1992-09-09
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
M.B. 42, Pg. 163
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on September 9, 1992, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y.
Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Walter F.
Perkins.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Mr. James Clark spoke concerning SP-92-06. He explained the reason he
asked the Board to vote on his request at the last meeting was because of
financial reasons and it had nothing to do with Mr. Bowerman's absence from the
meeting. Two houses had been purchased in May and payments were being made. If
the request had not been voted on at the August 12, 1992 meeting, it would have
been approximately eight more weeks before he could have gotten all the necessary
permits.
Mrs. Humphris asked why all the paperwork on this request said the homes
were for his daughters when they were his nieces. Mr. Clark said he and his
brother owned the property jointly and gave it to the two children. There is a
letter in the Zoning Department's file stating that he was given power of
attorney.
Mr. Ray Beard, President, Charlottesville Tennis Patrons Association,
thanked the Board for the eight new tennis courts at Albemarle High School. The
continued inclusions of these courts in the Capital Improvements Program and
their completion, will relieve a time problem for the schools tennis matches;
allow for the participation of more students in the sport with the addition of
junior varsity teams; and increase playing opportunity from previous overcrowding
of courts for the citizens of the urban area and the tennis playing public.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve items 5.1 and 5.2, and to accept the
remaining items on the consent agenda as information. There was no further
discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Memorandum dated August 18, 1992, from V. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development, re: Amendment to Proffer #1 for
Forest Lakes South (ZMA-91-04 Forest Lakes Associates), was received as.
follows:
"History: On October 16, 1991 the Board of Supervisors approved a
petition to rezone 236.212 acres from R-l, Residential and PUD,
Planned Unit Development to PUD (Proffer) with a limit of 1200
residential units. This property consists of Tax Map 46 Parcels
26E, 27, 97A, and 110 (see Attachment A - on file). This approval
is subject to proffers included herein as Attachment B - on file.
Request: To amend Proffer #1 to state:
· The development of the residential portion of the property
shall not exceed 800 dwelling units.'
(The remaining proffers will be unchanged.)
As was noted in the staff report for this rezoning, the applicant
petitioned for a maximum development of 1200 dwellings, but did not
anticipate exceeding 800 dwellings. The request for 1200 units was
intended to provide for maximum flexibility to respond to changes in
the housing market without subsequent rezoning.
During the review of the traffic study, which was based on 1200
units, the Virginia Department of Transportation has determined that
a 'fly-over' for southbound, left turns from Route 29 would be
(Page 2)
required to achieve an acceptable level of service at the
intersection, of Route 29 and the proposed internal spine road.
In order to get the intersection at an acceptable level of service
and to delete the need for the fly-over, the applicant is requesting
the proffer be amended to limit the maximum number of dwellings to
800. There is preliminary agreement between the Virginia Department
of Transportation and the applicant as to the ultimate design for
the spine road and the intersection improvements at Route 29 based
on 800 dwellings.
Staff opinion is this request is consistent with information
presented by the applicant during the rezoning process in that it
was not anticipated more than 800 dwellings would be built. Staff
supports the request, however, due to discussion regarding the
density of the proposal during the Board of Supervisors hearing,
staff was reluctant to approve this request administratively in
accordance with Section 8.5.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance without
Board of Supervisors review. As a result this item is forwarded for
your review on the September 9, 1992 Consent Agenda."
Mrs. Humphris asked if staff has reviewed minimum and maximum land use
densities. Mr. Cilimberg said it is staff's intent to do this review during its
work on the Comprehensive Plan.
By the above recorded vote the Board approved an amendment to Proffer #1
as reconanended. It was the consensus of the board that staff review minimum and
maximum land use densities during the next review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Item 5.2. Authorize County Executive to execute deed in order that the
City and County can jointly own the entirety of the property at the Joint
Security Complex, was approved by the above recorded vote.
THIS DEED, taxed pursuant to Virginia Code Section 58.1-
811.A.3, made this 13th day of July, 1992, by and between the COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA,
Grantors, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, and the CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Grantees.
WITNE S SETH:
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is the owner of
a certain tract or parcel of land shown on current Albemarle
County Tax Map 77, as parcel 11A, and more particularly described
herein as Parcel One; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, is the owner
of a certain tract or parcel of land shown on current Albemarle
County Tax Map 77, as parcel 11C, and more particularly described
herein as Parcel Two; and,
WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to hold both parcels
jointly;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars
($10.00), and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby GRANT, and
CONVEY with Special Warranty of Title unto the Grantees, as
tenants in common, each holding an undivided fifty-percent (50%)
interest, all the following-described real estate, located in
Albemarle County, Virginia, (the "Property):
Parcel One
Ail that certain tract of land, with improvements
thereon and appurtenances thereto, situated in the
Scottsville Magisterial District of Albemarle County,
Virginia, on the west side of State Route 742,
containing 7.246 acres, more or less, as shown and
described as parcel "A" on a plat made by Gloeckner &
OsbOrne, Inc., Engineers, Surveyors, Land Planners,
dated August 12, 1992, a copy of which is attached
hereto and recorded herewith; AND BEING a portion of
the property conveyed unto the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, by deed from The First National Bank of
Bluefield, West Virginia, Executor and Trustee under
the Will of Clifton J. Reynolds,, Sr., dated January
10, 1957, and recorded in the Clerk s Office of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed
Book 330, page 463.
Parcel Two
All that certain tract of land, with improvements
thereon and appurtenances thereto, situated in the
Scottsville Magisterial District of Albemarle County,
Virginia, on the west side of State Route 742,
(Page 3)
containing 1.003 acres, more or less, as shown and
described as Parcel "B" on a plat made by Gloeckner &
Osborne, Inc., Engineers, Surveyors, Land Planners,
dated August 12, 1992, a copy of which is attached
hereto and recorded herewith; AND BEING a portion of
the property conveyed unto the City of
Charlottesville, Virginia, by deed from E. Gerry
Haden,, dated December 11, 1926, and recorded in the
Clerk s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia, in Deed Book 195, page 337.
This property is conveyed SUBJECT TO easements, conditions,
and restrictions of record insofar as they may lawfully affect the
Property.
Item 5.3. Letter dated August 26, 1992, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, Department of Transportation, stating that Route 1190 (Colston
Drive) in Colston Subdivision was added to the State Secondary System, was
received as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated June 10, 1992, the
following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is
hereby approved, effective August 25, 1992.
ADDITION
LENGTH
COLSTON
Route 1190 (Colston Drive) From Route 708 to
0.31 mile Northeast Route 708
0.31 Mi"
Item 5.4. Letter dated September 3, 1992, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, Department of Transportation, stating that the load limits on
the Millington Bridge (Route 671) have been changed from seven tons to three
tons, was received as follows:
"As you are aware, we have been concerned for some time with the
deteriorating condition of the bridge on Route 671 over Moormans
River. This letter is to inform you of the results of our recent
inspection and to emphasize our continuing concern of maintaining
this bridge at seven tons.
Presently, we are inspecting this bridge every six months. In
March 1992, repairs were made to steel stringers in the approach
spans and truss at thirteen locations. These repairs were
necessitated by the complete section loss in the stringer webs at
the bearing areas. The approximate cost for these repairs was
$3,000.
During our latest inspection in August 1992, additional section
loss was discovered in a diagonal loop-welded member. This
diagonal is the fracture critical (controlling) member in the
truss. The section loss in this member has increased by 5/16"
since November 1987. The total loss of section is 7/16" in a bar
originally sized at I 1/2 "x 3/4", approximately a 50 percent
section loss at the lower pin connection. In order to maintain
the structure's present posting of seven tons, repairs to this
member are required. Because of the limited free space at the
lower connection, a temporary repair is not possible.
The pin and bar replacement would cost an estimated $25,000 and
require a temporary support system for the truss. However, due to
the overall poor condition of the truss, there is a major risk
involved with this repair. If excessive movement were to occur
during repair, the truss would be damaged. Taking the overall
condition of the bridge into account, we have concluded it would
be unwise to attempt this repair. Therefore, we will have to post
the bridge at three tons.
Other truss components exhibit similar deterioration as the
critical diagonal but to a lesser degree. If this bridge is to
remain open to traffic, even at the three ton posting, we can
expect recurring maintenance costs of $5,000 for minor repairs and
$20,000 for major repairs after each inspection.
Since there may be some school bus traffic involved, I felt we
should let you know as soon as possible so school buses are not
scheduled for this school year. Since the deterioration rate
seems to be advancing faster than corrections can be made, no
doubt, the bridge will have to be closed in the near future.
I hope we can work together and have this structure replaced as
planned in the near future to ensure a safe and adequate
transportation system."
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
M.B. 42, Pg. 166
Mr. Bain asked staff for an estimate on how much it would cost the
County to rebuild the Route 671 bridge in its current location. This is to be
discussed October 7, 1992.
Item 5.5. Letter dated September 2, 1992, from Ms. Kathleen K.
Seefeldt, President, Virginia Association of Counties, in response to Board's
letter regarding the process used by the VACo Board of Directors in redrawlng
the Association's regions, was received as information.
Item 5.6. Letter dated August 24, 1992, from The Honorable Strom
Thurmond, United States Senate, regarding an amendment to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, was received as information.
Item 5.7. Letter dated August 31, 1992, from The Honorable Edgar S.
Robb, Senate of Virginia, regarding the designation of the Southwest Mountains
Rural Historic District in Albemarle County, was received as information.
Item 5.8. 1992 Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax Purposes for
Railroads and Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies, was received as
information.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-92-48. Jimmy Chisholm. Public Hearing on a
request for a single-wide mobile home on 19.47 acs zoned RA. Property to W of
Blenheim Rd, approx 1.4 mi S of inters with Blenheim Rd/Carters Mtn Rd (Rt
727\Rt 627). TM102,P39H. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on August 25, 1992 and September 1, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. The applicant
is proposing to locate a single wide mobile home on 19.47 acres. Should the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve this request, staff
recommends the following conditions=
"1.
2.
Albemarle County Building Official approval~
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable
requirements for district in which it is located~
3o
Skirting around the 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~
Provisions of potable water supply and sewerage facilities
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~
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."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 18,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-48 subject to the conditions
recommended by staff.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Kimberly Parr said Mr. Chisholm, his grandmother and her are present
to answer any questions the Board may have. They have no problem with the
conditions recommended by staff.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Marshall made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve SP-92-48
subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote=
AYES= Mrs. Humphris, Messrs Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
The conditions for approval are as follows:
Albemarle County Building Official approval~
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable
requirements for district in which it is located~
(Page 5) '
Skirting around the 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~
Provisions of potable water supply and sewerage facilities
to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning A~ministrator
and approval by the local office of the Virginia Department
of Health, if applicable under current regulations~
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.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-92-$4. Adventure Bound (owner), Donna Frantzen
(applicant). Public hearing on a request to allow a boarding camp on 33.6 ac
zoned P~A. Property in S corner of inters of Blackwells Hollow Rd (Rt 810)/
Boonesville Rd (Rt 687). TM6,P24,25B,25B1. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on August 25, 1992 and September 1, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg sun~narized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. The applicant
is proposing to operate a boarding camp. Guest rooms will be provided in the
existing dorm and school. Two dwellings would be used as primar~ residences.
These dwellings would initially be in existing structures, but a new structure
for one dwelling may be constructed. The property may be subdivided so that
the new structure is on a separate parcel. The total number of dwellings on
the 33 acres will not exceed two. The site will be used for recreational/
meditative seminars. The number of participants is not known but is estimated
to be approximately 20. Meals are not proposed; each participant will bring
their own meals. Cooking facilities will be provided. Staff has reviewed
this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and
recommends approval of SP-92-54 subject to the following conditions=
"1.
Food and lodging shall be provided only for boarding camp
participants. This provision shall not be deemed to permit
lodging or boarding of guests or transients not
participating in the boarding camp~
2o
The maximum number of boarding camp participants and
residents at any given time shall not exceed a total
population of
3o
No new construction except for one new single-family
structure (location to be approved by staff). Modifications
to existing buildings and structures shall be undertaken in
such manner so as to easily and inexpensively convert such
buildings and structures to dwelling unit types (i.e.
single family detached, duplex, etc.) or other structures
typically expected to accompany by-right uses (ex. barns) as
may be permitted by right in the specific zoning district~
Use shall not commence until approval for such use has been
obtained from the Albemarle County Fire Official. The Fire
Official shall thereafter inspect the premises at his
discretion~
5o
Use shall not commence until approval of permit has been
obtained from the Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation
of the Virginia Department of Health~
6m
Not more than nine rooms shall be available for overnight
guests;
7. Not more than two dwelling units shall be permitted;
8o
Use shall not commence until approval for such use has been
obtained from the Albemarle County Building Official.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission at its meeting on September
1, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-54, subject to the
conditions recommended by staff with condition three amended as follows=
30
No new construction except for one new single-family
structure (location to be approved by staff);
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Donna Frantzen, the applicant, said she would answer any questions
Board members may have. The Board did not have any questions for Ms.
Frantzen.
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
M.B. 42, Pg. 168
Ms. Eleanor May, President of Adventure Bound, said if there are any
questions relative to Adventure Bound's position, she would be happy to answer
them. The Board did not have any questions for Ms. May.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Perkins made motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve SP-92-54,
subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote=
AYES= Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
The conditions for approval are as follows:
Food and lodging shall be provided only for boarding camp
participants. This provision shall not be deemed to permit
lodging or boarding of guests or transients not
participating in the boarding camp;
The maximum number of boarding camp participants and
residents at any given time shall not exceed a total
population of 34;
No new construction except for one new single-family
structure (location to be approved by staff);
Use shall not commence until approval for such use has been
obtained from the Albemarle County Fire Official. The Fire
Official shall thereafter inspect the premises at his
discretion;
Use shall not commence until approval of permit has been
obtained from the Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation
of the Virginia Department of Health;
Not more than nine (9) rooms shall be available for
overnight guests;
7. Not more than two dwelling units shall be permitted;
Use shall not commence until approval for such use has been
obtained from the Albemarle County Building Official.
The Board discussed Agenda Items No. 8 and 9 jointly.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-92-05. Miscellaneous amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance.
Public hearing to Amend 1.4, 1.4.8, 1.4.9, 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 4.2.1, 4.2.4.2,
4.2.5.1, 4.4, 4.6.1.2, 4.6.1.3, 4.6.3.2, 4.10.3.3, 4.11.1, 4.14.8, 5.1, 6.2.1,
6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.5.2, 6.5.4, 7.0, 8.5.1(j), 8.5.6.1, 8.5.6.2, 8.5.6.3, 8.5.6.4,
10.3.1, 10.3.2, 12.4.1, 13.1, 13.4.1, 14.1, 14.4.1, 15.1, 15.4.1, 16.1,
16.4.1, 16.8, 17.1, 17.4.1, 17.8, 18.1, 18.4.1, 18.8, 19.7, 20.8.4, 21.4,
21.6, 21.7.3, 22.1, 22.2.1.22, 22.2.2.10, 24.2.2.13, 25.2.2.4, 25.3, 25.4.1,
26.6, 26.9, 26.10.3, 30.5, 30.5.1, 30.5.2, 30.5.2.1, 30.5.5.2, 30.5.6.1,
30.6.2, 30.6.3.2, 31.2.3.1.
Public hearing to Repeal 4.2.4.1, 4.3, 4.9, 5.1.23, 30.5.2.2, 30.5.4,
30.5.4.1, 30.5.4.2, 30.5.4.3, 30.5.4.4, 30.5.6.2, 30.5.6.2.1, 30.5.6.2.2,
30.5.6.2.3, 30.5.6.3.1, 30.5.7, 30.5.7.1, 30.5.7.2.
Public hearing to Add 1.4.11, 4.3, 4.9, 6.2.2, 22.2.2.12, 23.2.1.12,
24.2.1.41, 31.2.3.2, 31.2.3.3. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August
25, 1992 and September 1, 1992.)
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-92-07. Public hearing to Repeal Section
30.5.6.3. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 25, 1992 and September
1, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report for Agenda Item No. 8 which is
on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board.
The purpose of these Amendments are:
1. To improve codified language as to interpretation thereby
providing more consistent application of regulation.
2. To modify or delete outmoded or conflicting regulations.
3. To update the ordinance regarding other new or changed
ordinances, agency titles, and provisions of the Code of
Virginia.
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
M.B. 42, Pg. 169
To delete redundant language thereby shortening and
simplifying the text.
5o
To make provision to accommodate the American's with
Disabilities Act.
To increase administrative discretion as may be exercised by
the Zoning Administrator and Department of Planning and
Community Development.
To provide more definitive and therefore enforceable
regulation.
Mr. Cilimberg said during the August, 1992 work session on the proposed
amendments, the Board was informed that various ordinances addressed "tree
cutting" in proximity to streams. Mr. Peyton Robinson, the Water Resources
Manager, had recommended that, in view of the Water Resources Protection Areas
Ordinance, the tree cutting provisions of Section 5.1.23(b) (1) be deleted.
Recommendations regarding scenic streams will be addressed at some future date
following additional study by Community Development, to include, revising
criteria for scenic stream designation.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 30,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendments.
Mrs. Humphris asked how recommendations from the Water Resources Manager
would be handled and whaL will happen to them. Mr. Cilimberg said the
recommendation pertaining to Section 5.1.23(b) (1) can be taken care of as part
of the Board's action tonight. There was also reference to some
inconsistencies between the Resource Protection Areas and the scenic stream
provisions. Staff intends to bring the Board, at a later date, some changes
in the scenic stream provisions that would take care of the inconsistencies.
Mr. Bowerman asked the reasons changes were made to conventional
development regulations regarding the 31-acre, by-right and 21-acre
provisions. Mr. Cilimberg said staff was having difficulty interpreting the
31-acre provisions, particularly on parcels created since 1980. In one case
the Zoning Administrator's decision was appealed to the Board of Zoning
Appeals (BZA) and although the BZA agreed with the Zoning Administrator's
interpretation, it felt that the language in the Zoning Ordinance was not
clear.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff found situations where a landowner created
since 1980 a 30-acre lot with two development rights and had planned to divide
the lot into two 15-acre parcels. The ordinance, as it now reads, requires
the landowner to create two parcels with a 21-acre residue. He does not think
this was the intent of the ordinance. Staff has not been able to identify any
clear way to handle this problem in the language of the Ordinance, therefore,
staff is recommending changing the 31-acre provision. The original reason for
this provision was to keep subdivision in the rural areas as minimal as
possible. The downside of this could be that parcels larger than 100 acres had
been created since 1980 with up to five development rights. This amendment
would allow an individual to divide this acreage into parcels of 10 acres,
whereas the original ordinance only allowed five development rights into 31
acres or less with the remaining being in residue parcels of 21 acres.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a person could take advantage of the clustering
provisions, even though the provisions are not intended for that use and use
the rest of the land in open space. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes." Mr. St. John
said this is not mandatory. Mr. Bowerman said it is possible in the example
Mr. Cilimberg gave, a developer may choose to do it in a way that would be
much more acceptable for himself, his potential buyers and the County. Mr.
Cilimberg said this is correct. There are circumstances where people have
created certain parcels since 1980 with certain development rights and
expectations of use of those development rights for a family division, to sell
a couple of lots to friends or had the intention of not dividing more than two
or three medium sized lots. This provision would restrict that type of
division.
Mr. Marshall expressed some concerns about the section on agricultural
buffer area requirements. He said he does not feel landowners should have to
get a permit every time they want to cut a tree. These regulations are meant
to control development, but there are farmers who get caught up in them.
Farmers do not plan to develop their property and these regulations will place
a hardship on them.
Mr. Bowerman then opened the public hearing on ZTA-92-05.
There being no one from the public to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt an Ordinance
to amend, add and repeal certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
M.B. 42, Pg. 170
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Bowerman then opened the public hearing on ZTA-92-07.
There being no one from the public to speak the public hearing was
closed.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt an ordinance
to repeal Section 30.5.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
The adopted Ordinance is set out in full below:
O R D I N A N C E
An Ordinance
To Amend, Add and Repeal
Certain Sections of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance be amended and reenacted by amending, adding and
repealing certain sections, all as set out below:
ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 1.0, A~ORI~Y~ ESTABLISHM]~TT, PURPOSE AND OFFICIAL ZONING
Section 1.4 shall be amended and reenacted by the addition
thereto of a new paragraph, as follows:
1.4
PURPOSE AND INTENT
This ordinance, insofar as is practicable, is intended
to be in accord with and to implement the
Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County adopted
pursuant to the provisions of Title 15.1, Chapter 11,
Article 4, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has
the purposes and intent set forth in Title 15.1,
Chapter 11, Article 8.
As set forth in section 15.1-427 of the Code, this
ordinance is intended to improve public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of citizens of
Albemarle County, Virginia, and to plan for the future
development of communities to the end that
transportation systems be carefully planned; that new
community centers be developed with adeguate highway,
utility, health, educational and recreational
facilities; that the needs of a~riculture, industry
and business be recoqnized in future growth; that
residential areas be provided with healthy
surroundings for family life; that agricultural and
forestal land be preserved; and that the growth of the
community be consonant with the efficient and
economical use of public funds.
Therefore be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the purposes of
promoting the health, safety, convenience and general
welfare of the public and of planning for the future
development of the community, that the zoning
ordinance of Albemarle County, together with the
official zoning map adopted by reference and declared
to be a part of this ordinance, is designed:
Subsection 1.4.7 shall be amended by the deletion of the
word "andm at the end of the sentence:
1.4.7 To encourage economic development activities
that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax
base; a.n~
Subsection 1.4.8 shall be ~mendedby the addition of
language as follows:
1.4.8 To provide for the preservation of agricultural
and forestal lands= and other lands of siqnificance
for the protection of the natural environment;
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
M.B. 42, Pg. 171
Subsection 1.4.9 shall be amended by the deletion of the
word 'and' at the end of the sentence, end then by the addition of
language as follows:
1.4.9 To protect approach slopes and other safety
areas of licensed airports; :n~, includin~ United
States government and military air facilities;
Subsection 1.4.10 shall be amended by the addition of the
word "and' at the end o~ the sentence, as follows:
1.4.10 To include reasonable provisions, not
inconsistent with the applicable state water quality
standards to protect surface water and groundwater
defined in section 62.1-44.85(8) of the Code of
Virginia= ; and
Subsection 1.4.11 shall be added to read as follows:
1.4.11
To Dromote affordable housing.
CHAPTER 2.0, APPLICATION OF I~EG'ULATIONS
2.1
APPLICATION OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Subsection 2.1.4 shall be amended by the addition of
len~uage as follows:
2.1.4 REDUCTION OF LOTS OR AREAS BELOW MINIMUM PROHIBITED
No lot or parcel(s) existing at the time of passage of
this ordinance shall be reduced in dimension or area
below the minimum requirements set forth herein except
for the purpose of meeting or exceeding standards set
forth herein or as a result of dedication to or
exercise of eminent domain by a public agency. Lots
or parcel(s) created after the effective date of this
ordinance shall meet at least the minimum requirements
established by this ordinance= , exceDt for lots
created for usage by a Dublic a~ency to the extent
that the same may be justifiable under Dowers of
eminent domain.
Subsection 2.1.5 shall be amended by the addition of
language as follows:
2.1.5 REDUCTION OF YARDS BELOW MINIMUM
No yard existing at the time of passage of this
ordinance shall be reduced in dimension below the
minimum requirements set forth herein, unless such
yard requirements reduce the buildable area to
unreasonable dimensions. In such cases, the board of
zoning appeals shall determine the minimum
requirements consistent with provision of adequate
light and air, prevention of loss of life, health, or
property from fire or other dangers, and prevention of
danger in travel. Yards created after the effective
date of this ordinance shall meet at least the minimum
requirements established by this ordinance. This
provision shall not apply to reduction of yard
dimension as may result from dedication to or exercise
of eminent domain by a public agency.
ARTICLE II. BASIC REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 4.0, ~'ENEP, AL I~o~ATIONS
4.2
CRITICAL SLOPES
Subsection 4.2.1 shall be ~mendedby the addition of
language as follows:
4.2.1 BUILDING SITE REQUIRED
No lot or parcel shall have less than one (1) building
site. For purposes of this section, the term
"building site" shall mean a contiguous area of land
in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent as
determined by reference to either topographic
quadrangle maps of the Geological Survey - U. S.
Department of Interior (contour interval twenty [20]
feet) or a source determined by the county engineer to
be of superior accuracy, exclusive of:
Septen~oer 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
M.B. 42, Pg. 172
-Such area as may be located in the flood hazard
overlay district or which is located under water;
-Such area as may be located within two hundred (200)
horizontal feet of the one hundred year flood plain of
any public drinking water impoundment or within one
hundred (100) horizontal feet of the edge of any
tributary stream to such impoundment;
-Such area as may be designated as resource protection
areas on the resource protection areas map adopted
pursuant to chapter 19.2 of the Code of Albemarle~
provided that nothing contained herein shall be
deemed to prevent or impair the water resources
manaqer from exercise of discretion as set forth in
that ordinance.
4.2.4 LOCATION OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Subsection 4.2.4.1 is hereby repealed, the n,,mher 4.2.4.2 is
deleted and that paragraph is amended by the addition of language,
all as follows:
4.2.4.1
Septic system location need not be restricted to the
approved building site; however, no septic system nor
any portion thereof shall be located in any of the
following:
cvcr!ay _i=_ric. cr .............................. ct;
~.2.~.2 In the review for and issuance of a permit
for the installation of a septic system, the Virginia
Department of Health shall be mindful of the intent of
this section, and particularly mindful of the intent
to discourage location of septic tanks and/or drain
fields on slopes of twenty (20) percent or greater.
Septic system location shall be restricted to the
approved building site.
4.2.5 MODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS
Subsection 4.2.5.1 shall be amended to read as follows:
4.2.5.1 A developer requesting such modification
shall file a written request in accordance with
section 32.3.11.4 of this ordinance and shall in such
request address each concern set forth in section 4.2.
No such modification shall be granted until the
recommendation of the agent shall have been considered
by the conunission. The agent in formulating such
recommendation may consult with the county engineer,
Virginia Department of Health, '~:=tcr=kc~ man:~cmcnt
o~ici=l== water resources manaqer and other appropriate
officials. The county engineer shall evaluate the
potential for soil erosion, sedimentation and water
pollution in accord with current provisions of the
Virginia Department of Transportation Drainage Manual,
the Commonwealth of Virginia Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook and Virginia State Water Control
Board best management practices, and where applicable,
Chapter 19.1, Article 2, Protection of Public Drinking
Water, Code of Albemarle.
Existing Section 4.3 shall be repealed, ~nd replaced with
the following len~uage entitled "Tree Cutting".
DP~I~AC~
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
M.B. 42, Pg. 173
4.3
TREE CUTTING
In districts other than the RA, cuttin~ of trees
shall be limited to dead trees and trees of less
than six (6) inches in diameter measured at six
(6) inches above ground; except that trees may
be cleared as an incident to the preparation of
land for the establishment of some other use
permitted in the district, provided that:
1. Such use is exempt from the provisions of
section 32.0 hereof; or
A site development plan for such permitted
use shall have been approved in accordance
with the provisions of section 32.0 of
this ordinance;
The following regulation shall apply in all
zoning districts:
Unless otherwise specifically approved to
accommodate development pursuant to
section 32.0 hereof, no tree within
fifteen (15) feet of any perennial stream
or water supply impoundment may be cut,
except for dead trees or trees of less
than six (6) inches in diameter measured
at six (6) inches above ground; or in
order to provide access for livestock or
for another permitted use;
The foregoing notwithstanding, the zoning
administrator may authorize cutting of trees
which:
Are deemed by the zoning administrator to
pose a clearly demonstrable danger to
buildings or other structures or otherwise
a danger to public safety; or
Have been specifically recommended for
removal following field investigation by
the Virginia Department of Forestry as
being virulent or pestilent to other trees
in the vicinity;
For the purpose of this ordinance, the term
"tree cutting" shall be deemed to include
sawing, burning, bulldozlnq, polsoninq, ~irdling
or any other activity which could reasonably be
anticipated to result in the death of a tree.
Fill and waste areas shall not be deemed a
permitted use but preparatory activity to
establish a permitted use.
Section 4.4 shall be amended by' repealing the second
paragraph thereof.
4.4
VISIBILITY CLEARANCE AT INTERSECTIONS
For protection against traffic hazards, no material
impediment to visibility shall be placed, allowed to
grow, erected or maintained on any parcel so as to
restrict sight distance at any intersection of any
street, road or driveway below the minimum required by
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
for such intersection.
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
M.B. 42, Pg. 174
4.6
LOT REGULATIONS
Subsection 4.6.1.2.a shall he amended to read as follows:
4.6.1.2 Except as specifically permitted in this
section, frontage shall not be less than required by
the regulations of the district in which the lot or
parcel is located.
Frontage on a public street cul-de-sac or on a
private road cul-de-sac may be reduced to net
.............. a ......... rovided that
driveway separation shall be in accordance with
Virginia Department of Transportation standards.
For a lot located at the end of an access
easement, frontage shall not be less than the
full width of such easement.
Subsection 4.6.1.3 shall be amended to read as follows:
4.6.1.3 Minimum lot width mb:l! bc mam=urcd mt thc
buildin~ =at,ack lin= :nd shall be at least the same
width distance as the frontage required for the
district in which such lot is located. The depth of
front and rear yards shall be established where
minimum lot width is achievable but shall not be less
in depth than required for the district in which such
lot is located. Minimum lot width shall be maintained
between the front and rear yard. Lot width shall not
be reduced under section ~.~.i.~ 4.6.1.2.
4.6.3 LOTS, YARDS ADJACENT TO STREET
Subsection 4.6.3.2 shall be amended, by the addition of
language, to read as follows:
4.6.3.2 Other yards adjacent to streets shall have
a minimum depth, equal to the minimum front yard depth
required in the district in which the lot is located.
This provision shall apply to lots in the RA or
residential districts only. The foreqoing
notwithstanding, section 10.4 shall apply as written
and depth of individual yards to streets shall be
determined by the nature of the individual street.
Section 4.9 shall he ~mended and reenacted by repealing
existin~ language and adoptin~ new language, all as follows:
4.9
BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES: HANDICAPPED ACCESS
The regulations of individual zoning districts
notwithstandinq but subject to section 4.11.2.3,
construction of a ramp or other modifications to serve
the handicapped at any buildinq or structure within
any zoninq district shall be deemed to be in
compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and
the zoninq administrator shall authorize issuance of a
buildinq permit for such improvements.
4.10
HEIGHT OF BUILDING AND OTHER STRUCTURES
4.10.3 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS--EXCEPTIONS
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
M.B. 42, Pg. 175
Subsection 4.10.3.3 shall be ~mended by the deletion of
language, as follows:
4.10.3.3 PARAPET WALLS, CORNICES, ETC.
A parapet wall, cornice or similar projection may
exceed the height limit established for the district
by no more than four (4) feet., but ~ TM ~ ~ ~ ~
4.11
USES AND STRUCTURES PERMITTED IN REQUIRED YARDS
Subsection 4.11.1 shall be amended by changing the word
mfive' in the last sentence to Nsixm, as follows:
4.11.1
COVERED PORCHES, BALCONIES, CHIMNEYS AND LIKE FEATURES
Covered porches, balconies, chimneys, eaves and like
architectural features may project not more than four
(4) feet into any required yard; provided that no such
feature shall be located closer than -iv-- ,-, six (6)
feet to any lot line.
4.14
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Subsection 4.14.8 shall be amended and reenacted to read as
follows:
4.14.8
CERTIFIED ENGINEER REPORT SUBMITTAL
Each future occupant of an industrial character shall
submit to the county engineer
-~- ~ .... · ..... ~ -~ .......... ~ as precedent to
issuance of a zoning compliance clearance a certified
engineer's report describing the proposed operation,
all machines, processes, products and by-products,
stating the nature and expected levels of emission or
discharge to land, air and/or water or liquid, solid
or gaseous effluent and electrical impulses and noise
under normal operations, and the specifications of
treatment methods and mechanisms to be used to control
such emission or discharge. The county engineer shall
review the applicant's submittal and make comment and
recommendation prior to final commission action on the
site development plan.
CHAPTER 5.0, SUPPLEMENTARY RE~LATIONS
Section 5.1 shall be amended and reenacted to read as
EolloWS:
5.1 The following supplementary regulations apply to
referenced uses in all districts whether or not such uses are
permitted by right or by special use permit. Supplementary
regulations are in addition to all other requirements of this
ordinance, the Code of Albemarle, and all other applicable law.
~ ...... ~ ..... cr=±~ thc cc~_±=uicn -..d
In revlc~ cf any u:c -= -= ........ = ~, '-
---': .... ~ .... ~ ....... ~-'- ~ ..... '~-"~-- .... The commis-
sion may waiver, vary or modify any requirement of section 5.0 in
a particular case upon a finding that such requirement would not
forward the purposes of this ordinance or otherwise serve the
public interest; or that varied or modified regulation would
satisfy the purpose of this ordinance to at least an equivalent
degree as the specified requirement; except that, in no case,
shall such action constitute a waiver, variation or modification
of any applicable general or district regulation. Procedures for
appeals shall be as set forth in section 32.3.10 of this
ordinance.
Subsection 5.1.23 entitled NForestry" shall be repealed:
5.1.2~ FORE~TRY
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
M.B. 42, Pg. 176
thc -;:clf---rc cf thc rcm---inln~ trccc, cr in
........ for
6.0
NONCONFORMITIES
6.2
REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
Section 6.2, Repairs and Maintenance, shall be ~mendedby
n,,--hering the existing paragraph 6.2.1, and adding language
thereto, and adding a new paragraph n,,mhered 6.2.2, all as
follows:
6.2.1 On any building devoted in whole or in part to
any nonconforming use, work may be done on ordinary
repairs or on repair or replacement of nonbearing
walls, fixtures, wiring or plumbing, to such extent
that the structure is kept in a usable condition.
Nothing in this ordinance shall be deemed to prevent
the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of
any structure or part thereof declared to be unsafe by
any official charged with promoting public safety upon
order of such official=, including, whether by order
or voluntary, improvements to promote fire safety and
handicapped access (reference 4.9).
6.2.2 Nothing in this ordinance shall be deemed to
preclude the zoning administrator from authorizing
issuance of permits for the installation of potable
water supply, toilets and other sanitary facilities
including such building or structural expansion as may
be necessary to house such facilities, provided that:
a. Such facilities are not duplicative of
facilities available within such building or
structure;
Any such building or structural expansion shall
be limited in area to that necessary to house
such facilities; and
That usage of such building or structural
expansion shall be devoted wholly and only to
such sanitary facilities.
6.4
EXPANSION OR ENLARGEMENT
Amend the second paragraph of Subsection 6.~.1 to read as
follows:
6.4.1 The use of any building or structure shall
conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating
to the district in which the same is situated whenever
such building or structure is enlarged, extended,
reconstructed or Structurally altered.
.... ...=. n Nothing in this section shall prohibit
the replacement of a nonconforming mobile home with a
larger mobile home, provided the mobile home is
labelled to indicate compliance with either the
Virginia Industrialized Building and Mobile Home
Safety Regulations or with the Federal Manufactured
Home Construction and Safety Standards adopted by HUD,
1974, as amended; and, further provided that the
conditions of section 5.6.2 are met if applicable.
Amend and reenact Subsection 6.4.2 to read as follows:
....... = _Any building
or structure located or constructed~,~r:~-~c~cr~ ~ --nn,
""=" =cd prior to the adoption of this ordinance may
be expanded, enlarged or extended in accordance with
the rear, side, and front yard and setback regulations
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
M.B. 42, Pg. 177
of the prior zoning ordinance ~ in effect at thc timc
~ !cc:tlon v. con=.ruc.i~n. In all other cases, the
rear, side and front yard and setback regulations of
this ordinance shall apply.
6.5
NONCONFORMING LOTS (Amended 9-21-88)
Amend and reenact Subsection 6.5.2 to read as follows:
6.5.2 _xcc-.~ =~ __-- _-~_..__..___~-- =-rcvi-c-~ ~ in ccc.ich 30.5,
............... i In the case of any
subdivision approved and defined as such pursuant to
Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle after December 22,
1969, and prior to the adoption of this ordinance and
which was of record at the time of the adoption
hereof, the rear, side and front yard and setback
regulations of the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the
time of such approval shall apply to all lots within
such subdivision. In all other cases, the rear, side
and front yard and setback regulations of this
ordinance shall apply.
Amend and reenact Subsection 6.5.4 to read as follows:
.............. rcccr-c .... crc_c-c- Lots
recorded prior to the adoption of and not in
conformity with this ordinance may be resubdivided and
redeveloped, in whole or part, at the option of the
owner(s) of any group of contiguous lots therein; but
every such resubdivision shall conform to this
ordinance and all other county ordinances currently
applicable; provided, however, that no such
resubdivision which in the opinion of the zoning
administrator shall be substantially more conforming
to the requirements of section 4.0, general regula-
tions, and the area and bulk regulations of the
district in which such subdivision is situated shall
be denied for failure to comply with the provisions of
this ordinance.
ARTICLE III. DISTRICT R~N]LATIONS.
CHAPTER 7.0, ESTABLISIIMENT OF DISTRICTS
Amend and reenact Article III, District Regulations, Section
7.0, Establishment of Districts, to read as follows:
For the purposes of this ordinance, the unincorporated
areas of Albemarle County are hereby divided into the
following districts:
Commercial District - C-1
Commercial Office - CO
Heavy Industry - HI
Highway Commercial - HC
Light Industry - LI
Overlay Districts:
Airport Impact Area - AIA
Flood Hazard - FH
Natural Resource Extraction NR
..rca: -.. Scenic Streams - SS
Entrance Corridor - EC
Planned Development-Industrial Park - PD-IP
Planned Development-Mixed Commercial PD-MC
Planned Development-Shopping Centers - PD-SC
Planned Residential Development - PRD
Planned Unit Development PUD
Residential - R-1
Residential - R-2
Residential - R-4
Residential - R-6
Residential - R-10
Residential - R-15
Rural Areas - RA
Village Residential - VR
CIIA~TER 8.0, PLAN~,, DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS - ~~LY
8.5
PROCEDURES FOR PD APPLICATIONS
Amend and reenact Subsection 8.5.1.j. to read as follows:
8.5.1 APPLICATIONS, MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED
An application plan showing general road
alignments and proposed rights-of-way; general
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
M.B. 42, Pg. 178
alignment of sidewalks, bicycle and pedestrian
ways; general water, sewer and storm drainage
lay-out; general parking and loading areas and
circulation aisles; location of recreation
facilities; existing wooded areas and areas to
remain wooded; sun, nary of land uses including
dwelling types and densities and gross floor
areas for commercial and industrial uses, =.nd
preliminary lot lay-out= and proposed toDoqraDh¥
with a maximum of five (5) foot contour
intervals.
8.5.6 FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND SUBDIVISION PLATS
Amend and reenact Subsections 8.5.6.1, 8.5.6.2, 8.5.6.3 and
8.5.6.4 to read as follows:
8.5.6.1 CONTENTS OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS: SUBDIVISION PLATS
8.5.6.2
Unless modification is permitted by board of
supervisors' action pursuant to sections 8.5.4 and
8.5.5, all site development plans shall comply with
section 32.0 of this ordinance and all subdivision
plats shall comply with Chapter 18 of the Code of
APPROVAL OF SiTE DEVELOPMENT PLANS: SUBDIVISION PLATS
Approval of site development plans and subdivision
plats shall be based on: compliance with site
development plan or subdivision regulations applying
at the time the land was designated as a PD district;
or at the option of the applicant, compliance with
such regulations currently in effect~ ~~..-~-~-~ ~-~..~
8.5.6.3 VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED APPLICATION PLANS
Variations in site development plans and subdivision
plats from approved application plans may be permitted
by the director of planning and community development
upon a finding that such variations are: generally in
keeping with the spirit and concept of the approved
application plans; in accordance with the
comprehensive plan; and in accordance with regulations
currently in effect. Changes other than permitted
herein shall be made only by rezoning application.
8.5.6.4
BUILDING PERMITS, GRADING PERMITS
After PD designation, no building permit including
special footings and foundation permits
=-cr=i.~ shall be issued in such district prior to
approval of site development plans or subdivision
plats for the development of the area in which such
permits would apply. In the case of a subdivision
plat, the director of planninq and community
development may authorize issuance of a grading permit
for road construction upon approval of road plans by
the director of enqineering or the Virqinia Department
of Transportation as the case may be.
CHAPTER 10.0, RURAL AREAS DISTRICT~ RA
10.3
APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT
Amend and reenact Subsections 10.3.1 and 10.3.2 to read as
follows:
10.3.1
CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Regulations in section 10.5 governing development by
right shall apply to the division of a parcel into
five (5) or fewer lots of less than twenty-one (21)
acres in area and to the location of five (5) or fewer
dwelling units on any parcel in existence at the time
of adoption of this ordinance; Drcv!-c- thut
(reference sections 1.3 and 6.5.3). 4~--The aggregate
acreage devoted to such lots or development shall not
exceed thirty-one (31) acres, except in such case
where this aggregate acreage limitation is precluded
by other provisions of this ordinance. }lcr --hall uuck
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
M.B. 42, Pg. 179
div~-''-- right= in .... ~ ca=c '"~--- _"vi=ion ri~ht?-
=~=~___~ ........................... ~ .............
ncrc. The second sentence of this Drovision shall not
be applicable to land divided between the effective
date of this ordinance (reference sections 1.3 and
6.5.3) and November 8, 1989.
10.3.2 In addition to the foregoing, there shall
be permitted by right any division of land into
parcels each of which shall be twenty-one (21) acres
or more in area. No such parcel shall be included in
determining the number of parcels which may be created
by right pursuant to section 10.3.1; provided that (a)
no such division shall affect the number of parcels
which may be divided pursuant to section 10.3.1; (b)
there may be located not more than one (1) dwelling
unit on any parcel created pursuant to this section;
(c) at the time of any such division, the owner of the
parcel so divided shall designate the number of
parcels into which each parcel so divided may be
further divided pursuant to section 10.3.1 together
with aggregate acreage limitations in accordance with
section 10.3.1; and (d) no such division shall
increase the number of parcels which may be created
pursuant to section 10.3.1.
C}La_PTER 12.0, VILLAGE RESIDeNtIAL - ~
12.4
BONUS FACTORS (REFERENCE 2.4)
Amend and reenact Subsection 12.4.1 to read as follows:
12.4.1
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
For maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to:
ten (10) percent to nineteen (19) percent of the site,
a density increase of five (5) percent shall be
granted; twenty (20) percent or greater of the site, a
density increase of ten (10) percent shall be granted.
In order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation
plan as specified in section 32 °.2.3 32.7.9 shall be
required.
For provision of significant landscaping in the form
of street trees as specified in section 32.~.{ 32.7.9,
a density increase of five (5) percent shall be
granted. This bonus shall not be granted if existing
trees along road frontages have been needlessly
removed.
CHAPTER 13.0, RESIDENTIAL - R-1
Amend and reenact Section 13.1 to read as follows:
13.1
INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
This district (hereafter referred to as R-l) is
created to establish a plan implementation zone that:
-Recognizes the existence of previously established
low density residential districts in rural arca=,
communities and the urban area;
-Provides incentives for clustering of development and
provision of locational, environmental and development
amenities; and
-Provides for low density residential development in
community areas and the urban area _. '.:..crc ci_..cr
R-1 districts may be permitted within community and
urban area locations designated on the comprehensive
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
M.B. 42, Pg. 180
whore ....... ~ ility --- = .........
13.4
BONUS FACTORS (REFERENCE 2.4)
Amend and reenact Subsection 13.4.1 to read as follows:
13.4.1
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
For maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to:
ten (10) percent to nineteen (19) percent of the site,
a density increase of five (5) percent shall be
granted; twenty (20) percent or greater of the site, a
density increase of ten (10) percent shall be granted.
In order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation
plan as specified in section 32.~.2.3 32.7.9 shall be
required.
For provision of significant landscaping in the form
of street trees as specified in section 32.2.~ 32.7.9,
a density increase of five (5) percent shall be
granted. This bonus shall not be granted if existing
trees along road frontages have been needlessly
removed.
CHAPTER 14.0, RESIDENTIAL - R-2
Amend and Reenact Section 14.1 to read as follows:
14.1
INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
This district (hereafter referred to as R-2) is
created to establish a plan implementation zone that:
-Provides a potential transition density between
higher and lower density areas established through
previous development and/or zoning in conununity areas
and the urban area; and
-Provides incentives for clustering of development and
provision of locational, environmental and development
amenities.
R-2 districts may be permitted within community and
urban area locations designated on the comprehensive
...~- .-m .......... u ~crvlccc :re
14.4
BONUS FACTORS (REFERENCE 2.4)
Amend and reenact Subsection 14.4.1 to read as follows:
14.4.1
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
For maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to:
ten (10) percent to nineteen (19) percent of the site,
a density increase of five (5) percent shall be
granted; twenty (20) percent or greater of the site, a
density increase of ten (10) percent shall be granted.
In order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation
plan as specified in section 32.8.2.3 32.7.9 shall be
required.
For provision of significant landscaping in the form
of street trees as specified in section ~2.2.{ 32.7.9,
a density increase of five (5) percent shall be
granted. This bonus shall not be granted if existing
trees along road frontages have been needlessly
removed.
CHAPTER 15.0, RESIDENTIAL - R-4
Amend and Reenact Section 15.1 to read as follows:
15.1
INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
This district (hereafter referred to as R-4) is
created to establish a plan implementation zone that:
-Provides for compact, medium-density, single-family
developmenti~-~ pl~nnc~ rc=i_cn_i~_ =rc== ..ay!n- ~
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
M.B. 42, Pg. 181
-Permits a variety of housing types; and
-Provides incentives for clustering of development and
provision of locational, environmental, and
development amenities.
R-4 districts may be permitted within community and
urban area locations designated on the comprehensive
plan _. in
.... un- ---c:;-cr=-c utility =cr'.'icc= =re
Amend and reenact Subsection 15.4.1 to read as follows:
15.4.1
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
For maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to:
ten (10) percent to nineteen (19) percent of the site,
a density increase of five (5) percent shall be
granted; twenty (20) percent or greater of the site, a
density increase of ten (10) percent shall be granted.
In order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation
plan as specified in section 32.~.2.3 32.7.9 shall be
required.
CHAPTER 16 . 0 , RESIDENTIAL - R-6
Amend and reenact Section 16.1 to read as follows:
16.1
INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
R-6 districts are hereby created and may hereafter be
established by amendment to the zoning map to provide
a plan implementation zone that:
-Provides for compact, medium-density residential
developmen ~-~ ~.-~- ~-"~-~ ~ ~ -" ~-
facilitic~ ~ ..~= ..... ~_ ~_ ~ .-4
-Permits a variety of housing types; and
-Provides incentives for clustering of development and
provision of locational, environmental and
developmental amenities.
R-6 districts may be permitted within community and
urban area locations recommended for medium-density
residential use in the comprehensive plan~ , in
...,~-- ,-4 .......... ~ utility ..... ~--- --- rc==c~ab~-'~
=raj!able tc thc =itc.
16.4
BONUS FACTORS (REFERENCE 2.4)
Amend end reenact Subsection 16.4.1 to read as follows:
16.4.1
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
For maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to:
ten (10) percent to nineteen (19) percent of the site,
a density increase of five (5) percent shall be
granted; twenty (20) percent or ~reater of the site, a
density increase of ten (10) percent shall be granted.
In order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation
plan as specified in section 32.~.2.3 32.7.9 shall be
required.
Amend and reenact Section 16.8 to read as follows:
16.8
HEIGHT REGULATIONS
Except as otherwise provided in section 4.10, ~
~tructures may be erected to a height of thirty-five
(35) feet .... i~c"= =7 ....... ~ ~--- -c~cr= =~ ---
~ -- cc~;~n!c=_icn tc~cr= _..cfr
Septen~er 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
M.B. 42, Pg. 182
CHAPTER 17.0, RESIDENTIAL - R-10
Amend and reenact Section 17.1 to read as follows:
17.1
INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
R-10 districts are hereby created and may hereafter be
established by amendment to the zoning map to provide
a plan implementation zone that:
-Provides for compact, medium-density residential
development~ ar~= ..~vln- ~dc-u~t~
.aci.i.ic= -- - ................. -
-Permits a variety of housing types; and
-Provides incentives for clustering of development and
provision of locational, environmental and
developmental amenities.
R-10 districts may be permitted within the community
and urban area locationsfcc
- --
....... = ................... u=c ir. des nated
on the comprehensive an_. ,
---c~-.'crn-c~ utility zcrv!cc= ~-rc
17.4
BONUS FACTORS (REFERENCE 2.4)
Amend and reenact subsection 17.4.1 to read as follows:
17.4.1
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
For maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to:
ten (10) percent to nineteen (19) percent of the site,
a density increase of five (5) percent shall be
granted; twenty (20) percent or greater of the site, a
density increase of ten (10) percent shall be granted.
In order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation
plan as specified in section ~2.~.2.3 32.7.9 shall be
required.
Amend and reenact Section 17.8 to read as follows:
17.8
HEIGHT REGULATIONS
Except as otherwise provided in section 4.10,
~_tructures may be erected to a height not to exceed
sixty-five (65) feet; provided that any structure
exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height shall be set
back from any street right-of-way or single-f~m'[ily
residential or agricultural district~ in addition to
minimum yard requirements, a distance of not less than
two (2) feet for each one (1) foot of height in excess
of thirty-five (35) feet.
~--cvc
-CL:.-- ·., -CC
CHAPTER 18.0, RESIDENTIAL - R-15
Amend and reenact Section 18.1 to read as follows:
18.1
INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
R-15 districts are hereby created and may hereafter be
established by amendment to the zoning map to provide
a plan implementation zone that:
-Provides for compact, high-density residential
development~ in arcac ..~vin- ~ ........
~~-- ~.nd uti!it!c= ~i...!n thc
-Permits a variety of housing types; and
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
M.B. 42, Pg. 183
-Provides incentives for clustering of development and
provision of locational, environmental and
developmental amenities.
R-15 districts may be permitted within the community
and urban area locations rccc=~cn~c~ for high ~cn=ity
rc=i_cn,iu.~ ~ ~ in ~..c designated on the comprehensive
.......... ...c
18.4
BONUS FACTORS (REFERENCE 2.4)
Amen4 end reenact Subsection 18.~.1 to read as follows:
18.4.1
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
For maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to:
ten (10) percent to nineteen (19) percent of the site,
a density increase of five (5) percent shall be
granted; twenty (20) percent or greater of the site, a
density increase of ten (10) percent shall be granted.
In order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation
plan as specified in section 32.~.2.3 32.7.9 shall be
required.
Amend end reenact Section 18.8 to read as follows:
18.8
HEIGHT REGULATIONS
Except as otherwise provided in section 4.10,
~tructures may be erected to a height not to exceed e~
sixty-five (65) feet; provided that any structure
exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height shall be set
back from any street right-of-way or single-family
residential or agricultural district; in addition to
minimnm yard requirements, a distance of not less than
two (2) feet for each one (1) foot of height in excess
of thirty-five (35) feet. Chin~ncy=,
CHAPTER 19.0, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPI~ENT - PRD
Repeal existing len~ua~e in Section 19.7 end adopt new
len~uage as set out below:
19.7
HEIGHT REGULATIONS
Except as otherwise provided in section 4.10,
structures may be erected to a height not to exceed
sixty-five (65) feet; provided that any structure
exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height shall be set
back from any street right-of-way or single-family
residential or agricultural district; in addition to
minimum yard requirements, a distance of not less than
two (2) feet for each one (1) foot of heiqht in excess
of thirty-five (35) feet.
CHAPTER 20 . 0 , PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - P~D
20.8 REGULATIONS ~OVERNIN~ RESIDENTIAL AREAS
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
M.B. 42, Pg. 184
Repeal existing language in Subsection 20.8.4 and adopt the
following language in its place:
20.8.4
HEIGHT REGULATIONS
Except as otherwise provided in section 4.10,
structures may be erected to a height not to exceed
sixty-five (65) feet; provided that any structure
exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height shall be set
back from any street right-of-way or single-family
residential or agricultural district~ in addition to
minimum yard requirements, a distance of not less than
two (2) feet for each one (1) foot of height in excess
of thirty-five (35) feet.
CHAPTER 21.0, CO~RCIAL DISTRICTS - ~ENERALL¥
Repeal existing language ~n Section 21.4 and adopt the
following language in its place:
21.4
HEIGHT REGULATIONS
Except as otherwise provided in section 4.10,
structures may be erected to a height not to exceed
sixty-five (65) feet; provided that any structure
exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height shall be set
back from any street right-of-way or single-family
residential or agricultural district; in addition to
minimum yard requirements, a distance of not less than
two (2) feet for each one (1) foot of height in excess
of thirty-five (35) feet.
Amend and reenact Section 21.6 to read as ~ollows:
21.6
MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA
See section 32.8 32.7.9 for landscaping and screening
requirements.
21.7
MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS
Amend and reenact Subsection 21.7.3 to read as follow~:
21.7.3 Buffer zone adjacent to residential and
rural areas districts: No construction activity
including grading or clearing of vegetation shall
occur closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential
or rural areas district. Screening shat1 be provided
as required in section 32.~ 32.7.9.
Except· the commission may waive this requirement in a
particular case where it has been demonstrated that
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
M.B. 42, Pg. 185
grading or clearing is necessary or would result in an
improved site design, provided that:
a. Minimum screening requirements are met; and
b. Existing landscaping in excess of minimum
requirements is substantially restored.
CHAPTER 22.0, C~RCIAL - C- 1
Amend and reenact Section 22.1 to read as follows:
22.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
C-1 districts are hereby created and may hereafter be
established by amendment to the zoning map to permit
selected retail sales, service and public use
establishments which are primarily oriented to central
business concentrations. It is intended that C-1
districts be established only within the urban area,
communities and villages in the comprehensive plan.
thi= _i=.ric~ - " ",
22.2 PERMITTED USES
22.2.1 BY RIGHT
Amend and reenact Subsection 22.2.1.b.22 to read as follows:
b. 22. Automobile, truck repair shop excluding
body shop.
22.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Amend and reenact Subsection 22.2.2.10 to read as follows:
10. Cc.~..--..crcin! u--c= c...cr:-.'i---c = ................. ~ -
Drive-in windows servinq or associated with
permitted uses.
Add new Subsection 22.2.2.12 read/ng as fQ~lows:
12. Body shoD.
CHAPTER 23.0, CO~RCIAL OFFICE - CO
23.2 PERMITTED USES
23.2.1 BY RIGHT
A~d new Subsection 23.2.1.12 reading as follows:
12. Day care, child care or nursery facility
(reference 5.1.6) .
CHAPTER 2~.~, HI~HWAX CO~RCIAL - HC
24.2 PERMITTED USES
24.2.1 BY RIGHT
Amend and reenact Subsection 24.2.1.41 to read as follows:
41. 'Jr.l::: ='-'-ch u Uses permitted by right pursuant
__to arc c_..cr:;'!--c ~-rcv~'=c_~ ~ in =u-:cc-ich 2~..2.2,
........ -'~ in subsection 22.2.1~ of section
22.0, commercial, C-1.
24.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Amend and reenact Subsection 24.2.2.13 to read as follows:
Drive-in windows servinq or associated with
permitted uses.
CHAPTER 25.~, PLANNED DEVELOPmeNT - SHOPPING CENTERS - PD-SC
25.2 PERMITTED USES
25.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
M.B. 42, Pg. 186
Amend and reenact Subsection 25.2.2.4 to read as follows:
~rive-in windows serving or associated with
permitted uses.
Amend end reenact Section 25.3 to read as follows:
25.3
AREA REQUIRED FOR CREATION OF PD-SC DISTRICTS
Minimum and maximum areas required for the creation of
PD-SC districts shall be as follows:
Village/Neighborhood center
Community center
Regional center
Minimum Maximum
i ~ acres less than ~
5 acres
5 ~ acres less than 30
acres
30 acres ---
25.4 SITE PLANNING - EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS
Amend and reenact Subsection 25.4.1 to read as follows:
25.4.1
VEHICULAR ACCESS
Vehicular access points shall be designed to encourage
smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movements
and minimum hazards to vehicular and pedestrian
traffic. Pavement widths and strengths of both
internal and external roads shall be adequate to
accommodate projected traffic generated from the
district ,,_~ ......... ~.A =~cc!flc~!!y -rovi_c_ ~"
Primary access shall be provided from roads of
adequate available capacity to accommodate projected
traffic. Vehicular access from minor streets through
residential neighborhoods shall be generally
discouraged and where permitted shall be primarily for
the convenience of residential areas served directly
by such roads and not for general public access.
CHAPTER 26.0, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
Amend and reenact Section 26.6 by repealing existing
language, and adopting new language in its place, as follows:
26.6
HEIGHT REGULATIONS
Except as otherwise provided in section 4.10,
structures may be erected to a height not to exceed
sixty-five (65) feet; provided that any structure
exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height shall be set
back from any street right-of-way or single-family
residential or a~ricultural district; in addition to
minimum yard requirements, a distance of not less than
two (2) feet for each one (1) foot of height in excess
of thirty-five (35) feet.
.Amend and reenact Section 26.9 to read as follows:
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
M.B. 42, Pg. 187
26.9
MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA
See section 32,$ 32.7.9 for landscaping and screening
requirements.
26.10 MINiMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS
Amend and reenact Subsection 26.10.3 to read as follows:
26.10.3 Buffer zone adjacent to residential and
rural areas districts: No construction activity
including grading or clearing of vegetation shall
occur closer than thirty (30) feet to any residential
or rural areas district. Screening shall be provided
as required in section 32.~ 32.7.9.
Except, the commission may waive this requirement in a
particular case where it has been demonstrated that
grading or clearing is necessary or would result in an
improved site design, provided that:
a. Minimum screening requirements are met; and
Existing landscaping in excess of minimum
requirements is substantially restored.
30.0 OVERLAY DISTRICTS
Amend, reenact end repeal certain sections of Section 30.5,
all as follows:
30.5
SCENIC AR~A~ STREAMS OVERLAY DISTRICT - ~A SS
30.5.1 INTENT
This scenic ~ streams overlay district (hereafter
referred to as ~A SS.) is created to conserve elements
of the county's scenic beauty as are contained along
scenic waterways~ ~nd =canlc ..i-..~a-r=. Any
development undertaken, rezoning request or new use
adjacent to or within any designated scenic
streams overlay district which is subject to review by
any officer or employee of the county shall be
reviewed in accordance with the objectives of such
designation as provided by law.
30.5.2
APPLICATION
F~A SS overlay districts may be applied over any basic
zoning district or other overlay district.
30.5.2.!
~A- SS. streem overlay districts shall be applied to
the following:
The entire length of the Moormans River from the
bottom of the Charlottesville Water Supply Dam at
Sugar Hollow to the confluence of the Moormans River
with the Mechum River.
30.5.3 ZONING MAP
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
M.B. 42, Pg. 188
The zoning administrator shall cause ~A SS overlay
districts to be shown on copies of the zoning map.
30.5.5
PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT AND SPECIAL PERMIT
30.5.5.1 Within an adopted ~A SS. overlay district,
uses shall he permitted as for and subject to the
district regulations of basic and/or other overlay
districts as cited in section 30.5.2, except as
hereinafter expressly provided.
30.5.5.2 Within the immediate environs of any
stream designated in section 30.5.2.~, no person shall
commence any use involving the construction of any
structure, the cutting of any living tree over six (6)
inches caliper measured at six (6) inches above ground
level, or the grading or other like physical
alterations of the i~ediate environs of such stream
except as follows:
The cutting or removal of any such tree as may
be necessary to prevent the obstruction of such
stream, to eliminate a danger to the health,
safety and welfare of any citizen of the county;
b. Fences;
c. Maintain existing fords and bridges;
d. The following uses by special use permit only:
1. Navigational and drainage aids;
2. Flood warning aids and devices;
3. Water monitoring devices;
4. Bank erosion structures;
5. Boat docks, piers, wharves;
Bridges, causeways and other similar
structures designed for pedestrian and/or
vehicular access; provided that the board
of supervisors shall find, by clear and
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
M.B. 42, Pg. 189
convincing evidence, in addition to the
findings required by section 31.2.4.1,
that:
(a)
such bridge or other structure is to
be located at the site of an
existing bridge, ford or other
stream crossing;
(b)
such existing crossing is regularly
used, and such bridge or other
structure is to be used, as to the
sole means of access to one or more
existing, lawfully occupied
dwellings;
(c)
no alternative means of access to
such dwellings is physically
practicable;
(d)
no such alternative means of access
has been abandoned, aligned or
otherwise relinquished by the
voluntary act or omission of the
owner of the land upon which such
dwellings are located since December
10, 1980;
(e)
such bridge or other structure is
necessary to prevent, eliminate or
substantially alleviate a hazard to
the life or property of any resident
of the county;
(f)
such bridge or other structure is so
designed as to pose the minimum
practical disruption of the environ-
ment of the stream consistent with
the other provisions hereof; and
(g)
such bridge or other structure shall
comply with all applicable state and
federal law including, but not
limited to, Chapters 3.5, 7, 8, 9
and 20 of Title 62.1 of the Code of
Virginia (1950), as amended, to the
extent that any or all of the same
may be applicable in a particular
case.
Uses and structures immediately appurtenant and
necessary to the foregoing.
30.5.5.3 For purposes of this section, the term
"immediate environs" shall include the bed of any such
stream and the land on either side thereof to a
distance of fifteen (15) feet from the edge of such at
mean annual flow level.
30.5.6
AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS AND OPTIONS FOR BONUS
FACTORS
Area and bulk regulations and options for bonus
factors shall be as for and subject to the district
regulations of the underlying basic and/or other
overlay districts as cited in section 30.5.2, except
that the following limitations shall apply:
Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, no
buildings or structures other than necessary accessory
appurtenant fences and/or walls shall be constructed
within sixty-five (65) feet of the edge of any
designated stream at mean annual flow level. In
addition, within sixty-five (65) feet of the edge of
any designated stream at mean annual flow level, there
shall be no excessive cutting of any forested area.
Any such forested area shall be deemed to have been
excessively cut if, as a result of any cutting
operation or series or combination of operations, the
area of the canopy of such forested area shall be
reduced by more than twenty-five (25) percent on any
one parcel of land as determined by reference to
aerial photographs of such area, provided that any
cutting not prohibited by this section shall be done
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
M.B. 42, Pg. 190
in such a manner as to maintain insofar as possible a
uniform density of trees throughout the entire portion
of any land parcel affected hereunder. Each such
photograph shall be in existence at the time of the
adoption of this section and shall be clearly marked
by the director of planning as reference material for
this section. Area within any such district may be
part of a lot and countable for purposes of area,
density and yard requirements unless otherwise pro-
hibited within this ordinance.
30.5.5.3
30.6
30.6.2
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT - EC
Amend and reenact Subsection 30.6.2 to read as follows:
APPLICATION
The entrance corridor overlay district (hereafter
referred to as EC) is created to conserve elements of
the county's scenic beauty and to preserve and protect
corridors:
-Along arterial streets or highways (as designated
pursuant to Title 33.1 of the Code, including section
33.1-41.1 of that title) found by the board of
supervisors to be significant routes of tourist access
to the county; or
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
M.B. 42, Pg. 191
-To historic landmarks as established by the Virginia
Landmarks Commission together with any other buildings
or structures within the county having an important
historic, architectural or cultural interest and any
historic areas within the county as defined by section
15.1-430(b) of the Code of Virginia; or
-To designated historic landmarks, buildings,
structures or districts in any contiguous locality.
EC overlay districts may be applied over any basic
zoning district and/or other overlay district.
~,_~ .... a ~uildin~ ........ rc~u!=ticnc cf
=~ z- EC
overlay districts are hereby established=
ao
To the full depth of all parcels of land in
existence on the adoption date of section 30.6
of this ordinance which are contiguous to the
rights-of-way of the following EC streets in
Albemarle County; or
To a depth of five hundred (500) feet from the
rights-of-way, whichever shall be greater, along
the following EC streets in Albemarle County:
1. U.S. Route 250 East.
2. U.S. Route 29 North.
3. U.S. Route 29 South.
4. Virginia Route 20 South.
Virginia Route 631 South from
Charlottesville City limits to Route 708.
6. U.S. Route 250 West.
7. Virginia Route 6.
8. Virginia Route 151.
9. Interstate Route 64.
10. Virginia Route 20 North.
11. Virginia Route 22.
12. Virginia Route 53.
13. Virginia Route 231.
14. Virginia Route 240.
15. U.S. Route 29 Business.
16. U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass.
17. Virginia Route 654. (Added 11-14-90)
18. Virginia Route 742. (Added 11-14-90)
30.6.3
PERMITTED USES
Amend and reenact Subsection 30.6.3.2.b by repealing the
existing language and adopting the following language in its
place:
30.6.3.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Outdoor storaqe, display and/or sales serving or
associated with permitted uses, any portion of
which would be visible from an EC street;
provided that review shall be limited to the
intent of this section. Residential,
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
M.B. 42, Pg. 192
agricultural and forestal uses shall be exempt
from this provision.
ARTICLE IV. PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 31.0, ADMINISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT AND INTERPRETATION
31.2 PERMITS
Amend and reenact Section 31.2.3 end n,,mher the first
paragraph thereof as subsection 31.2.3.1, then add new subsections
31.2.3.2 and 31.2.3.3, all to read as follows:
31.2.3
CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY; ZONING COMPLIANCE CLEARANCE
31.2.3.1 It shall be unlawful to use or permit the
use of any building or premises, or part thereof,
hereafter created, erected, changed, converted,
altered or enlarged, wholly or partly in its use or
structure, until a certificate of occupancy shall have
been issued therefor by the zoning administrator.
Such certificate shall show that such building,
premises or part thereof, and the proposed use thereof
is in conformity with the provisions of this =cction
ordinance; provided that where structures are
completed and ready for occupancy prior to the
completion of all improvements required by the site
development plan, and the zoning administrator shall
determine that the site may be occupied consistently
with the public health, safety and welfare, the owner
may provide bond with surety adequate to guarantee the
completion by ti=c ccr,=i~ within a period not to
exceed one (1) year of such site development plan
improvements as related to the building for which the
permit is sought, and upon the providing of such bond
with surety, a permit may be issued for the occupancy
of those structures already completed. The board of
supervisors may extend such period of bonding provided
hereinabove upon demonstration by the applicant of
adverse weather conditions or other extreme
circumstance beyond the control of the applicant as
opposed to lack of industry or exercise of good faith
on behalf of the applicant.
Improvements deemed directly related to health and
safety such as fire hydrants and safe and convenient
access to public roads shall not be bonded and
occupancy shall not be permitted until such
improvements have been installed and are operational.
The zoning administrator is authorized to accept
instead of corporate surety, letter of credit, joint
savings account or other like security.
31.2.3.2 Subsequent to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy by the zoninq administrator as set forth in
section 31.2.3.1 hereinabove, it shall be unlawful to
use or permit the use of any building or premises in a
manner more intensive than described on such issued
certificate or to chanqe the use of any building or
premises contrary to such issued certificate, until
the zoning administrator shall issue a zoning
compliance clearance for such intensification or
change of use. Such clearance shall show that such
buildinq, premises or part thereof, and the proposed
use thereof is in conformity with the provisions of
this ordinance.
31.2.3.3 The provisions of sections 31.2.3.1 and
31.2.3.2 notwithstanding, nothinq contained herein
shall be deemed to obligate the zoning administrator,
followinq review of any building or premises, to issu~
a certificate of occupancy or zoning compliance
clearance in any case in which the zoning
administrator determines that additional improvement~
are necessary as precedent to such issuance to protect
the public health or safety, whether or not such
improvements are shown on the approved site
development plan.
Agenda Item No. 10. Request to set a public hearing to eliminate the
"no rental" condition from all special use permits previously issued for
mobile homes.
Mr. Tucker said currently requests for mobile homes require a special
use permits and are handled administratively if there are no objections from
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
M.B. 42, Pg. 193
the public, or are heard by the Board of Supervisors if there is any
objection. Historically, Board approval has been on the condition that the
mobile home is not rented and the mobile home is owner-applicant, or occupied
by an immediate family member. This condition has not been required on
administrative approvals. In view of the Board's recent denial of ZTA-91-05
which would have limited occupants of a mobile home to the owner of the
property or a lineal relative of the owner, the inconsistency between
administrative and Board approved mobile homes remains a problem. The County
Attorney has advised the Zoning Administrator that the condition prohibiting
rental of the mobile home is unenforceable. Staff recommends that the Board
pass a Resolution of Intent to amend previously approved special use permits
for mobile homes by removing the condition restricting no rental and
occupancy, and set a public hearing for October 14, 1992.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to set a public hearing
for October 14, 1992 to eliminate the "no rental" condition from all special
use permits previously issued for mobile homes.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and motion carried by
the following recorded vote=
AYES= Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS= None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Appropriation: Special Education Preschool Program
(deferred from September 2).
Mr. Tucker said this appropriation continues a Special Education Pre-
School Program grant to provide and enhance services to County pre-school
children with special needs. The County, which is required by law to provide
services to three to six year old children with an identified disability,
operates a pre-school program at several locations throughout the City and
County. The 36 children, depending on their special needs, may attend a self-
contained classroom at either Woodbrook or Murray Elementary Schools, or may
be main-streamed at one of several child-care centers, Westminster Child-Care
Center being a newly added facility this year. This grant is used to
supplement the basic teaching services already being provided by the County at
these locations. The line-item for Salaries-Teacher ($41,725) pays for the
services of a .5 full-time occupational therapist and a .7 full-time speech
therapist, to travel to whatever location their services are needed. A part-
time teaching aide provides five hours per week assistance to the speech
therapist. Other costs of the program include professional services ($1,880)
to contract for required psychological testing, and pupil tuition ($13,680)
which covers the cost of eight children now attending the Westminster Day-Care
Program. Staff recommends the appropriation of these grant funds for the
Special Education Pre-School Program.
Mrs. Humphris said she asked at the September 2 Board meeting the
amounts for the teacher and the amount for private tuition. She is glad she
asked those questions because the Board received information that she feels
enlightening since it has been her experience that most people in the County
do not realize that the County is mandated to fund a program for children with
special needs between the ages of three and six.
Mr. Perkins made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation for $72,490 to continue a Special
Education Pre-School Program Grant to provide and enhance services to County
pre-school children with special needs. (Form #920011)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES= Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS= None.
FISCAL YEAR .-
NUMBER .-
FUND:
PURPOSE=
1992/93
920011
Grant
Special Education Preschool Grant
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1320561108112100
1320561108114100
1320561108210000
1320561108221000
1320561108232000
1320561108312700
1320561108342000
1320561108390100
1320561108601300
1320561108800100
SALARIES-TEACHER
SALARIES-TEACHING AIDE
FICA
RETIREMENT
DENTAL
PROF SERVICES-CONSULTANT
TRANSPORTATION-PRIVATE CARRIER
PUPIL TUITION-PRIVATE
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
$ 41,725.00
2,250.00
3,364.00
3,241.00
42.00
1,880.00
1,500.00
13,680.00
2,008.00
2,800.00
TOTAL $ 72,490.00
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32) f
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
M.B. 42, Pg. 194
2~IO~
2320533000330111
SPECIAL EDUCATION-PRESCHOOL $ 72~490.00
TOTAL $ ?2,490.00
2).
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Information Options (deferred from September
(Mr. St. John left the room at 7=51 p.m.)
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report=
"BACK, ROIleD= As requested at the September 9 Board meeting,
sheets have been provided outlining the various options available
to Albemarle County to provide a more effective public information
program.
DISCUSSION= The spreadsheet (copy on file) is broken down into
two major sections, those options that have no direct costs and
those that would require an actual commitment of funds. Although
the first section of options do not require an additional
expenditure of funds, it is implicit in the list of staff hours
that there are indirect costs in redirecting staff time from other
projects.
The spreadsheet also attempts to list the options in some order of
time commitment or cost. However, prioritizing the options in this
way is an extremely difficult and imprecise exercise, due to the
diversity of the projects, i.e., publishing an agenda or a two
paragraph public service announcement may only take four staff
hours, while researching, writing and publishing an article on a
land use issue may consume eight to twenty hours. Equally diverse
is direct mail or newsletters, whose costs and time are dependent
on the subject matter, graphic and design requirements, paper
quality, distribution methods, etc.
RECO~NDATION= Ail of the options presented on these two sheets
reflect positive ways to increase public awareness of County
policies and activities. The decision is which options will be
the most effective and which options will be within the time
constraints of current staff, as well as the fiscal constraints of
the current budget. With this in mind, staff recommends pursuing
the following options=
%1.
Dial-In Agenda/Board Actions. This can be
implemented with limited staff time and no cost.
Will reach those citizens who are interested.
Agenda/Board Actions in publications, such as
Real Estate Weekly, and The Charlottesville
Business Journal. Limited staff time and no
direct cost.
%6.
Notices/articles in tax bills and the Police
Department's Community Alert Newsletter. Begin
to supplement with short articles and notices
depending on staff time. No direct costs.
Press Releases/PSA's. Begin to increase number
of press releases by providing training and
assistance to departments in the preparation and
distribution of relevant media information.
Call-in Radio Show. The Board could consider
implementing this option before the budget
public hearing in March to determine public
interest and participation in this type of
program.
Channel 10 Com~u~ityBulletin Board. Announcing
important dates and events can be done through this
medium with little staff time and no cost. Limited
audience.
#11.
PublishA~endas. Expand the mailing list to include
neighborhood associations. This does not require
additional staff time~ costs are a minimum
$1,260/year.
Publish a display ad in the Daily Progress for the
Board's day meeting agenda. Requires minimum staff
time at a cost of $2,160/year.
#13.
Alb-m~rle Guide. Send copies of Albemarle Guide to
new County residents, newly registered voters and new
businesses. Minimum staff time at a cost of
$700/year.
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
M.B. 42, Pg. 195
By taking these steps, the County will at least move forward in a
variety of media directions to provide public information to its
citizens. At the end of a specified time period, perhaps a year,
some form of a citizen survey should be utilized to determine if
and where public access to County information is a problem. Any
identified problems or gaps may then need to be addressed by some
of the other information options."
(Mr. St. John returned to the room at 7=56 p.m.)
Mr. Bowerman asked what percentage of County citizens would be notified
if two mailings per year were done with the assessments and two mailings that
same month with the utility bills. Mr. Tucker said he would estimate 60 to 75
percent.
Mr. Bain said sending a brochure twice a year is not much and thinks
quarterly would be better. He likes the idea of using the Real Estate Weekly
because it is free and could be done monthly. He feels the more frequently
citizens can be made aware of Board activities the better. He would like to
see if something could be done besides just sending out the agenda, i.e.,
legislative actions taken, budget, zoning actions or land use actions, so that
there is a dissemination of a lot of different types of information.
Mrs. Humphris said if the County took advantage of a lot of the options
at no cost, it does not actually mean that there will be no cost because there
is obviously staff time and effort that is required. She asked if there is
staff available. Mr. Tucker said it depends on how often these things would
be done.
Mrs. Humphris said she would like to see this information provided in a
spreadsheet format. She would like to see the recommendation, cost, number of
people that would be reached, number of times per year and variables spread
out. That way there could be a bottom line for everything, i.e., staff time
and indirect costs. She would be able to make an informed decision because
the lists could be compared. She then asked what was covered in the cost for
the full-time public information officer. Mr. Tucker said the $30,000 to
$45,000 includes the individual's salar~ as well as operating and material
costs. Staff is not promoting any of these but wanted to give a full range of
options.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to expand on Mrs. Humphris comments and
have staff look at the current resources it has, look at various options which
have been presented and put together a package that would reach the most
citizens for the lowest cost, at the lowest staff time and most efficient
method.
Mr. Martin said he would like to narrow it down even further by doing
the spreadsheet Mrs. Humphris spoke about, and doing some of those things that
are of no or little cost. If that was done approximately 10 percent of the
recommendations would be deleted. If three or four recommendations are
implemented the Board would be doing a better job because currently nothing is
being done. Mr. Bowerman said he agrees.
Mr. Perkins asked who receives Bits and Pieces. Mr. Tucker said Bits
and Pieces is done by the Personnel Department and goes to County employees at
the end of the month.
Mr. Martin asked if persons receiving Board agendas had to pay for them.
Mr. Tucker replied "no," agendas are mailed free to the public. Mr. Martin
said that may also be something that could be advertised.
Mr. Tucker said staff will try to have some information back to the
Board by October 7, 1992 in the form of a spreadsheet and estimated costs.
Agenda Item No. 13. FY '93-94 Budget Priorities (deferred from
September 2).
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report=
"BACKGROUND= The topic of FY '93-94 budget priorities is being
brought to you for discussion at this time in order to provide
some guidance to staff in the upcoming budget process.
DISCUSSION= As some of you may remember, the idea or concept that
the Board might wish to set budget priorities or goals prior to
the development and finalization of the County Executive's budget
in January has been discussed on previous occasions, although no
consensus has been reached on the Board's need or desire to do
this°
Similar in concept to setting out a strategic plan for County
goals and objectives, identifying program priorities early on in
the budget process would insure that Board concerns are addressed
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
M.B. 42, Pg. 196
in the yearly budget preparation. This goal-setting process is
not intended to set expenditure or revenue limits or guidelines,
but only pertains to the discussion and setting of priorities for
department and community programs and concerns.
Second to staff's concern that the Board may want to discuss this
is that the public may also wish to have earlier input into budget
priorities before the County Executive's budget is presented to
the Board in March. To provide this opportunity for public input,
the public hearing normally scheduled in March for the County
Executive's recommended budget could be scheduled at the beginning
of the budget process in November.
In addition, the Board may also wish to discuss the fiscal
guidelines for the FY '93-94 budget. Such guidelines have been
provided by the Audit Conunittee in the past.
RECOMMENDATION: If the Board is interested in looking at program
priorities for the next budget year, staff will develop some
options and recommendations for Board discussion at the October
meeting. If the Board is also interested in moving the first
public hearing on the budget back from March to November in order
to get public input on program priorities before the recommended
budget is completed, staff will begin to develop the budget
schedule with that in mind."
Mr. Bain asked when the Board will receive the Capital Improvements
Program (CIP). Mr. Tucker said hopefully the Board will hold a work session
on the CIP in October and take action on same in December. Mr. Bain said his
priority is going to be the housing issue and funding in the CIP if there is
some additional revenues from operations. He would like to get the Housing
Report from the Planning Commission in time for the Board to take some action
in the next fiscal year. He likes the idea of discussing budget priorities
and getting public input at the beginning of the process.
Mrs. Humphris thought this was a good recommendation.
Mr. Martin said the School Board has done this in the past three or four
years and some good ideas have resulted. The School Board discusses what the
general priorities might be, then holds a public hearing and staff brings back
a budget based on the public input. Mr. Bowerman suggested that if the School
Board continues to do that, this Board not discuss issues relative to
Educations' budget. Board members concurred.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Tucker will have revenue projections on
October 7, 1992. Mr. Tucker said "yes," if not, he will have them in early
November.
Mr. Bowerman asked if retail figures for the County were down, like they
were in the City of Charlottesville for 1991. Mr. Tucker said "no," not to
the same magnitude. The sales tax was down slightly, but compared to
projections the County did better.
There was a consensus of the Board that staff provide revenue
projections to the Board on October 7, 1992. In addition it was the consensus
of the Board that if a public hearing is scheduled, that it be "heavily"
advertised.
Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: October 2 and November 13,
1991.
Mr. Bain said he read the minutes of October 2, 1991 and with the
exception of some typographical errors, they were in order.
Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris to approve the minutes
of October 2, 1991. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINED: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Cilimberg give a report to the Board regarding the
Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Cilimberg said as the Board previously indicated an
interest in having a consultant look at the possibility of a western extension
of Meadow Creek Parkway to Airport Road. The consultant has been working with
that and has some alignments that have been identified. The consultants
allowed in the budget funds for a second public information meeting to report
on that western extension. This hearing can probably be done by early
October. The consultants indicated they would then provide a position paper
September 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 417 Pg. 197
(Page 35)
and recommendations after that information meeting on their basic findings.
The Board could then schedule a public hearing either jointly with the
Planning Commission or send the recommendation back to the Commission for it
to hold public hearing and forward a recommendation to this Board. The board
would then have an opportunity to express any concerns which would be
forwarded to the consultant to be addressed.
Mrs. Humphris asked what the format would be for the meeting. Mr.
Cilimberg said the format would probably be a general display as has been done
in the past. Mrs. Humphris said she does not feel this works properly because
the people who attend do not know the questions to ask and cannot read maps
very well. She feels if a public information meeting is to be held there
should be a presentation and not just a display for people to look at. Mr.
Cilimberg said that this could be done. He said there could be a general
display and then a presentation time by the consultants.
Mr. Martin said he feels the project should be presented to the Board
with the public invited to attend. The public would know the Board's thoughts
as opposed to having something that the public has no idea about. Mr.
Bowerman said he feels the presentation should be jointly with the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg com~ented that the consultant may be able to, in their
reconunendations, recommend a phasing plan and a time frame.
Mr. Perkins asked who planned to attend the annual Virginia Association
of Counties (VACo) meeting. All Board members indicated they planned to
attend~
Mr. Bain asked if a joint meeting with City Council has been scheduled.
Mr. Tucker said a meeting will be scheduled for either October 9th or October
16th, 1992.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board was suppose to receive a report in July on
how the brush on Berkmar Drive would be disposed of. Mr. Tucker said the
brush will either be chipped or taken to the Landfill.
Mrs. Humphris said she received a phone call from someone who was
interested in donating an easement for the Rivanna River Greenway. She asked
who this person should contact. Mr. Tucker said if he could get the name,
staff would get in touch with the person.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn to September 16, 1992, 4:30 P.M.
At 8:40 p.m. Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adjourn to
September 16, 1992, 4:30 p.m. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.