 168 0.40 68 Commonwealth Drive Duplexes 061WO SO 0.18 28 Bimam W ~d 061W2 114 0.06 70 Counay Side 08400 IS 2.10 29 Biscuit RUI 08900 12 3.20 71 Councry V_ 05700 18 2.60 30 Bishop H II 09200 14 2.09 74 Deep ~res 04200 13 5.08 31 Blue Ridge Acres 069AO 105 0.80 75 Deer Park 01800 12 3.53 32 Blue Ridge Forest 03000 26 2.40 76 Deeridge 10300 15 2.00 33 Boyd Taw rn 09400 8 3.20 n Deer Run 03100 12 054 3.. Branchia", Is (PUD) 061Z0 195 0.31 Y 78 De<<WOOd 032CO 60 0.20 35 Briarwooc 032GO 137 0.7" 79 Dudley Mt. Lodges 08900 7 2.40 36 Briarwooc 09400 10 3.70 80 E:arlysville Forest (PUD) 03180 135 1.50 Y 37 Brighdand ( Braumuller) 02700 8 10.80 81 E:arlysville Heights 031AO 56 0.60 38 BrinningtO/1 02900 15 3.90 82 Ednam Forest 0590 1.2 140 1.50 39 Brooklaynp 01900 6 2.20 83 Ednam PRD 05902 ..2 0.17 Y 40 Brooksvill Manor 06900 12 ".56 8.. Ednam Village 059D2 33 0.22 Y 41 Brookwoc~ 056DO 87 0.33 85 EgIinton 05700 12 -'.30 42 Buck Falls Farm 01800 9 2.00 86 Skins Acres 04500 .. 0.00 43 Buck Hill ptates 10300 I" 2.10 87 Falrgrove I & II 03000 ~9 2.67 +4 Buck Mou "tain (PRD) 01700 46 4.20 Y 89 Fan Mountain Estates 10900 7 5.30 45 Buckingham 076DO 53 0.60 90 Farmington 60E 1.2.3 146 350 Y NUMERIC LISTING BY KEY NUMBER January 1991 NUMERIC LISTING BY KEY NUMBER January 1m AVG. AVa. KEY SUBDIVISION TAX NO. LOT OPEN KEY SUBDIVISION TAX NO. LOT OPEN NO. NAME HAP U.,TS SIZE SPACE NO. NAHE HAP LOTS SIZE SPACE 91 Faw-Boseley Lots 09480 12 2.30 137 Ivy Glen 05800 4 2.10 91 FieJdbrook 046A1 83 0.30 Y 172 Ivy Heights (see # 172 Meriwether) 05880 0 0.00 93 Aordon 059AO 80 2.59 Y 139 Ivy Meadows (PRO) OSSA I 14 0.25 Y 94 Forest Lodge 09000 8 2.05 140 Ivy Oaks 058CO 39 2.50 95 Four Seasons (PUO) 061XI.2 345 0.00 Y 141 Ivy Ridge 04400 II 2.30 96 Fox Hill 08000 5 7.10 142 Ivy Woods 05700 21 3.00 97 Foxwood 03400 46 2.70 143 Jannan Gap Est:ates (PRO) 05500 24 0.89 Y 98 Franldin 06200 35 2.50 1+4 Jefferson Village 03200 83 0.50 99 Fray Division 04400 6 2.70 145 Kearsarge 05980 25 0.98 100 Frays Me. Est:ates 01900 8 2.30 146 Key West 06281 202 2.25 102 Gardencourt 06180 51 0.00 Y 147 KnoIlwood 060AO 47 0.30 103 Garnett Prop. (see #414 Beaumont) 04400 20 25.30 148 Lake Acra 03200 29 2.10 104 Garth Gate 04300 II 10.10 149 Lake Hilb 04500 II 4.60 105 GeorgetoWn Court 060AI 42 0.02 150 Lakeside 077EI 18 1.21 106 Georgetown Green 06OFO 112 0.06 Y 151 Lakewood Lodge 034AO 15 0.86 Y 107 Georgetown Lane 061KO 10 0.25 152 Langford Fanns 07400 45 2.-40 IOS Gilbert Heights 03300 10 2.-40 153 Laurel Hills 05680 67 0.38 109 Glenaire 05780 65 2.60 154 Laurel Ridge 05800 14 3.00 110 Glenorchy 07880 28 1.90 155 Lewis Hill (PRO) 058CO 62 1.63 Y III Grusmere Farm 05800 24 5.70 156 Lewis Hill West 058CO 14 2.10 112 Green Mount:ain 11900 44 3.-40 157 Lexington 01900 II 2.20 113 Greenbrier Heights 061ZO 44 0.-40 158 Uberty Hill 076HO 25 1.20 114 Greencroft 05800 12 2.94 Y 159 Little Clover Hill 045AO 8 0.70 117 Greentree 060AO 14 0.11 160 Lochridge 04500 10 3.30 118 Tiffany. H. H. 05400 2l 0.54 161 Locust Hill 05800 15 1.-40 120 Hatfield Farm 00800 5 2.00 162 LoftJand Wood (PRO) 03100 28 1.50 Y 121 Hessian Hills 060AO 156 0.70 163 Logan Village 04400 13 2.10 122 Hickory Ridge (PUO) 03000 73 2.15 Y 164 Long Meadow 0-4000 8 8.30 123 Hidden Hills. Rt. 743 04500 4 2.20 165 Lyon Woods 08900 6 2.10 124 Hidden Hills. Rt. 643 04500 7 2.20 167 Magnolia Ridge 04500 3 7.90 125 Hind Sight 04500 3 6.20 168 Magruder 07900 19 1.00 126 Hollymead (PUO) 046BI 263 0.28 Y 169 Mallard Lake 03000 15 8.-40 -.-. 127 Huckle Lots. Dr. & Mrs. 061KO 3 1.08 170 Marshall Manor 09080 41 2.20 129 Huntington Village 06081 135 0.08 Y 171 Mechum Banks 04200 II 7.60 130 Huntwood 060A2 60 O.CH Y 172 Meriwether Hill (see #1J81vy) 05880 83 1.18 131 Inglecress 06OGO 43 4.20 173 McMurdo 03200 12 0.00 132 Island Creek 10600 10 3.35 174 Middlebranch Farm 08700 12 11.20 133 Ivy Brook 05800 4 3.70 175 Milburn 07900 9 4.20 134 Ivy Creek (PRO) 059AI 56 4.58 Y 176 Miles. Frank Milton 03000 8 5.00 135 Ivy Farm (E_ of Ivy Ck) 04400 26 5.40 177 Mill Run 03100 IS 150 136 Ivy Farm ryv. of Ivy Ck) 04400 86 5.70 178 Miller Division 02000 8 2.60 . -. , NUMERIC ~ISTING BY KEY NUMBER January 1992 NUMERIC LISTING BY KEY NUMBER january 1991 AVa. AVa. KEY S,",BD IVISION TAX NO. LOT CJPEN KEY SUBDIVISION TAX NO. LOT OPEN NO. NAME MAP LOTS SIZE SPACE NO. NAME HAP LOTS SIZE SPACE 179 Milton HeiI tlts 07980 21 1.90 229 RIo Heights O6IAO 45 0.20 180 Milton Hills 09300 45 4.60 230 RMnna (PRO) 0<4500 18 1.50 Y 181 Mink CreeJ, EsUUlS 13100 15 5.00 231 RMnwood 04500 16 2.00 182 Mlran Fore: t 08500 27 HO 232 RJverridge 0<4100 5 7.64 183 MontYue 06080 33 1.80 233 Rlverrun 062DO.1 220 0.37 184 Mount fag! 09300 9 0.93 234 lUverview Farm 03300 8 5.os 185 Mountain ~ oIIow 06980 41 3.70 23S RIYers Edge 09<400 8 17.50 186 Mounuin , - 05600 10 2.30 236 RIYers End 0<4500 8 2.80 189 NobHiII 07680 94 0.37 237 Rock Branch Acra 08700 12 2.71 190 Nonh fori Farms 02000 10 9.92 238 Rockbrook O6IAI 6 0.30 191 Nonh PllMls 02000 III 2.90 239 Rosemont 07<400 49 8.69 192 Nord1lleld 62A1.2.3 233 0.87 240 Royal Aaes 079AI 100 1.20 195 Northwoc ~ NeIghbomood 03300 10 2.-40 241 Running De.- 09<400 53 2.30 196 Norwood 03100 7 0.-40 242 Taylor's Gap (Rush EstaUlS) 07<400 19 2.70 197 Oak Fores 06IWI 7S 0.20 20 Sacldlewood Farms 10500 n 6.00 198 Oak Grov 11900 14 2.00 2.... Sandy Branch Resort Farm 021AO 20 0.70 200 Oak Hill 090A0 as 0.70 246 Shadwell Esates 079CO 15 1.90 202 Oak Tern ~ 06IKO 27 0.30 247 Shadwell Mountain 07800 15 9.-40 203 ~ks. The 08100 9 1.-40 248 Sherwood Farms 076N0 52 3.14 204 Olde 0aJ( Cou~ (Condos) 061WI 6 0.00 249 Sherwood Manor 076PO 100 0.30 Y 20S OrchardJ f.cres OS5CO 135 0.50 250 Shiflett Property. John C. 02200 9 2.00 207 Park Vi_ 056CO 55 0.60 251 SIgnal HiD 08300 21 7.10 208 Peacock ~ ill (PUO) 073AO 157 1.33 Y 252 Skyline Crest 05700 2B 2.10 209 Pen Park 06IAO 41 1.14 255 SoIaris 02200 17 4.20 210 Pheasant ~ (Milkey) 04400 IS 2.60 257 Spring Hill 05800 33 4.80 Y 212 Pine Run 09400 12 1.90 258 Spring Valley 08400 10 7.30 213 Pineridge 03200 10 5.20 259 Springfield 032A0 23 0.80 214 Pines. Th 03100 20 1.10 261 Squirrel Ridge 04500 24 1.20 215 Piney Mo nuin 02000 5 11.60 262 St. George Aaes OS6A1 15 0.30 216 Quality R bw Ii 100 II 0.60 263 Sailings lots. I..2wrence 13100 16 2.10 217 Queen C IIarlotte 06IKO 53 0.20 2<< Stillfleld 06000 4 1.-40 218 Raintree 046A2 155 0.23 Y 265 Stonehenge 061AI 190 0.20 Y 219 Rea 055 CO 10 0.30 _. 266 Stony Point 131AO 31 0.55 220 Redbud 06200 20 2.12 267 Stony Point Hilb 03<400 25 3.59 221 Red Hilb 04600 16 3.00 268 Swmptown 11100 7 1.70 222 Reveille 07200 II 12.80 269 Sunrise Acres 040AO 37 0.06 223 Reynard Woods 04300 12 5.00 270 Sycamore 04500 7 4.80 224 Ridgefielc 04500 6 5.60 271 T anglewood 05800 3 2.20 225 Ridgemo t 06200 15 6.00 272 Tattershall Farm 07300 6 10.50 226 Ridgerop 04100 4 3.70 273 Taylor's Mounain Farm 07300 23 8.90 228 Ridgewoj,d 11500 16 2.00 274 Templeton Acres 045 FO 18 1.10 i r-UMERIC LISTING BY KEY NUMBER January 1991 NUMERIC LISTING BY KEY NUMBER Jaiiuary I.f.~ AVG. AVG. KEY SUBDIVISION TAX NO. LOT OPEN KEY SUBDIVISION TAX NO. LOT OPEN NO. NAME MAP LOTS SIZE SPACE NO. NAME MAP LOTS SIZE SPACE 27S T erTell 06000 30 2.60 325 P1negarth (Cnig Property) 0<4300 .. 2.10 276 T errybrook 032FO SO 1.20 326 Lewis Hill (East) OS8CO II 2.08 2n ThuntDn 004080 30 3.10 327 Solomon Court (Condos) O6OA1 85 0.00 y 278 Totier Hills 13000 26 2.30 328 Whitewood Road Lou 061W2 12 0.22 279 T ownwoocl 06180 1-40 0.05 y 329 Blue Ridge View 02900 10 0.69 281 Trodgen Lots. James C. 06500 12 4.60 331 &neraJd Forest (Maupin) OS600 9 7.40 282 Tuckahoe (Rowan) 04S00 S 8.SO 332 Minor Townhouses 061W2 131 0.05 y 283 Turner Me. Wood 05800 3 4.10 333 Mountain Laurel (Taylor) 01900 8 7:JD 284 Turtle Creek (Condos) 06IWI 3n 0.00 y 33S Swift Run Farms 02000 5 2...00 28S University Commons (Condos) 060AO 30 0.00 Y 336 Springwood 02800 S 36.50 286 Upper Pagebrook Farm 08700 7 3.-40 337 Harmony 0<4200 21 3.60 2H1 Valley Farms 03100 10 2.80 338 Ganhfield 0<4100 S 2.SO 288 Valmont Estlltes 13600 18 6.12 339 Ephart Oo4S00 S 0.84 290 Village Square 061AO 25 0.20 Y 340 BrookmiU 061ZO 66 0.02 y 291 Wakefield 062A1 28 0.42 341 Mill Creek PH. 1 (PUO) 09000 30.4 0.35 y 292 Waverly , 0..200 70 3.70 342 Eagle Mountain 09300 5 2.00 293 Wavertree Hall Farm (PRO) 07000 26 3.30 343 Fittwood 08000 5 2.00 294 Wayland Park OS6A1 36 0.61 3.... Mechums West 05700 7 11.85 296 West l,eigh 059CO 137 2.57 345 Mechunk Acres 094AO 18 1.92 Y 297 West Woods OS8CO 50 2.20 346 WhisdefieJd Farm 08400 8 2.10 299 Westmorebnd 0046A0 124 0.45 347 Vwginia Farms 08100 10 21.1S 300 WesfDVW' Hills 004180 38 1.60 348 Homestead. The 02900 12 7.40 301 Westridge 05700 4 4.60 349 South Briarwood Farms 09800 10 25.00 302 Whippoorwill Hollow 04200 80 0.00 350 Covey Hill 05900 4 S.OO 303 Whispering Pines 05780 4 5.s0 351 Wingate Farm 04300 12 9.02 305 Whidey Property 02900 4 2.30 352 Wyngate 0....00 8 2.23 306 Whittington 09000 10 2.00 353 Oak Knoll (Cogan Prop.) 05900 5 S.32 307 Wildwood (PRO) 061AO 35 0.14 Y 354 Cbrk Property, Robert V. 08700 S 2.13 308 Willoughby (PUO) 076M 1,2 126 0.20 Y 35S Quimfield 01900 S S.OO 310 Willow Lake OnEI 38 0.00 y 356 lynnwood Lane 0....00 S 3.02 311 Windrift 01800 -48 2.76 357 Roslyn Ridge 045,061 IS 5.n 312 Windsor Estlltes (PRO) 04500 30 1.30 y 358 Green MounDin Acres 119,120 10 2.34 113 Wolf Lots 08400 10 7.50 _. 359 South Fork Farms 08700 17 10.06 -. 114 Woodbrook 045CO 208 0.32 360 MounDin Brook (Mahoney) 09200 5 9.16 315 Woods. The (Condos) 04510 22 0.00 Y 361 Markham Prop..Baine 08900 5 10.81 . 316 Woodsedge 094BO 39 1.14 362 Monticello Home Bid. 12100 9 2.81 317 Woolen Mills 07800 14 0.41 363 Massie Prop~ Clarence 13600 5 4.25 318 Wynridge 061W2 124 0.21 364 Slate Hill 10300 20 17.41 321 locust Hill North 05800 15 1.-40 365 Thacker Prop_. Wm. C. Jr. 10200 9 2.01 322 Mill Ridge 04200 5 3.20 366 Spradlin Prop_ 12300 12 6.98 324 Rivanna Corp. 06200 4 11.70 367 Sullivan Prop_ AJ. & M_E. 04900 6 7.45 I , . 0 NUMERIC: o iSTING BY KEY NUMBER January 1991 NUMERIC LISTING BY KEY NUMBER January 1991 AVG. AVG. KEY SI~BDIVISION TAX NO. LOT OPEN KEY SUBDIVISION TAX NO. LOT OPEN NO. NAME MAP LOTS SIZE SPACE NO. NAME MAP LOTS SIZE SPACE 368 Saddle Hollo ~Fann 03900 6 11.82 ..19 Cold Spring Hollow 07..00 7 20.53 369 Dunbar Prol ~ Willie 08900 5 5.33 ..20 Gerke Property. Jame$ 01700 5 12.52 370 Fall ReIds 0.4700 8 5.36 ..21 Carlton onoo 7 0.00 371 Walnut Mo~ "taln 0..900 2.. 15.78 ..22 Clark '" Streeter Property 02700 5 9."1 372 LoweU Pines 0..500 5 5.30 ..23 Nuesch Property. Patrick 00600 5 5.60 373 Graemont 03100 2.. 7.50 ..2.. Castleberry Court 07100 5 <4.2.. 37.. Village Woo d$ 03100 5 .....5 ..25 RedfIekb 07600 34 OIl Y 375 Meadowfiek 03200 28 1.05 426 Lanford Hills 0.4500 8 1.74 3n Vassar. Tho nu '" Anne 06300 5 11.28 427 Country Vi_ Ph.2 05700 5 5.84 379 Barnden Es tateS 06300 5 3.92 428 Highlands at Mechums 05700 76 0.23 Y 380 Hatcher Pn perty 04800 8 56.79 ..29 Rusding 0aJcs 0....00 9 12.02 381 Forest ~Ier 05500 5 9.87 ..30 Forest Lakes . Arbor Lake 0046D4 38 0.00 Y 382 BIandemar 08800 7 21.05 ..31 Mill Creek - Village Homes 09OCO <10 0.00 Y 383 Forest Lakels 0046D4 190 0.34 Y ..32 Marks Property. B.C. 12600 5 5.13 3&4 KnoasPro ~ 03300 5 5.75 ..33 PattersOn Property. Hilton 12700 5 3.69 385 Tomlin Pro ~erty 01000 5 ".67 ..3.. Ingleside 06000 12 8.00 386 Ham Propl frty 01800 5 8.76 ..35 Liberty Subdivision 03500 5 3.31 387 Matheny Pr pperty 0&400 5 3.<10 ..37 Forest Lakes - Gateway Village 0..68<4 69 0.00 Y 388 PhiDips Pro erty 06300 6 3.28 389 Terrae 05700 5 7.53 391 McLme Ric ge 02100 5 2.26 392 Emenld Ri ge 03900 31 9.99 393 Far Hills 05900 I" 15.89 39.. Coventry 02100 7 9.<47 395 Advanced 1i11s estateS 02000 5 3.97 396 Burruss Br mch 02900 13 12.1.. 397 Bronfman. lOdgar M. 0..100 9 20..... 398 Riverbirch. Inc. 13200 16 16.97 399 Dun/on 06100 1<46 0.<10 -400 Roslyn Hei ghcs 06100 5 ".60 -401 Reveille 2 07200 -4 3.95 ..03 Joyce Hill 0..700 7 9.73 <105 Earlysville MeadoW$ 019,020 8 2.8-4 - ..06 Wilkins Pr op~ So Vance. Jr. 12600 8 2.00 -410 Carr, Davi d W. and Martha J- 0+100 7 1230 -412 Mill Creek Ph. 2 (PRD) 090CO 3..1 0.3" Y -41-4 Beaumont Farm (RPD) 0+100 39 -4.36 Y -415 Cascades. The 02800 8 11.2-4 -416 Indian Hill 08700 -4 5.07 -417 Barrsden ~ills 06300 3 0.00 -418 Watts Sea .on 03300 13 18_5-4 I ATTACHMENT D Page 41 MOBILE HOMES Two appraisal cards will be filled out on each mobile home, Finance and Real Estate. A notation as to the value, dimensions and make will be placed on the appraisal card (Real Estate) in the space "Mobile Home information." Mobile homes are to be appraised at market value by the Real Estate Appraiser and taxed at the same tax rate as real estate. The appraisal is to be done on a separate mobile home card and returned to the Finance Department. Oakwood homes offer three different models today. Example of size and cost of each are as follows: Classic (top of the line) 14 x 70 Oakwood (average) 14 x 70 Special Addition (economy model 14 x 70 - $26,000 $21,500 $19,000 (26.53 sq. ft.) (21.94 sq. ft.) (19.39 sq. ft.) The guidelines for the valuation of mobile homes is a follows: 1. 12' and 14' wide models - $20.00 per square foot box size (excluding furniture), depending on the manufactures model. Depreciation Schedule 1992 - 0% 1983 - 45% 1974 - 70% 1991 - 5% 1982 - 50% 1973 and older 75% 1990 - 10% 1981 - 52.5% 1989 - 15% 1980 - 55% 1988 - 20% 1979 - 57.5% 1987 - 25% 1978 - 60% 1986 - . 30% 1977 - 62.5% 1985 - 35% 1976 - 65% 1984 - 40% 1975 - 67.5% Or as the condition of the mobile home warrants. If the date is not known, the appraiser must estimate the age and condition of the mobile home. 2. 10' models - average value $2,500 3. 8' models - average value $1,000 Value on the 8' and 10' models can be "flat value", based on condition. Any mobile home used for storage should also be turned into the Finance Department, but be sure to note the use of the trailer. Note: The above depreciation schedule is for a guide only. Mobile home depreciation will vary greatly - use your personal judgement on later model homes. 4. Mobile Home additions (decks, porches, patios etc.) should be appraised on the mobile home card. ATTACHMENT E . . ME ORANDUM: r '- <:.',' .1; :'\ u.. COUN~Y OF ALB~MARLE fiil il:~=-L--::::"C'2iJ \JJD !':"~:J rf-~' Dept. of Planmng & Commumty Developmen \1 ;'/'-"', Ii: I 401 McIntire Road 1::-','\ i't' I ':' h~d '\ i J ! i Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-45% ! i 1\ .. '.' , , \' ,! Iii (804) 296-5823 i,; i: :~\~~, .',:,,' 'I - ;;~ l U J I.~~ I.'.~; .It, ,;~.' r.) :.....,.; 1-: ,., . '. -. ^ ..... ... ..-~ j ,', '...~ ;-: ""..."'). D Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning~ October 8, 1992 TO: F RE: ZTA-92-08 To Amend RA, Rural Areas and VR, Village Residential Zones To Allow Individual Mobile Homes By-Right e Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on tober 6, 1992, by a vote of 3~2, recommended approval of the ove-noted zoning text amendment. Attached please find a staff port which outlines this amendment. I you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to c ntact me. Bob Brandenburger STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: RONALD S. KEELER OCTOBER 6, 1992 NOVEMBER 11, 1992 ZTA-92-08 - TO AMEND RA, RURAL AREAS AND VR, VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL ZONES TO ALLOW INDIVIDUAL MOBILE HOMES BY-RIGHT ORIGIN: Planning Commission resolution of intent of September 1, 1992. PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: To increase opportunities for affordable housing; to reduce housing costs associated with governmental review; to remove uncertainty related to special use permit process. STAFF COMMENT: Background information for these amendment is provided in the attached September 1, 1992 worksession report to the Commission. Subsequently, after discussion with the Inspections Department a one-word change is recommended to the definition of mobile home. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Amend 3.0 DEFINITIONS as follows: Mobile Home: An induDtri~lizcd A building unit constructed on a chassis for towing to the point of use, and designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation for continuous year round occupancy as a dwelling; or two (2) or more such units separately towable, but designed to be joined together at the point of use to form a single dwelling, and which is designed for removal to and installation or erection on other sites. This definition shall not include an industrialized building unit which is labelled as meeting the Building Official and Code Administration Code (BOCA) for one- and two-family units. 2. Under 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, repeal 5.6 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS and replace with the following: 5.6 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS While the Code of Virqinia specifically provides for the restriction of mobile homes solely to mobile home parks amonq other requlatory provisions applicable to mobile homes, Albemarle County, in an effort to provide for affordable housinq for all residents, permits mobile homes to be situated on individual lots in 1 certain zoning districts. To ensure usaqe of such mobile homes for residential purposes the followinq requlations shallapplv: ~ Such mobile homes shall be located on a foundation approved ?ursuant to Virqinia Uniform statewide Buildinq Code: ~ Such mobile home shall not be used for any purpose other than a orimarv olace of residence. 3. In the RA zone, repeal 10.2.2.10 and add: 10.2.1.19 Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6). 4. In the VR zone, repeal 12.2.2.10 and add: 12.2.1.14 Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6). 2 1'-"'- STAFF PERSONS: RONALD S. KEELER DAVID B. BENISH SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 WORK SESSION: DISPOSITION OF MOBILE HOMES: Initially, this report will discuss strategies and recommendations of the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC) related to mobile homes. While the Commission has discussed this issue, no clear position has been established by the full Commission. As you will see, this report will suggest that certain HAC recommendations may be inconsistent with the primary intent of increasing the affordable housing stock. In addition, staff will offer for discussion options for the Rural Areas, Village Residential and Light Industrial zones we believe in keeping with the HAC's intent to provide for affordable housing. 1 H~C MOBILE HOME STRATEGY: OVERVIEW: . AS TO ANY HOUSING COUNSELLING PROGRAM, THE INDIVIDUA~'S SITUATION AND FUTURE PLANS SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY ANALYZED PRIOR TO RECOMMENDING INVESTMENT IN A MOBILE HOME. . NO ANALYSIS AS TO THE EFFECTS OF IMPLEMENTING T~E MOBILE HOME STRATEGY IS OFFERED. THAT ONE OBJECTIVE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WILL RISE ABOVE ANOTHER IS UNAVOIDABLE, HOWEVER, TO MAKE SUCH DECISION, THE BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY ARE WARRANTED. . COUNTY ZONING REGULATION DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE AFFECTED (POSITIVELY OR NEGATIVELY) THE MIX OF MOBILE HOMES TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLINGS IN THE TWENTY YEARS SINCE ADOPTION OF ZONING. . ABOUT 97% OF ALL MOBILE HOME PETITIONS ARE APPROVED. FOUR OUT OF FIVE PETITIONS ARE ISSUED WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM ADJOINING LANDOWNERS INDICATING TOLERANCE IF NOT ACCEPTANCE IN MOST CASES. . THE COMMISSION AND BOARD SHOULD DETERMINE IF THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED BY CONTINUING THE CURRENT REVIEW PROCESS. . ARRIVING AT A REGIONAL CONSENSUS AS TO UNIFORM TREATMENT OF MOBILE HOMES IN THE IMMEDIATE SHORT TERM MAY BE OPTIMISTIC. RELAXING MOBILE HOME REGULATIONS IN ALBEMARLE MAY HAVE NO IMMEDIATE ADVERSE EFFECT ON SURROUNDING JU~ISDICTIONS, HOWEVER, SUCH ACTION MAY PROVE AS BELLWETHER FOR SIMILAR DEMANDS FOR POLICY CHANGES. IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO SEEK COMMENT FROM ADJACENT LOCALITIES. 2 HAC MOBILE HOME OBJECTIVES: . (MHl) RECOMMENDATIONS ARE DIRECTED TOWARDS ~KING MOBILE HOMES MORE COMPATIBLE TO CONVENTIONAL DWELLINGS. IN STAFF RECOLLECTION, NO SIMILAR CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BY THE COUNTY UNDER CURRENT REGULATION. ADOPTION OF OBJECTIVE MHl COULD INCREASE THE COSTS TO A MOBILE HOME OWNER AS COMPARED TO CURRENT PRACTICE. . . (MH2) REGARDING RENTAL OF MOBILE HOMES HAS BEEN RESOLVED CONSISTENT WITH HAC RECOMMENDATION. . (MH3) APPEARS AS A RESTATEMENT OF THE MOBILE HOME STRATEGY, HOWEVER, TERMINOLOGY IS UNCLEAR. a (MH4) DISPOSITION OF MOBILE HOME PARKS AND SUBDIVISIONS WILL BE DEPENDENT ON COUNTY TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUAL MOBILE HOMES. STAFF HAD PREPARED AMENDMENTS TO SIMPLIFY AND RELAX REGULATION AS WELL AS INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARKS AND SUBDIVISIONS PRIOR TO THE HAC REPORT. . (MH5) RECOMMENDS EXPANDED ROLE FOR NON-PROFIT HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS. STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND EXPANDED COORDINATION AND OVERSIGHT OF SUCH ORGANIZATION EFFORTS TO ENSURE ENDEAVORS ARE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER COUNTY POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND REGULATIONS. STAFF ALSO OFFERS THAT THE COUNTY CAN TAKE A LEAD ROLE IN ESTABLISHING A MOBILE HOME PARK IN THE COUNTY. . (MH6) WOULD REQUIRE MOBILE HOMES TO MEET STANDARDS ABOVE THOSE REQUIRED UNDER THE VIRGINIA,UNIFORM STANDARD STATEW!DE BUILDING CODE AND COULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE COST OF MOBILE HOMES AS WELL AS (TOTALLY) DEVALUE EXISTING UNITS LOCALLY. IN STAFF RECOLLECTION, NO SUCH CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON MOBILE HOMES UNDER CURRENT PROCEDURES. . IN SUMMARY, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT IMPLEMENTATION OF HAC OBJECTIVES AS COMPARED TO CURRENT REGULATION COULD: . MAKE LOCATION OF MOBILE HOMES MORE EXPENSIVE; AND . REDUCE AVAILABLE MOBILE HOME STOCK; AND . (LOCALLY) DEVALUE EXISTING UNITS. 3 , . F(bR DISCUSSION I ALLOW ALL MOBILE HOMES BY RIGHT IN THE RURAL AREA AND VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL ZONES SUBJECT To THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS: lJ. ~O~ c.ooe. ~'E'f"F<:>~t> . SUCH MOBILE HOME SHALL BE LOCATED ON Pi:P.N7\HEM'I' FOUNDATION; . . SUCH MOBILE HOME SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN A PRIMARY PLACE OF RESIDENCE. II. ALLOW MOBILE HOME PARKS AS A BY-RIGHT USE WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. III. ALBEMARLE COUNTY TO TAKE A LEAD ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MOBILE HOME PARK. 4 HAC MOBILE HOME STRATEGY: OVERVIEW This section of the report wil~ discuss various issues that arise from the mobile home strategy setforth in the HAC' Report. Comments provided as to certain statements and figures in the HAC report are intended to present an expanded or different perspective. . Mobile Home Strateqy: (G2) Allow both sinqle and double wide manufactured housinq by riqht in rural and qrowth areas if thev meet criteria consistent with other types of housinq. Cooperation with neiqhborinq iurisdictions should be souqht. Comments in the housing report text (paragraphs 2 and 3, p. 69) should be evaluated in light of Purchase Prior. Other Purchasinq Costs. Financinq. Life of Structure. and Taxes (pp 66-67). Simply stated, the question as to whether investment in a mobile home is the wisest financial decision would be dependent on several factors including the future housing goal of the individual. AS TO ANY HOUSING COUNSELLING PROGRAM, THE INDIVIDUAL'S SITUATION AND FUTURE PLANS SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY ANALYZED PRIOR TO RECOMMENDING INVESTMENT IN A MOBILE HOME. NO ANALYSIS AS TO THE EFFECTS OF IMPLEMENTING THE MOBILE HOME STRATEGY IS OFFERED in the housing report. Objection to mobile homes appears to be attributed to the NIMBY sentiment (para 3, p. 70; NIMBY is generally an irrational or unfounded negative response to change). On the other hand, Mr. st. John's memorandum (Attachment A) states that: "Several years ago, the Circuit Court of Fluvanna County upheld Fluvanna's ordinance...Fred Payne defended Fluvanna, and its ordinance is similar to ours. What is required to defend a case of this kind, is expert evidence to the effect that the regulations are based on reasonably valid economic, health or welfare considerations and not on pure aesthetics or prejudice. In the Fluvanna County case, Fred had testimony that mobile homes devalue nearby land, and thus a rational basis for the ordinance was established." A "task at hand" review can become narrow in scope and direction to the detriment of other community policies and objectives. As staff has repeatedly stated, the Comprehensive Plan contains many goals and objectives which can (and will) conflict with one another in implementation. 5 THAT ONE OBJECTIVE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WILL RISE ABOVE ANOTHER IS UNAVOIDABLE, HOWEVER, rO MAKE SUCH DECISION, THE BEST AVAILABLE I~FORMATION AND EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. Staff would echo prior recommendation that "particular consideration" be afforded to the suggestion of the County Attorney (Attachment A) : "We further suggest, that if the Board is of mind to review its treatment of mobile homes, then it should take testimony by qualified people, and make findings of fact, as to the effect of mobile homes on surrounding land, the need for them as low cost housing, the market, and so forth, as underpinning for any regulations and conditions they put into the ordinance." Staff concurs with the County Attorney and suggests that ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY ARE WARRANTED in order to make decision justifiable to all County citizens and in harmony with community goals and objectives. . One area that clearly needs additional study is how current regulation affects the number of mobile homes in the County and would changing the regulations appreciably increase the housing stock for low and moderate income families. This after all, is the primary aim of this report. In 1970, mobile homes represented 6.7% of the housing stock in the County. Zoning had been in effect for about two years and, therefore, could not have had much affect on the number of mobile homes. By 1990, mobile homes represented 6.3% -(or 7.2% using comparable category from the Census) of the total number of dwellings in the County. The "unzoned" 1970 mix and the "zoned" 1990 mix of mobile homes to total dwellings are comparable. Therefore, it appears that COUNTY ZONING REGULATION DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED (POSITIVELY OR NEGATIVELY) THE MIX OF MOBILE HOMES TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLINGS IN THE TWENTY YEARS SINCE ADOPTION OF ZONING. An unknown factor is whether or not mobile homes would have increased as a percentage of total dwellings without zoning. Comparing Albemarle to surrounding jurisdictions and their experiences may not provide an accurate picture due to differences in the real estate markets. In the last ten years, 13 of 390 mobile home petitions have been disapproved. Of the 13 petitions disapproved, 4 were for weekend or storage use. Therefore, ABOUT 97% OF ALL MOBILE HOME PETITIONS ARE APPROVED. Of note is that FOUR OUT OF FIVE PETITIONS ARE ISSUED WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM ADJOINING LAND O\VNERS INDICATING TOLERANCE IF NOT ACCEPTANCE IN MOST CASES. 6 The'mix of mobile homes to total dwellings has not significantly changed in, twenty years and the vast majority of mobile home petitions are approved. The Commission and Board made positive determination recently not to restrict rental of mobile homes. Individual members have commented that morally the current process is distasteful and d~eaning. It is unknown as to whether or not allowing mobile homes by right would prove substantive or symbolic regarding affordable housing. However, that issue aside, THE COMMISSION AND BOARD SHOULD DETERMINE IF THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED BY CONTINUING THE CURRENT REVIEW PROCESS.' . Finally, the HAC suggests that "cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions should be sought." From comments by commission and Board members, it appears that immediate resolution of the mobile home issue is desired. The TJPDC mobile home study was completed five years ago and staff is unaware of any significant activity relative to that study to date. ARRIVING AT A REGIONAL CONSENSUS AS TO UNIFORM TREATMENT OF MOBILE HOMES IN THE IMMEDIATE SHORT TERM MAY BE OPTIMISTIC. RELAXING MOBILE HOME REGULATIONS IN ALBEMARLE MAY HAVE NO IMMEDIATE ADVERSE EFFECT ON SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS, HOWEVER, SUCH ACTION MAY PROVE AS BELLWETHER FOR SIMILAR DEMANDS FOR POLICY CHANGES, IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO SEEK COMMENT FROM ADJACENT LOCALITIES. It should be noted that some, other localities have no significant numbers of townhouses, duplexes, or apartments to augment affordable housing. 'Endemic in the process of developing a zoning ordinance and amendments thereto is the tendency to place uses in the "special use permit column" as opposed to the "by right column" with the notion that such uses could prove objectionable in some circumstances. This is evidenced by the fact that at the end of its 12 years the prior zonin~ ordinance had more uses by special use permit than by right. A primary purpose of the Rural Areas in the current Comprehensive Plan is the promotion of agriculture and forestry, however, many agricultural and forestal uses are allowed only by special use permit in the rural areas zoning district (primarily to protect rural subdivisions and homeowners) . 7 C MOBILE HOME OBJECTIVES is section of the report will address specific objectives lated to mobile homes as set forth by the HAC. Some objectives ve also been subject to proposal by individual Commission mbers and while detailed analysis of all proposals is not p ovided, the overview will hopefully provide a basis for d'scussion. homes should be treated the same as an the meet corn atible criteria such as: . ?laced on a permanent foundation with removal of axles and wheels, and removal of hitch where feasible, ~ .' B ilding code requires that mobile homes be placed on a permanent foundation. However, this does not establish the mobile home as real property. Staff is unaware as to the public purpose to be served as to requiring wheels, axles, and hitch removal pa~ticularly if obscured by foundation treatment. According to he Inspections Department, in older mobile homes much of the ransport structure also contributes to the structural integrity f the unit. In addition, financing agencies are reluctant to ndorse removal of transport structure as some types of mobile omes until debt on the unit has been fully paid. Removal of the ransport structure to staff recollection has n~ver been required 'n the special use permit process and could represent omplication and unnecessary cost. ~ J~ ~ . minimum square footaqe comparable to a site-built, sinqle ~amily dwellinq on the same lot ~ he County has no minimum square footage requirement for a ingle-family dwelling. It may be that the BOCA Code may operate ithout deliberate intention toward a minimum floor area, owever, that is not a local code. Zoning ordinance(s) that seek o establish minimum floor area have been stricken by the ourt(s) as exclusionary and discriminatory (or otherwise nlawful). To staff recollection, in no case has the County 'mposed a minimum floor area requirement in review of any mobile orne. ~ . certified as meeting HUD Manufactured Horne Construction and Safety Standards or found on inspection with written report to meet the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code whether new or used. ew units must meet HUD standards. Older units are allowed under pecial provision of the building code, but are not required to eet current building code standards. Of the 1637 mobile homes n the County, 979 were constructed prior to HUD standards. To 8 require these units to meet current building code standards would be a hardship and could siqnificantlY reduce the number of affordable dwellings in the County. To staff recollection, in no case has the'County imposed any special building code requirement on mobile homes. . comolv with appearance standards similar to those required of all homes built in the county. The County has no appearance standards for conventionally built single-family dwellings. Therefore, this recommendation is meaningless unless the intent is that mobile homes be made to look like conventional housing. (Photos will be provided during the worksession which demonstrate that visually, many models constructed under HUD standards have the appearance of pre-HUD mobile homes). The fact that units are built under a particular code does not mean that they are compatible in length , width, or other dimension, siding, roof treatment or other factors to other types of dwellings. If in fact, the intent is that a mobile home should receive cosmetic treatment to make it appear more like a conventional dwelling, then such regulation will increase the cost to the mobile home owner. In staff recollection, in no case under current procedure has the County in the past 10 years imposed any cosmetic treatment on mobile homes. Of note, RECOMMENDATIONS UNDER'MHl ARE DIRECTED TOWARDS MAKING MOBILE HOMES MORE COMPATIBLE TO CONVENTIONAL DWELLINGS. IN STAFF RECOLLECTION, NO SIMILARLY CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BY THE COUNTY UNDER CURRENT REGULATION. ADOPTION OF OBJECTIVE MHl COULD INCREASE THE COSTS TO A MOBILE HOME OWNER AS COMPARED TO CURRENT PRACTICE. (MH2) Mobile homes. includinq sinqle wide homes. should be subiect to rental like any other type of housinq: This objective was accomplished when the Board voted down ZTA-9l-05, its own resolution. (MH3) Mobile homes should be allowed by riqht in all areas without requirinq special use permits. Further seek reqional coordination on mobile home related requlations: A use allowed by right does not require a special use permit. This objective appears to be a restatement of the mobile home strategy (The HAC employees the terms "manufactured housing" and "mobile homes" interchangeably). currently,_individual mobile homes are allowed only in the RA, Rural Areas and VR, Village Residential districts. It is unclear as to whether the HAC is recommending mobile homes by right in all zoning districts or all districts which allow residences. Issues of regional cooperation have been previously addressed. 9 H4 site re uirements and re ulations for mobile home arks and bdivisions should be reviewed and standardized to make them b'ect to the same re uirements as an other subdivision unless earl 'ustified and needed for mobile homes: Since the HAC has commended that mobile homes be "allowed by right in all areas," would seem that the intent of this objective would be to rmit mobile home parks and subdivisions "by right in all areas" nce there would be no basis to discriminate between individual its and concentrations of mobile homes. DISPOSITION OF MOBILE ME PARKS AND SUBDIVISIONS WILL DEPEND ON COUNTY TREATMENT OF I DIVIDUAL HOMES. STAFF HAD PREPARED AMENDMENTS TO SIMPLIFY AND R LAX REGULATION AS WELL AS INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARKS AND S BDIVISIONS PRIOR TO THE HAC REPORT. or anization involvement in and ovision of mobile home arks and subdivisions: Regulatory centives to provision of mobile home parks and subdivisions ve not been successful. In consideration of expanded roles for n-profit housing organizations. STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND EXPANDED ORDINATION AND OVERSIGHT OF SUCH ORGANIZATION EFFORTS TO ENSURE DEAVORS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER COUNTY POLICIES, PROGRAMS AND GULATIONS. be proactive, STAFF ALSO OFFERS THAT THE COUNTY CAN TAKE A AD ROLE IN ESTABLISHING A MOBILE HOME PARK IN THE COUNTY. See ction III of this report for further discussion. 1. Significantly reduce the number of existing mobile homes; and 2. (Completely) devalue some units in the Albemarle real estate market; and 3. Cause significant expense to existing mobile home residents to remain in their units. he Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code contains more lenient provision for continuation and relocation of pre-HOD odels. The County is committed to state building code equirements for other structures and should not discriminate gainst mobile homes in terms:of that code (How many conventional wellings built before 1976 could comply with current building ode?) In staff recollection, no such conditions have been 'mposed upon mobile homes under current procedures. 10 FOR DISCUSSION: From prior observation in this report, it appears that recommendations of the Housing Advisory Committee may not accomplish its intent to improve the situation of those seeking to locate individual mobile homes in the County. To the contrary, recommended measures may discourage or make more costly mobile home locations. staff offers the following for discussion: I. ALLOW ALL MOBILE HOMES BY RIGHT IN THE RA AND VR ZONES SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS: .' SUCH MOBILE HOME SHALL BE LOCATED ON A BUILDING CODE APPROVED FOUNDATION. . SUCH MOBILE HOME SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN A PRIMARY PLACE OF RESIDENCE. Regulation of mobile homes beyond that extent to which conventional housing may be regulated is permissible under the Code of Virginia. Mobile home regulation typically falls in two areas: occupancy/use and aesthetics/physical characteristics. Current County regulation of mobile homes differentiates between residential and non-residential mobile homes. Furthermore, the Board of Supervisors approval of mobile home special use permits has traditionally been based on demonstration of residential need. Aesthetics aspects have generally been addressed by Section 5.6.2 in the requ~rement of skirting and maintenance/provision of landscaping/screening. The amendment presented would emphasize the provision of basic housing with limited associated regulation and, therefore, minimal added cost. Occupancy would be stressed while aesthetics would be left to the owner's discretion as it is with conventional housing. II. AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT MOBILE HOME PARKS IN THE LI, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. In the recent past there have been several requests to develop mobile home parks in areas designated for Industrial Service use in the Land Use Plan. These ~equests have been based on the applicant's desire to gain a return on the property and meet a need in the market. However, such proposals are inconsistent with the present Comprehensive 11 , . Plan's standards for Land Use Designations and Residential Land U es, and are also not permitted under the current zoning r gulations. Mobile home parks are not permitted in any i dustrial zones. is recognized that industrially designated land often sits Ie with limited opportunities for a financial return until rket demand . "catches up" with the available inventory. This ct along with the recognition that the availability of fordable housing is a significant problem in the County, as is e particular need for spaces for mobile homes, suggests that ere may be an arrangement which can address both issues. ch an arrangement would be to permit mobile home parks in lands signated for Industrial Service uses. The intent of this ange would be to allow industrial land to be used for mobile me parks until market demands dictate a change to an industrial nd use. No specific time limit on the existence of the mobile me park is anticipated to be set. These mobile home velopments could also be allowed as a permanent secondary use the site. order to locate a mobile home park in a designated Industrial rvice area, the property would have to be rezoned LI, Light dustrial. Parks would not be permitted in the HI, Heavy dustrial district. up additional areas for the location of mobile home parks. - llows owners of industrially designated/zoned properties an terim use of their property. This may deter the number of mprehensive Plan Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment requests change to other uses that are dictated by current market mands. - he nature of mobile homes and mobile home parks make them an eal interim use. Physical design characteristics and property o nership would allow for a relatively easy conversion to the ultimate intended use. Such development of mobile home parks could consume vacant 'nventory of industrial land. The County staff would consider hese areas as under-developed in its land use inventory and, herefore, available for industrial development. However, to l2 potential buyers/developers the existence of residential areas that have to be removed to develop the site could be considered a negative and, therefore, ultimately affect the marketability of the property. -This proposal does not ensure the provision of permanent mobile home sites. Because property is zoned LI, Light Industrial, other industrial uses would ultimately be anticipated. The parks developed under this scenario would be temporary in nature. How long they remain would be dictated, in theory, by market demands for industrial land, the ultimate use intended for the property (the property would be zoned LI) . -It may be politically difficult to approve a subsequent industrial development which could impact or eliminate an existing residential neighborhood (mobile home park). -This proposal differentiates between dwelling type in terms of the protection of those residential communities from dissimilar and non-compatible uses. Mobile homes will be the only unit type permitted within an industrial zoning district. possible Chanqes Summary: staff believes such changes as presented below hold merit in the potential they provide for opening up areas to a type of more affordable housing. Obviously, it is not an alternative without its drawbacks, nor is it the total answer to the affordable housing problem. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The amendments to the Plan would be text changes to the Industrial Land Use Standards (p. 154): Industrial Land Use Standards The following GENERAL STANDARDS are recommended to guide industrial development: a. Locate industrial uses adjacent to compatible uses (commercial, public, or other industrial, etc.) as opposed to residential or other sensitive areas. Locate agricultural and forestal industries convenient to the uses they su~port. Where an industrial use desires a location near a sensitive area, consideration should be given to transitional uses such as commercial offices. b. Address objectionable aspects of an industrial use 13 through a combination approach including realistic performance standards, buffering, and special setback regulations. This approach should be flexible so as to accomplish the objective without creating burdensome and arbitrary regulations. At time of rezoning, the applicant should submit proposals to mitigate objectionable aspects. c. Encourage the location of industrial uses in areas where public utilities and facilities are adequate to support such uses. Upgrading and extension of roads, water, sewer, electrical, telephone, and natural gas systems should be considered in review of an industrial application. d. Locate industrial uses within a half-mile of highway, air, or rail transportation facilities not only for convenience of the industry, but also to avoid industrial traffic through residential and agricultural areas and on roads not designed for such traffic. e. Accomplish rezoning to an industrial designation for sites of fifty acres or more under a planned development zoning designation accompanied by a transportation analysis plan. f. Permit mobile home parks within industrial service areas as an interim use until the development of the site for industrial uses. Mobile home parks may be permitted as secondary uses to industrial development if part of a planned development concept and provided thev are desianed to minimize impacts of noise. traffic. liaht and odors from the adiacent industrial uses and otherwise meet the Residential Land Use Standards of the Plan (pp. 155-156). (See also Transportation section, Table 39: Design Standards, page 114 and Growth Area section, Table 46: Non-Residential Land Use Guidelines, page 161). Tne Non-Residential Land Use Guidelines, Table 46, would also be a~ended to indicate mobile home parks may be permitted as an interim use of these designated areas and as a potential s~condary use under a planned development concept (See Attachment 1 . Zbnina Text Chanae: Tne Zoning Ordinance would also have to be amended. The LI, Industrial zone would be amended to include mobile home parks as a by riaht-use. Additional regulations may need to be e~tablished to set criteria/standards for location relative to 14 adjacent non-residential uses. III. ALBEMARLE COUNTY TO TAKE A LEAD ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MOBILE HOME PARK This recommendation is based on the impending need to accommodate mobile homes displaced from existing parks in the City and County that will likely be subject to re- development in the future. In 1976, there were 1029 mobile home park spaces, declining to 894 spaces in 1989. While no specific plans have been submitted or approved to redevelop these areas, an additional 100 spaces could be discontinued in the near future. This fact coupled with the lack of new mobile parks being developed in the County has lead to this recommendation. Such an effort by County could take a form similar to the Crozet crossing project, with assistance in the development and management of the park provided by non-profit and/or for profit organizations/businesses. 15 ,. I ATTACHMENT A I . MEMORANDUM .~-:'~""".-'-~. rt-D ,,'.~ ...:~q.;.:j"'J Co' MAR 2 7 1992 To. V. Wayne cilimberg Director of Planning ;~.-- <~: ::'.-~,~:1 D::::.J. Fr m: George R. st. John County Attorney Re: Legal Parameters of Treatment of Mobile Homes Under zoning and Report on Nearby Counties Treatment of Same M~.rch 25, 1992 In our opinion, Albemarle County's treatment of individual m bile homes is wi thin what is permitted by law, with the e ception that the conditions under administrative approval s ould be the same as those which go to special use perrrii t. T ere follows an analysis, in support of this conclusion: First, the statutory framework: Virginia Code section 15.1- 6.1 permits counties to designate areas where mobile homes or rks may be located. This section expressly applies whether or t the locality has a zoning ordinance. Code Section 15.1-486.4 tempers the effect of the above, by oviding that in municipalities having zoning ordinances, nufactured homes 19 feet or more in width ("double wides") st be permitted in agricultural districts subject only to andards equivalent to those applied to conventional site built ellings. This statute contains a provision that local vernment regulations enacted under it, shall not relieve lots parcels from the terms of private restrictive covenants. The Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Act, Code ction 36-70 through 36-85.1, establishes construction and fety standards but expressly leaves the local zoning power tact. The virginia Fair Housing Act, section 36-96.1 et seq., plies to mobile homes and mobile home parks, but is silent as zoning. From the above statutory _framework, it lS clear that the rglnla legislature thus far nas intended to leave counties free enact restrictions on mobile homes, with the exception of uble wides in agricultural districts, which are not applied to c nventional housing. In our opinion, this latitude extends from across-the-board right inclusion in all districts on the one hand, to total r legation to mobile home parks, on the other. In between these '\TTACHMENT A I . .\ Page 21 V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 2 March 24, 1992 two extremes is the system of individual mobile homes by special use permit with conditions, which is what we have in Albemarle. Turning from statutes to case law, there has been very little in the Virginia courts recently. A good article on the national trend toward equal treatment of manufactured housing including mobile homes, is contained in Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning, Chapter 19, in our office. But in Virginia, very few legal challenges have been brought, possibly because attorneys feel that in order to win a challenge they-would have to convince the courts to declare the statutory framework cited above, as violative of the Federal or state Constitution. Several years ago, the Circuit Court of Fluvanna County upheld Fluvanna "s ordinance, which will be discussed below. Fred Payne defended Fluvanna, and its ordinance is similar to ours. What is required to defend a case of this kind, is expert evidence to the effect that the regulations are based on reasonably valid economic, health or we~fare considerations and not on pure aesthetics or prejudice. In the Fluvanna County case, Fred had testimony that mobile homes devalue nearby land, and thus a rational basis for the ordinance was established. Again, a review of the cases to date along with the statutes indicate that a system of special use permits, so long as the conditions are reasonable and the system is administered impartially on a rational basis, will be sustained. Next is a summary of how nearby counties treat individual mobile homes: BuckinGham County interestingly has no zoning ordinance and only regulates mobile homes in parks under its general county code. Individual mobile homes are by-right in all residential districts subject to a "placement permit" from the County Administrator, which is mainly for tax purposes. Nelson County's ordinance is similar to ours and may have used ours as a model. They issue permits administratively if no objection; if objection, by special use permit. But they do not put on a condition against re~t or alienation out of the family. Greene County uses what is called a conditional use permit under which a certain set of facts triggers by-right use. Must be owner occupied and owner or family must show either a medical or financial hardship; permit has four-year time limit for review and either termination or renewal dependent on whether hardship still exists. This is all administered by their BZA. " . . \TTACHMENT A 1 IPage 31 V. Wayne cilimberg Page 3 March 24, 1992 Louisa County only allows mobile homes in mobile home parks. T e only county we contacted, which totally excludes individual m bile homes. They did this in 1988 because of what they saw as a problem of over-proliferation of individual mobile homes. Fluvanna Countv has provision for farm tenant and "temporary ile house being built", by administrative permit, and hardship owner by special use permit with flexible conditions. A copy Fluvanna's application form, with the categories and rules elled out, is attached. This is the practice which was upheld litigation; I forgot to mention above that the plaintiffs in at case appealed to the. Supreme Court of Virginia but their peal was rejected. Auausta County has individual mobile homes by-right in all ral districts subject to a placement permit. Equivalent to nventional housing. Rockinaham County allows mobile homes by-right in o rural districts, and by special use permit in rdship must be shown in the latter, but once shown me limit or restraint against future rent or cupancy. one of its the other. there is no non-family Rockbridae County uses special use permits, liberally issued thout hardship or family limitation but always with three year newals, to assure mobile homes and site are reasonably intained to guard against nuisance potential and devalue of arby property. So you see from the above, there are many variations. The torneys In these counties believe that their particular riations are permitted under Virginia law, and we concur in eir belief. What is necessary in case of any challenge, is pirical evidence to justify any particular restrictions and nditions imposed in the particular county. Looking at conditions: As most people are aware, the basic ndamental rule is that zoning, and permits issued thereunder, ould run with the land not the person. That is to say, they tach to the land itself, _Dot to the particular applicant. der this rule, such limi t:"ations as "family only", "owner- cupancy only", and time limits, do not pass muster. However, e trend is for these conditions to be upheld if rationally pportable, and the basic rule is now honored more in speech an in practice. Therefore, I think such conditions as we ve, including owner-occupancy, screening, time limitation, and forth, are within what virginia law permits. . 'TTACHMENT A I _\pag~ 41 v. Wayne cilimberg Page 4 March 24, 1992 I have always looked for the law to evolve either through legislation or judicial decisions, to the point where mobile homes would be treated exactly like any other type of housing, but that has not occurred. The one thing we are doing which concerns me, is that our administrative permits do not restrict occupancy to the owner or the owners family, whereas our special use permits invariably do. This is because the supervisors began doing this in every case, without putting a requirement for this condition in the ordinance. Of course, the administrator, not having any specific authority to impose this condition, ~id not and still does not do so. We suggest that the conditions for both types of issuance, be spelled out in the ordinance. We further suggest, that if the Board is of a mind to review its treatment of mobile homes, then it should take testimony by qualified people, and make findings of fact, as to the effect of mobile homes on surrounding land, the need for them as low cost housing, the market, and so forth, as underpinning for any regulations and conditions they put into the ordinance. I am told that space in mobile home parks is very hard to come by, for example, and the Board may want to deal with this as part of its ,review both of mobile homes and the housing situation in general. And the Commission and Board should be aware of the study entitled "A study of Mobile Homes" undertaken by the TJPDC in 1987. This document has valuable information on the number of existing mobile homes in the various localities and their treatment by locality; it also contains recommendations one of which is that the District commission be brought into the process as a clearing house for changes in mobile home zoning regulations among the localities in the District. I believe this document would be a good starting point for any proposed revision in our practice. .. . <II .. League of Won1en Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County 413 East Market Street, Room 203, Charlollesville, VA 22902 Phone: (804) 972-1795 October 6, 1992 To: Albemarle County Planning Commission Fro League of Women Voters Charlottesville and Albemarle County Re: ZT A-92-08 To amend Rural Areas (RA) and Village Residential (VR) Zones to allow individual mobile homes by right lanning Commission staff has recommended that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow mobile by right on individual lots in Rural Area (RA) and Village Residential (VR) zones. The League of Wo en Voters opposes this proposal. While the League supports the goal of increasing the opportunities for ffordable housing in the County, we do not believe that modifying the current permit system is desi able at this time. . . In it September I, 1992, work session, the Commission recognized that it and the Board should determine if th re is a substantial public purpose to be served by continuing the current review process. The staff, by p oposing the amendment, apparently has concluded that such public purpose is not served. We disa ree. The ermit system, which has been in effect for a significant period of time, assures the public that mobile horn s will only be allowed if they meet the requirements established by the Zoning Ordinance. The revi w process allows concerned neighbors to be informed about potential nearby locations of mobile hom and enables those who have chosen to live in RA and VR areas to participate in the permit process if th'y feel a need to do so to protect their quality of life or their investment. The permit system seems to be working well. The staff reports that 97 % of the permit applications are app oved. There is no evidence that the process imposes a hardship on applicants or that it has interfered wi the use of mobile homes as residences. To the contrary, the use of mobile homes has kept pace with the ubstantial amount of residential construction. The staff notes that" in 1970, mobile homes repre- sent 6.7% of the housing stock in the County," while "by 1990 mobile homes were 6.3 % (or 7.2 % using comparable category from the Census) of the total number of dwellings" (staff report p. 6.) The staff comments that some people may find the permit process "distasteful and demeaning" (staff rep rt p. 7.) This permit process is not significantly dilkrent 1'1'0111 applications which must be approved bef re building permits for conventional housing_ arc issued, Any possible inconvenience of permitting doe' not outweigh the benefits which arc achieved, It is unclear from the staff's proposal if any requirements would apply to mobile homes placed on RA or VR lots, other than having thcm on approved foundations and for primary places of residence. Would rep aling Section 5.6 eliminate the requirement that adequate potable water and sewerage facilities be ava lable, as an applicant must now proviue unuer Section S.6.2d of the Zoning Ordinance? Would any are, or bulk reljuircments apply as now aprly to detached single-family dwcllings and side-by-side du- pic es in R^ wnes undcr Sections 10.2,[,1 and 10,2,1.21 over' . "",(l llollpar Llan (Jr!/"Il ,..,,110>1 ctcd',calcc! to lfic P"O'>lot 'Oil or I>lj;)n>lcd "",i "et ,vcI"i'! Ic'pat 'Oil uj' cit LzelLI III f}uvenllnellL." Jf no criteria are established, the removal of the permit process could lead to the placement of mobile homes in RA and VR zones with undesirable health and safety consequences for the County. The legal action to remove mobile homes which pose such threats would be far more time consuming and expensive for all concerned than the present permit process. The League supports the County Attorney's suggestion that further investigation of the need for and impact of the regulation of mobile homes is appropriate before changes are made, As Mr. St. John wrote in his memo to Mr. Cilimberg: [I]f the Board is of a mind to review its treatment of mobile homes, then it should take testimony by qualified people, and make its findings of fact, as to the effect of mobile homes on surrounding land, the need for them as low cost housing, the market... as underpinnings for any regulations and conditions they put into the ordinance. [Attachment A to the staff report, pA] We also concur with the staff that an area for particular attention is how the current regulation affects the housing stock for low and moderate income famil ies and whether changing the regulations would apprecia- bly increase housing for those families, In addition, the impacts of changes on other home owners and on development in the County should be addressed. Regardless of whether the County continues to require permits for mobile homes or not, the County must adopt strategies to increase the supply of affordable housing in the County, The League urges the Com- mission and the Board to undertake actions to develop mobile home parks in growth areas. Key to the development of mobile home parks is the availability of water and sewerage facilities. The County should explore financing techniques and other incentives which would make the development of mobile home parks an economically attractive option for developers. The Comprehensive Plan sets forth some of the strategies that the County should consider. The League encourages the County to approach the issue of providing affordable housing in a comprehen- sive manner. The County should set a priority on examining ways to develop mobile home parks rather than lifting the restrictions on mobile homes on individual lots. We urge the Commission to reject the staff recommendation to amend the Zoning Ordinance for RA and VR zones. /"'/'\ , v)O~ ,~ o</J('O I \ \ ".' I! (II 'oJ .,-1 .. zo 11-10-92 Testirrony 'IO: Albenarle Board of Supervisors; David I3cMe.nnan, Chainnan SUBJECT: Arrendrrent of the Albemarle Cormty Zoning Ordiance to allON individual mobile hares by-right in certain areas, subject to several conditions. FRa1: .Albemarle Housing Coalition We strongly endorse the reCOI'l'llEI'rled changes in the zoning ordinance. _ It ~uld be a step in the right'direction tcMard increasing the supply and stock of affordable housing for ION and rroderate incorre families in .Alberrarle Cormty. This objective, while irrplicit in backgrourrl docurrents dealing with this subject, needs to be spelled out and errphasized. Sare might argue that because 97%. of all nobile hare petitions are approved, no change in the ordinance is necessaIy. HONever, there may be a large number of potential ONI1ers who are discouraged by the red tape involved. Although a report (A Study of Mobile Hares; Thanas Jefferson Planning ,District Carmission, 1987, page 4) ,does not provide definitive information, the easecof ' changing rights for nobile hane owners in Louisa Cormty is instructive. For years nobile hones .were perIni tted by right in agricultural districts. Then on April 21, 1986, Louisa Cormty adopted a zoning ordinance that requires nobile hares on individual lots be approved by special exception by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Thus Louisa County went from allowing siting of nobile hanes by right to siting by special permit, just the opposite change Albemarle Cormty is considering. In any case, the results are interesting and perhaps instructive. In Louisa County, 162 nobile hares were approved in 1985 (before the change) but only 91 in 1986 (after the change), a drop of alrrost 45 percent. If::M cost is an attractive and carpelling feature of nobile hares. Like with other types of shelters, there is a wide range in the costs of basic units. Havever, sane rough and ready calculations for several sizes of nobile hones and pre-fab or manufactured hares on lots ready to nove in, shON the savings possible through mobile hares. Mobile hare costs per nonth are 40 to 50 percent less than that of a pre-fab or manufactured home of a sirniliar size. (Source: Oakwc:xx'l Hares, Virginia Trailer Co Inc. and Jefferson Area Builders Ince). MJreover , the less expensive (single-wide) mobile hare could be afforded~By families with incares of $15, 000 per armum or possibly less, depending on life style. In all cases, purchasers usually have to cane up with a downpayrnent of aroundSlO. Dercent. It may be worthwhile to note that 19 percent of all farniliesin AJbemarle County have incares between $15,000 and $24,900. Obviously, the cost of a mobile or any other type of hane l tself is not the sole expense of lav incane purchasers. For a bare-bones nobile home on an individual lot, the land cost can a:rrount to about one-third of the total cost. Furthenrore, in Albemarle County, many times individual building sites can not be found, at any reasonable price. 'Ihe cost of land, too, likely deters or would deter families fran establishing nobile hanes in more expensive sul::di visions, if it were to becone feasible with a change in the ordinance. The families living in such sul::divisons may have little to fear fran the proposed change. In conclusion, we support any action by the Board that will rErluce the number of families living in sub-standard housing in Albemarle County. policies should yield prograrrs that produce rreasurable results as far as possible; otherwise the lav incane problem likely will renain. , ALBEMARLE HOUSING COALITION The Albemarle Housing Coalition is an organization comprised representatives from Community Organizations, Non-Profit Hous- 9 Organizations and'Churches, as well as Civil Servants and dividuals and other housing resource persons. It is open to all rsons who are concerned about affordable housing. The Coalition is dedicated to the support and promotion of ~~~( ~~ fordable housing for low and, especially, the lowest-income rsons and families-which consist of one or two paren~s'and one more children-as well as the elderly and handicapped persona. "Low-income" is defined as a household income tha't' is le.. an 80;' of the median income of the County. "Lowest-income" is defined as a household income that is l~s an 50;' of the median income of the County. "Affordable housing" is defined as standard shelter who.. nt or mortgage payment is less than 30;' of the net household come; and, when home-owned, costs no more than 2 1/2 to 3 times e gross annual income of the home-owner. The goal of the Coalition is to encourage and support public non-profit organizations and private developers and bUilders o will provide affordable housing for low and the lowest-income milies. GENERAL INFORMATION It is estimated that there are about 600 families now living i sub-standard and overcrowded conditions.' There are 1,112 fa..n- l'es lacking standard indoor plumbing, some of whom are included i the 600 ill-housed family number. These are con.erv~ive fig- u es; it is estimated that the 1990 census will show even higher d ficits and show an increasing number of families paying more' t an the affordable standard of 30;' of their net incomes for r nts and mortgage payments than they did in the 1980 census'. The Coalition will continue to gather additional data and to ke all information available to Legislators and the public. ACTION Based on this information, the ~oalition will recommend solu- tions and alternative solutions for reducing the housing deficit i eluding, but not li~ited tOI -Financing techniques used successfully in other States; -Owner-builder techniques used around the United States; -Additional financing by Federal, State and County Authori- ties of affordable housing for government or privately sponsored h using; -Tax incentives to private builders of affordable housing for the lowest-income families-those earning less than SO;' of the me ian income (especially those on fixed incomes, such as the el erly and the handicapped). -Rehabilitation and/or eKpansion of existing units to eliminate sub-standard conditions and over- cr wding. -Mobilization of volunteers to assist Member Organizations carying out the above and other appropriate solutions . e: From 1980 Census Report (to be up-dated). 19 March 1991 p o Wlf\~~ ~'I fa p o 'l . ~ 11J ~-) "',. ,...' ..I . 1-; "'; I \ ! ( ~ '; - I ' 'c'" , ; I J f-\ Lea ue of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County 413 East Market Street, Room 203, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: (804) 972-1795 November 11, 1992 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors League of Women Voters Charlottesville and Albemarle County ZTA-92-08 To amend Rural Areas (RA) and Village Residential (vR) Zones to allow indi- vidual mobile homes by right T e League of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County long has supported the d velopment of policies and programs to make more affordable housing available in Albemarle C unty. At the same time, we have strongly endorsed the goals, objectives, and strategies of the C mprehensive Plan to encourage development to locate in designated growth areas where services a d utilities are available and to discourage rural residential development other than dwellings related t bona fide agricultural/forestal use. T e League do~ r.ot believe that the Planning Commission's recommendation to eliminate all special u e permits f~~liomes is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or that it will do much to address t e need for affordable housing. We agree with the County Attorney's advice that further investiga- ti n of the need for and impact of regulation of mobile homes is essential before changes are made, T ere may be undesirable impacts on Albemarle County if it eliminates its permit requirements w thout similar deregulation or other changes in the adjacent jurisdictions. e concur, too, with the staff that an area for particular attention is how the current regulation a ects the housing stock for low and moderate income families and whether changing the regulations w uld appreciably increase housing for those families, The staff reports that 97% of the permit a plications are approved. There is no evidence that the process imposes a hardship on applicants or th t it has interfered with the use of mobile homes as residences. To the contrary, the use of mobile h mes has kept pace with the substantial amount of residential construction. The staff notes that "in 1 70, mobile homes represented 6.7% of the housing stock in the County," while "by 1990 mobile h mes were 6.3% [or 7.2% using comparable category from the Census] of the total number of d ellings" (staff report p, 6.) T e proposal to ease the regulations concerning mobile homes in RA and VR zones is put forth as a st ategy for making more affordable housing available. If that premise is correct, development will in rease in these zones. Such growth is appropriate in VR areas where services can be delivered m re efficiently. On the other hand" such growth in RA areas contradicts the goal of the County in d signating RA zones and the Comprehensive Plan's prescription that "all decisions concerning the 's should be made in the interest of the four major elements of the RA's, with highest priority gi en to preserving agricultural/forestal activities rather than encouraging residential development." ( omprehensive Plan, p. 23.) over .....a non-ya tisan orBanization aed'icated'to tlie yromotion of informed' ana active yarticiyation of citizens in Bovernment. " We suggest, therefore, that the County consider this proposed zoning change in the context of the Housing Advisory Committee's overall plan for affordable housing and, in implementing that plan, allow mobile homes "by right" only in VR areas and retain the use of permits in RA areas. If the permit process causes difficulty for some applicants-which has not been demonstrated-improve- ments in the process might be appropriate, rather than eliminating permits altogether. The League is not against mobile homes, but we believe the Board should evaluate whether mobile homes serve the County's long-term housing needs, We urge the County to take prompt action to implement the Housing Advisory Committee's strategies and to establish timetables for making safe, sanitary and affordable housing available in the County. We are concerned that the proposed zoning change is taking the easy way out-giving the appearance of opening the County to affordable hous- ing without truly making an impact. The Board should not lose sight of the bigger needs and the HAC's overall plan for dealing with the housing problems in this area. We encourage the County to explore financing techniques and other incentives which would make the development of mobile home parks and lower cost developments economically attractive options for developers, We also recom- mend that the Board carefully consider the funding strategies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and pursue state and federal assistance to help make affordable housing available. Thank you, II ~_.'\ <- ~)C,) ~(c!(, i i l ('. 'I / ',_ J ~ ,/ l C_ ""-I . PROPOSED CHANGE ALLOWING MOBILE HOMES BY RIGHT IN R-A AREAS The Key West-Cedar Hills Community Association would like to make a statement for your consideration and for the record. We are not opposed to affordable housing. We are interested in fairness and ask that you consider the following facts. The proposed change allows mobile homes by right in rural agricultural (R-A) zoned areas of the county. It does not affect areas zoned R-l. Key West-Cedar Hills was planned and developed as a single family residential (R-l) community. It was zoned R-l for many years. People bought lots and homes here with that understanding, because they wanted to live in that type of community. Had we stayed R-1 we would not be here tonight. In 1980, however, the county changed our zoning from R-l to R-A. This was done against our wishes and without opportunity for public discussion or comment. Changing Key West from R-l to R-A has been a problem to us and the county ever since, and that is true in the current issue. Regardless, we still are, in practice, a single family residential community. Many of the homes here, in fact do not meet either the minimum lot size or setback provisions for R-A zoned property. Technically we fall under the R-A zoning provisions, but historically and practically we remain a community of single family residences. I think that anyone driving through Key West would agree with that. Please consider our history and circumstances before imposing this change. As you know the planning board believed that subdivisions like ours would not be affected because the restrictive covenants would prohibit mobile homes. That may be generally true, but it is not true in Key West. In most sections of Key West our covenants have expired. I do not know if there are other communities that are in a similar situation, but if so, they too should be excluded if that is what they desire. Given the above facts, we ask you: "Is the proposed change really intended to affect communities like ours which historically have been, and for all practical purposes still are single family residential?" If that is the intent, then why aren't all single family residential areas included ? If not, "Is there some reasonable way of excluding us without undermining the intent of the change ?" James E. Atkinson (804)293-4086 President, Key West-Cedar Hills Community Association November 11, 1992 , I f ~ ~ ' To: All Supervisors The enclosed letter to Charles Martin is sent for your information since there may be subdivisions in your district that could be affected by the proposed changes allowing mobile homes by right. Any subdivision zoned R-A.that does not have restrictive covenants is a potential candidate. We do not believe the intent of these changes is to affect existing subdivisions such as ours. For the record, Key West and some other subdivisions were originally zoned R-l and had they stayed that way would not be threatened by the proposed changes. However, in 1980 our community was rezoned R-A. This action was taken against our wishes and with no opportunity for public discussion. This makes us subject to the proposed changes. In fairness, we ask that Key West-Cedar Hills and similar subdivisions affected by the proposed changes, be excluded. / ~' ... ... KEY WEST-CEDAR HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 117 Bollingbrook Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 (804)293-4086 November 2,1992 Mr. Charles Martin Supervisor, Rivanna District 200 pine Ridge Lane Dear Mr. Martin: Thank you for being so helpful when I spoke with you last Wednesday concerning the proposed changes to the County Ordinances to allow mobile homes by right. We are concerned because the restrictive covenants that might have offered protection, have expired in most areas of Key West-Cedar Hills. It is unlikely that the change would have a major impact on our area, nonetheless, it could adversely affect us in several ways. We support the idea of affordable housing but do not believe that this change was intended to affect subdivisions such as ours. That being the case we believe it is prudent to avoid the possibility. As you recall when we spoke I asked you: 1. Whether it was the intent that this change should affect existing subdivisions such as ours, and if not, 2. Whe1:her it was possible to exclude Key West-Cedar Hills. You indicated that it was not the intent to include Key West and similar subdivisions, and that you thought it would be possible to include wording that would exclude Key West-Cedar Hills from the proposed change. We would like to ask for your assistance in bringing this to the attention of the other supervisors, and to prepare the necessary paperwork to incorporate this change. Please let me know if there is anything that we can do to help you in this effort. Once again, thank you for your prompt response to our request for assistance. Sin~relY 1;;Jzt. ~L~t ames E. Atkinson resident Copy: all supervisors t- r I "1/ .. /' , ),.) I' (! COL THURST PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION November 10, 1992 '10: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors rb: ZT A-92-08- To amend RA, rural areas and VR, village residential zones to allow individual mobile homes by-right. At the Board of Directors meeting held November 9, 1992 the Directors voted unanimously to go on record as opposed to this proposal. After reviewing the file, the IDirectors support and adopt the position paper dated October 6, 1992 submitted to the f lanning Commission by the League of Women Voters, copy attached. We urge the Supervisors to reject the staff recommendation to amend the zoning clrdinance for RA and VA zones. Sincerel y, Colthurst Property Owners ri~'ion RZ ' Georg&. Larie ~ President . ... League of Won1en Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County 413 East Market Street, Room 203, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: (804) 972-1795 October 6, 1992 To: Albemarle County Planning Commission FrO! League of Women Voters Charlottesville and Albemarle County Re: ZT A-92-08 To amend Rural Areas (RA) and Village Residential (VR) Zones to allow individual mobile homes by right lanning Commission staff has recommended that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow 'mobile by right on individual lots in Rural Area (RA) and Village Residential (VR) zones. The League of en Voters opposes this proposal. While the League supports the goal of increasing the opportunities fordable housing in the County, we do not believe that modifying the current permit system is ble at this time. In it September 1, 1992, work session, the Commission recognized that it and the Board should determine if th re is a substantial public purpose to be served by continuing the current review process. The staff, by oposing the amendment, apparently has concluded that such public purpose is not served. We disa ree. ermit system, which has been in effect for a significant period of time, assures the public that mobile s will only be allowed if they meet the requirements established by the Zoning Ordinance. The process allows concerned neighbors to be informed about potential nearby locations of mobile s and enables those who have chosen to livc in RA and VR arcas to participate in the permit process y feel a need to do so to protcct their quality of life or thcir invcstment. ermit system seems to be working well. The staff reports that 97 % of the permit applications are ved. There is no evidence that the process imposes a hardship on applicants or that it has interfered the use of mobile homes as residences. To the contrary, the use of mobile homes has kept pace with ubstantial amount of residential construction. The staff notes that "in 1970, mobile homes repre- 6.7% of the housing stock in the County," while "by 1990 mobile homes were 6.3% (or 7.2% r comparable category from the Census) of the total numbcr of dwellings" (staff report p. 6.) staff comments that some people may find the permit process "distasteful and demeaning" (staff rep rt p. 7.) This permit process is not significantly difkrcnt from appl ications which must be approved be~ re building permits for conventional housing are issued. Any possible inconvenience of permitting do not outweigh the benefits which arc achieved. unclear from the staff's proposal if any requirements would apply to mobile homes placed on RA or V lots, other than having them on approved foundations and for primary places of residence. Would rep aling Section 5.6 eliminate the requirement that adequate potable water and sewerage facilities be av ilable, as an applicant must now provide under Section 5.6.2d of the Zoning Ordinance? Would any are or bulk requirements apply as now apply to dctached singlc-family dwellings and side-by-side du- ple es in RA zones under Sections 10.2.1.1 and 10.2.1.2? over'. .....a nonya isan organizat ion aeaicatea to tfie yromot ion of illfonil ea alla act ive yart icfpa t ion of cit izens in goyernment." .If no crit ria are established, the removal of the permit process could lead to the placement of mobile homes in RA and VR zones with undesirable health and safety consequences for the County. The legal action to emove mobile homes which pose such threats would be far more time consuming and expensive for all co cerned than the present permit process. e supports the County Attorney's suggestion that further investigation of the need for and impact of the re lation of mobile homes is appropriate before changes are made. As Mr. St. John wrote in his memo to Mr. Cilimberg: [ ]f the Board is of a mind to review its treatment of mobile homes, then it should take t stimony by qualified people, and make its findings of fact, as to the effect of mobile h mes on surrounding land, the need for them as low cost housing, the market... as u derpinnings for any regulations and conditions they put into the ordinance. [Attachment to the staff report, pA] oncur with the staff that an area for particular attention is how the current regulation affects the housing tock for low and moderate income families and whether changing the regulations would apprecia- bly incre se housing for those families. In addition, the impacts of changes on other home owners and on develop ent in the County should be addressed. Regardle s of whether the County continues to require permits for mobile homes or not, the County must adopt str tegies to increase the supply of affordable housing in the County. The League urges the Com- mission nd the Board to undertake actions to develop mobile home parks in growth areas. Key to e development of mobile home parks is the availability of water and sewerage facilities. The County s ould explore financing techniques and other incentives which would make the development of mobile h me parks an economically attractive option for developers. The Comprehensive Plan sets forth some of e strategies that the County should consider. The Lea ue encourages the County to approach the issue of providing affordable housing in a comprehen- sive ma ner. The County should set a priority on examining ways to develop mobile home parks rather than lifti g the restrictions on mobile homes on individual lots. We urge the Commission to reject the staff recomm ndation to amend the Zoning Ordinance for RA and VR zones. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM Board of Supervisors, Albemarle County 0~~ Bob Brandenburger, Assistant County Executi v1r-1 ; '-' November 11, 1992 Mobile Home Permits From 1989 Through 1991 response to a question from Mr. Bain the following mobile home ecial use permits were considered by the Board during calendar ars 1989, 1990, and 1991. Year single~Wide Double-Wide 28 approved 12 approved 1 disapproved 23 approved 3 approved 1 disapproved 13 approved 3 approved ** 1 disapproved 1989 1990 1991 ** - July 1991 double-wide mobile homes became 'By-Right. /" DATE --' 1(~\JQfY1L(r \ I, \qq'L ~GENDA ITEM NO. 0-z lY11 ij. (( ~)(C ~GENDA ITEM NAME CiJr-,~) - {I Z 'OL~ ,(klL'\\ \\r\ ( _ ~IUi(C--j~~ [,( (~It DEFERRED UNTIL ~"~KL(\UD ~I\- '~l \ qq 3 v Form. 3 7/25/86 - \ 1 (1 (';' ) \, ir! 7U\ brv \ \ I DATE I \ i{ ,-., \, C i , ,,- / ;1 ;,,,-, AGENDA ITEM NO. vi 'i , , ~ /, I 1/ / . --'- AGENDA ITEM NAME /,o-/l~ ( 1/' I \) " I ,:', ~.- .. / , I / - , / t ( -- / '- /"~.: , .,' t ii / 1 ) : ;~ / .4 / DEFERRED UNTIL )\' I, \ \ I' i I , ,./'" ! d r ...... ../"-....-' - Form. 3 7/25/86 . Edward H. Ba n, Jr. Samuei Mill r David p, Bow rman Charlottesvill Charlotte y, umphris Jack Jouett LE :ec l\'t'b'dt - j' ',-..-(i2. vIS rt Ute 0 lioarc : _,n__' '"'--.-- A d I ~'" C)"'-J ,11 I,()C)") gen a tern I'/;.. _..:J...L....L . .." ...,..- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 M E M 0 RAN DUM Forrest R, Marshall, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter F, Perkins White Hall Board of Supervisors Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CM~ November 6, 1992 Reading List for November 11, 1992 Pages 1 - 12 (#7) - Mrs. Humphris Pages 12 (#7) - end - Mr. Bowerman - Pages 1 - 12 (#7b) - Mr. Bain Pages 12 (#7b) - 23 - Mr. Bowerman Pages 22 (#12) - end - Mr. Martin