COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

AGENDA TITLE:

Subdivision Ordinance – Overlot Grading

 

 

SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:

Update on discussions with Blue Ridge Homebuilders regarding an overlot grading provision being added to the Subdivision Ordinance

 

 

STAFF CONTACT(S):

Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham

 

 

LEGAL REVIEW:   Yes

 

AGENDA DATE:

July 13, 2005

 

ACTION:                                INFORMATION:    X

 

 

CONSENT AGENDA:

  ACTION:                             INFORMATION:   

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:     Yes

 

 

REVIEWED BY:

 

 

 

BACKGROUND:

On April 20, 2005, the Board considered revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance. One of the proposed revisions was an overlot grading requirement, which would regulate grading and drainage on smaller lots in the development area.  This provision proved to be controversial.  Given the controversy, staff suggested tabling this provision and allowing a work team comprised of County staff and Blue Ridge Homebuilder Association members to see if consensus could be reached.  The Board agreed with using this approach and David Wyant agreed to facilitate this effort.  This executive summary is a status report of that team’s work. 

 

STRATEGIC PLAN:

Goal 3.3: Develop and implement policies that address the county's growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the factors that contribute to the quality of life in the county.

 

DISCUSSION:

Since the April 20th Board meeting, the work team has met as a group 4 times and also done considerable work outside of those meetings.  The work team has reached agreement on a number of key provisions, but has not finished its work.  As a result of that work, the team has agreed the lot grading concerns can be addressed without a mandatory overlot grading plan, provided certain precautions can be built into the development review and building inspection process.  Those precautions include:

While the work team has made significant progress, there are remaining issues.  The following are some examples:

requirement is excessive.  Staff continues to believe that significant flows in homeowner’s yards create the perception that the drainage is not working and that perception will result in demands for future Boards to accept responsibility and improve the drainage through expensive retrofits. The team has not reached consensus on what is considered an acceptable flow. 

 

It is anticipated it will take two or three more meetings to resolve the remaining issues and a team recommendation can be presented to the Board by September. 

 

BUDGET IMPACT:

Budget impacts will be considered with the final team recommendation.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

This executive summary is intended as a status report.  If the Board has any guidance to provide the team, David Wyant and staff can carry it back to the team. 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A – Draft guidance on “Safe and Convenient Access”

Return to regular agenda