HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201600010 Correspondence 2016-04-06John Anderson
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 8:19 AM
To: Steve Miller
Cc: Jeff Bushman; John Anderson
Subject: RE: 317 Rivanwood Place I Water Protection Ordinance Buffers
Steve, you have this correct, but I want to note this should not be interpreted to mean any changes to the structure are
exempt from other zoning or building code requirements.
It will still need to meet setback, height restrictions, etc. in the Zoning Ordinance.
It will still need to meet Building Code requirements for this type of structure and require a Building Permit before
starting construction.
Similarly, if disturbing more than 10,000 square feet of ground as part of doing this construction, it will still require
permitting for the land disturbance.
Just wanted to be clear that other requirements remain in place.
Thanks,
Mark
From: Steve Miller[mailto:smiller@bdarchitects.comj
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 6:15 PM
To: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>
Cc: Jeff Bushman <jb@bdarchitects.com>; John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: 317 Rivanwood Place I Water Protection Ordinance Buffers
Mark,
Thank you for your time today and your research to get to the bottom of this issue. Here is a summary of what
we discussed:
317 Rivanwood Place is a Pre-existing building under Sec. 17-603.A, which states "nothing in this section
authorizes the continuance, repair, replacement, expansion or enlargement... except as provided in sections 18-6
and 18-30.3."
Section 18-6.3.A states "a nonconforming structure shall not be enlarged or extended except in the
following circumstances..."
18-6.3.A.2: "Structure where nonconformity is its noncompliance with requirements of section 4.2
of this chapter. The structure is a nonconforming structure solely on the basis of the requirements
of section 4.2 of this chapter, and qualifies for the exemption provided in section 4.3.6 of this
chapter."
18-4.2.1.a: "Composition of a building site. ...(v) within a stream buffer under chapter 17 of
the Code..." *
18-4.2.6 EXEMPTIONS: A lot, structure, or improvement may be exempt from the
requirements of section 4.2 as provided herein:
18-4.2.6.a: Any structure which was lawfully in existence prior to the effective date of
this chapter and which is nonconforming solely on the basis of the requirements of
section 4.2, may be expanded, enlarged, extended, modified and/or reconstructed as
though such structure were a conforming structure.
THE TAKEAWAY:
This means that we are allowed to enlarge, expand and modify the structure within the stream buffer as
much as the owner sees fit.
Furthermore, since we are under Sec. 17-603 rather than 17-604, we do not need to submit a mitigation
plan to receive a building permit.
* Note about Sect. 18-4.2: The title of this section is "Critical Slopes" but the layer that you consulted with said
that we needed to have a more expansive view of this section and include all sub -sections (which is why our site
qualifies in Sect. 18-4.2. La.)
Concerning the lot next door, 315 Rivanwood Place, we can apply the same logic to expanded, enlarged,
extended, modified and/or reconstructed the building anywhere in the stream buffer. However, if the owner
would like to tear down the house and build a new house on that lot, we could do so under Sec. 17-604Y which
states:
Sole building sites on pre-existing lots. On a lot which was of record prior to February 11, 1998, if the
stream buffer would result in the loss of a building site, and there are no other available building sites
outside the stream buffer on the lot, or to allow redevelopment as permitted in the underlying zoning
district.
This then would require submitting a mitigation plan according to Sec. 17-406.
Please let us know if this accurately reflects our conversation.
Thanks again,
Steve
steve miller, architect, leed ap
bushman dreyfus architects pc
820 east high street • suite b
charlottesville va 22902
work 434.295.1936 x 226
web www.bdarchitects.com
On Apr 5, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Mark Graham <m ar am akalbemarle.org> wrote:
Great, see you then.
From: Jeff Bushman [mailto:jb@bdarchitects.com]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 4:03 PM
To: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>
Cc: Steve Miller <smiller@bdarchitects.com>; John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: 317 Rivanwood Place I Water Protection Ordinance Buffers
3PM is great. Thanks, Mark.
J
Jeff bushman :: www.bdarchitects.com :: 434.242.1455
On Apr 4, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Mark Graham <m rag hamkalbemarle.org> wrote:
Any way we can push this back to 3PM. I'm fine with 2 PM, but John has a conflict and
I'd like to have him there if possible.
If won't work for you, 2 PM is fine.
From: Jeff Bushman [mailto:jb@bdarchitects.com]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 12:44 PM
To: Mark Graham <mgraham @albemarle.org>
Cc: Steve Miller <smiller@bdarchitects.com>; John Anderson
<janderson2@albemarle.or�>
Subject: Re: 317 Rivanwood Place I Water Protection Ordinance Buffers
Mark
Jumping in for Steve here.
Yes please. How about 2PM tomorrow? I think we will need an hour or less.
Many thanks,
J
3
jeff bushman:: www.bdarchitects.com :: 434.242.1455
On Apr 4, 2016, at 12:28 PM, Mark Graham
<mgraham(a)albemarle.org> wrote:
I am booked this week except for Tuesday afternoon 2-5 and Friday
afternoon 1-4.
For the week of April 11-15, I'm available on Monday or Tuesday
afternoon and Friday morning before 11.
Thanks,
Mark
From: Steve Miller [mailto:smiller@bdarchitects.com]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 11:09 AM
To: Mark Graham <mgraham @albemarle.org>
Cc: John Anderson <0anderson2@albemarle.org>; Jeff Bushman
<ib@bdarchitects.com>
Subject: Re: 317 Rivanwood Place I Water Protection Ordinance Buffers
Good morning Mark,
Could we schedule a meeting with you to discuss our options for
renovating the house at 317 Rivanwood that is half -in the WPO
buffer?
Are you available Thursday morning? We are also available all day
tomorrow.
With appreciation,
Steve
steve miller, architect, leed ap
bushman dreyfus architects pc
820 east high street • suite b
charlottesville va 22902
work 434.295.1936 x 226
web www.bdarchitects.com
4
On Mar 31, 2016, at 1:35 PM, Steve Miller
<smillergbdarchitects.com> wrote:
Mark,
Very helpful! Thanks a lot. I think you answered all
of my questions - except the one about Sec. 17-
604.F; considering that there is no available
building site on the adjacent lot, are the owners not
allowed to submit a mitigation plan to allow
building activity within the buffer as referred to in
Sec. 17-604?
Thanks again,
Steve
steve miller, architect, leed ap
bushman dreyfus architects pc
820 east high street • suite b
charlottesville va 22902
work 434.295.1936 x 226
web www.bdarchitects.com
On Mar 31, 2016, at 1:14 PM, Mark
Graham <m raham e,albemarle.org>
wrote:
For both properties, the key is that the
ordinance does not provide for an
increase on the impact to the buffer. If
there is interest in alterations that
modify the structure but don't increase
the size in the buffer or reduce the
distance to the reservoir, we can work
with you to see what can be done. If it
increases the size or decreases distance
to reservoir, the ordinance simply
doesn't provide the needed flexibility to
allow this. In the latter case, I see only
two possibilities, neither of them easy:
1. You can appeal my decision to
the Board of Supervisors who
9
could then reinterpret the
language "...for necessary
infrastructure to allow
reasonable use..." to include
the proposed
construction. Effectively, that
redefines the meaning of this
section and that applies to any
other property seeking to
expand their structures. I
anticipate the Board will be
reluctant to take this step.
2. You can request the Board of
Supervisors to amend the
ordinance to allow small
expansions of the size you are
considering. I anticipate that
will also prove very difficult
with the Board.
Your question of combining the two lots
into one lot is a good one, but alas, this
is also difficult. Combining the two lots
is a resubdivision and requires the new
lot to have a building site outside of the
stream buffer. This is then considered a
new lot with the expectation for
building a new home in that building
site.
One final caution as you consider this.
As you noted, the Zoning Ordinance
does allow modification / alteration,
provided it does not increase the
nonconformity. However, you cannot
"bank" the difference for the future. It
is gone and the new structure becomes
the maximum impact to the buffer.
Hope this helps. If you would like to sit
down and discuss, perhaps we could
find a time the latter part of next
week.
Thanks,
Mark
From: Steve Miller
[mailto:smiller@bdarchitects.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 11:14
6
AM
To: Mark Graham
<mgraham@albemarle.org>
Cc: John Anderson
<janderson2@albemarle.org>; Jeff
Bushman <Ib@bdarchitects.com>
Subject: Re: 317 Rivanwood Place
Water Protection Ordinance Buffers
Mark,
Thank you very much for your
prompt and thorough response! This
raises a number of important
questions for our clients:
1. The existing roof and exterior
patio (which are within the
WPO Buffer) are in need of
some improvements, we were
also planing on doing interior
renovations that would
require structural
modifications. Would these
kind of minor improvements
be allowed?
2. Is there any path to propose a
mitigation plan that might
allow for small alterations
and/or additions within the
buffer?
Our clients also own the adjacent lot
to this property, (number 45-185 on
the map that you attached) and had
long-term plans of doing an
extensive renovation/addition to the
existing house. You can see that this
structure is completely within the
WPO Buffer, as is the majority of the
lot. We have a few questions about
this lot, as well:
1. Based on Sec. 17-604.F, it
seems like there is no
potential building site on this
preexisting lot because of the
WPO Buffer. With a
mitigation plan satisfying the
requirements of 17-406,
would we be able to
redevelop this lot with a
renovated house (or even a
new house in a different
location, assuming we
removed the existing house)?
2. Alternatively, based on Sec.
18-6.B.3, would we be able
to make structural
modifications to the existing
house, as long as we reduce
the footprint, thereby making
the property less non-
conforming?
3. Similarly, would there be an
acceptable scenario where the
two adjacent lots are
combined and one house is
demolished and one house is
enlarged, thus creating a net
reduction in the non-
conforming structures on the
land?
We really appreciate all of your help
with this.
Thanks again,
Steve
steve miller, architect, leed ap
bushman dreyfus architects pc
820 east high street • suite b
charlottesville va 22902
work
434.295.1936 x 226
web
www.bdarchitects.com
On Mar 31, 2016, at
8:46 AM, Mark
Graham
<m arg hamka,albemarl
e.or > wrote:
Steve,
John is out sick today,
so let me jump in to try
and get some
resolution on this.
First, let's recognize we
are mixing two
separate parts of the
Water Protection
Ordinance (WPO), each
of which has its own
requirements. John
referenced 17-603, a
part of Article 6 of the
WPO, which has to do
with the County's
stream buffer
program. You
referenced 17-303,
which deals with the
Virginia Erosion and
Sediment Control
Program (VESCP) and
the Virginia Stormwater
Management Program
(VSMP), two State
mandated programs we
are required to
administer. The
programs do not
necessarily treat
exemptions or
modifications the same
way, meaning you can
be outside of the
regulations on one part
and not the other.
In this case, you are
right that the
construction of an
addition could be
exempt from the
requirements
associated with VSMP
permitting, but John is
right that the stream
buffer requirements in
Article 6 of the WPO
still apply. Additionally,
the reference to the
Zoning Ordinance that
9
John mentions has to
do with allowing
nonconforming uses to
remain without
changes that increase
the nonconformity.
That clearly would not
justify the proposed
expansion into the
stream buffer. To
assist, I am providing a
map produced from the
County's GIS showing
the extent of the
protected stream
buffer on this
property. If the
addition is outside of
this protected buffer, I
believe it can be found
consistent with the
WPO requirements (still
needs to meet Zoning
and Building
requirements, but I
don't foresee a
problem with that
part). If the addition is
inside of this protected
buffer, I have trouble
finding any way it could
be allowed.
I will note there is a
provision that allows
some construction in
the outer 50' of a
buffer, but I do not see
how that could apply in
this
circumstance. There
are two provisions. The
first requires the
improvements to be
"...for necessary
infrastructure to allow
reasonable use..." As
the dwelling has been
in use for many years, I
don't see how that
could apply in this
circumstance. The
10
second provision
applies to intermittent
streams, which is
clearly not this
situation. This is 17-
604 A of the WPO,
which if provided
below:
A. Within the
landward 50
horizontal feet.
On a lot within
the fifty (50)
horizontal feet of
a stream buffer
that is the most
landward
(furthest from the
stream), if the
structures,
improvements or
activities either:
(i) would be for
necessary
infrastructure to
allow reasonable
use of the lot; or
(ii) would be on a
lot that is within
a water supply
protection area
where the stream
buffer protects an
intermittent
stream and the lot
is within a
development
area. In all cases
under this
subsection, any
new building site
and sewage
disposal system
shall be located
outside of the
stream buffer.
I appreciate this may
restrict some of the
options available on
this property, but I
believe I've also shown
there are other options
that remain available.
Thanks,
Mark Graham
11
From: John Anderson
Sent: Thursday, March
31, 2016 8:05 AM
To: Mark Graham
<mgraham@albemarle.
org>
Subject: FW: 317
Rivanwood Place
Water Protection
Ordinance Buffers
STREAM BUFFERS
Mark,
Please see e -chain,
below —have I
overlooked
something? Is single-
family expansion or
enlargement in stream
buffers allowed under
18-6?
I appreciate any
guidance —thank you!
From: Steve Miller
[mailto:smiller@bdarch
itects.com]
Sent: Wednesday,
March 30, 2016 5:23
PM
To: John Anderson
<janderson2@albemarl
e.org>
Subject: Re: 317
Rivanwood Place
Water Protection
Ordinance Buffers
John,
Thank you for the
quick response and
for pointing me to the
relevant sections of
the code.
In Sec. 17-303,
wouldn't we fall
under the exemptions
C and D? We are only
considering a small
12
addition within the
Water Protection
Ordinance Buffer.
The project is an
existing single family
residence and we
would be disturbing
less than one acre. We
are probably
disturbing less than
10,000 SF.
<image001.png>
Thanks again for your
help,
Steve
steve miller, architect, leed ap
bushman dreyfus architects pc
820 east high street • suite b
charlottesville va 22902
work 434.295.1936 x 226
web www.bdar
chitects.com
On
Mar
30,
2016,
at 3:47
PM,
John
Anders
on
<' a� nde
rson2
albe
marle.
org>
wrote:
13
Mr.
Miller,
The
stream
buffer
ordinan
ce is
quite
restricti
ve —it
preclud
es
constru
ction
that
expand
s or
enlarge
s a pre-
existing
buildin
g or
structur
e
located
within a
stream
buffer.
<image002.jpg>
I realize
that this
is
unwelc
ome
news,
but I
also
need to
speak
with
others
about
the
meanin
g of
text at
Code
Ch. 18,
Sec. 6
(18-6).
Please
call if
14
any
questio
ns.
Thank
you.
John E.
Anderso
n, PE
Civil
Engineer
11
Departm
ent of
Commu
nity
Develop
ment
County
of
Albemarl
e,
Virginia
401
McIntire
Road
Charlott
esville,
VA
22902
434.296.
5832
ext.
3069
From: F
rancis
MacCall
Sent: W
ednesd
ay,
March
30,
2016
3:21
PM
To: Ma
x
Greene
<MGre
ene al
homnrl
e.org>;
John
15
Anders
on
<"a� nder
song
albema
rle.org>
Matthe
w
Wentla
nd
<mwen
tland
albema
rle.org>
Subject
:FW:
317
Rivanw
ood
Place
Water
Protecti
on
Ordina
nce
Buffers
Could
one of
you
help
this
gentle
man. T
hanks
Francis
From: S
teve
Miller
[mailto:
smiller
bdarc
h itects.
com]
Sent: W
ednesd
ay,
March
30,
16
2016
12:26
PM
To: Fra
ncis
MacCall
<FMAC
CALL
albema
rle.org>
Subject
:317
Rivanw
ood
Place
Water
Protecti
on
Ordina
nce
Buffers
Good
afterno
on,
Iaman
archite
ct in
Charlot
tesville
workin
g with
the
owners
of 317
Rivan
wood
Place
to
explore
options
for a
renovat
ion and
additio
n to
their
home.
I was
wonder
17
ing if I
could
talk to
someo
ne
about
what
kind of
restrict
ions
are
implie
d by
this
house
being
mostly
within
the
county
's
Water
Protect
ion
Ordina
nce
Buffer.
I found
a
definiti
on of
the
buffer
on the
county
's
websit
e, but
no
rules
about
buildin
g
within
the
buffer.
I've
attache
d a site
plan
and
18
some
screen
shots
from
the
county
GIS
websit
e.
I
would
be
happy
to
come
in and
meet
with
someo
ne or
schedu
le a
phone
call.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
Sincere
ly,
Steve
steve
miller,
architect,
leed ap
bushman
dreyfus
architects
PC
820 east
high street
• suite b
charlottes
ville
va 22902
19
work
434.295.1
936 x 226
web
www.bdar
chitects.c
om
20