Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission debates steep‑slope ordinance; staff recommends more work and committee may withdraw proposal
Summary
A planning‑commission subcommittee presented a draft steep‑slope development ordinance. Staff reviewed the draft and DEQ/building code overlaps and said existing chapter 14 rules and building‑permit/engineered plan requirements already address many slope concerns; commissioners generally agreed to have the subcommittee or
The Planning Commission discussed a proposed new steep‑slope ordinance (case ZOADash09Dash25Dash01) at a Sept. 17 workshop, but staff and several commissioners said the county27s existing regulations and building‑permit requirements already address many of the technical issues raised by the draft and that the proposal requires further refinement.
Planning staff (Alan) said he and the county27s erosion and sediment control administrator reviewed the draft and compared it with existing county Chapter 14 rules and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations. He said the draft contains useful elements but that “if we want to adopt this ordinance, we still have a lot of wood to chop,” noting overlap with DEQ and existing building‑code processes.
Nathan, who worked on the planning commission subcommittee, said the committee examined surrounding counties27 ordinances and that Albemarle County27s rules are notably more restrictive; other jurisdictions generally restrict development on slopes of roughly 25% or steeper. Commissioners discussed different approaches: (1) a permissive approach that requires engineered plans, E&S permits and DEQ reviews for building on slopes (similar to how the county handles shrink–swell soils), or (2) a prohibitive approach that limits or disallows building above a specified steepness. Several members argued that many technical controls (engineered foundations, septic alternatives, stormwater requirements) are already enforced when a permit application triggers DEQ, health department and building‑permit reviews.
Commissioners weighed property‑rights concerns and practical enforcement issues. One commissioner pointed out that many older lots and subdivisions predate zoning and asked whether an ordinance could or should limit previously platted lots; staff said grandfathering and legal implications would have to be considered. Jamie, the county building official, noted that building permits already require engineers27 plans for challenging soils and slopes and that “someone27s hanging their career on those plans,” meaning the current permit review imposes professional responsibility on engineers.
By the end of the discussion the commissioners signaled they were inclined to have the standing committee re‑evaluate the draft and possibly withdraw it for further work. Two commissioners said they would take the item to their board on Tuesday for a consensus and that the subcommittee did not object to pausing the ordinance effort pending further review.
