Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Build To Width Conflict topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local builders say build-to-width rule conflicts with maximum building width on some lots
Summary
A Charlottesville builder described a technical conflict between a 65% build-to-width minimum and a 60-foot maximum building width that can make compliance impossible on certain lot widths, and urged code language clarifications and a fix for how townhouses are counted.
A local builder told Charlottesville’s Planning Commission that a pair of numerical rules in the city’s development code can clash on established lots, producing outcomes that require special exceptions.
Eric Swart of Evergreen Home Builders told the listening session that the code’s 65% build-to-width minimum and a 60-foot building-width maximum are inconsistent for some lots. "The build two width minimum of 65% ... and the building width maximum of 60 ft," Swart said, describing a 95-foot lot that could not comply with both requirements. He asked staff to consider adding a maximum-width clarification or other language to resolve the conflict.
Swart also described a disagreement over whether three attached townhouses should be treated as a single building for massing rules, citing massing section 2.10.10.8.3.b (which allows abutting buildings that are structurally independent). He said his project was told the rowhouses counted as one building, creating the width problem.
Why it matters: Staff and developers said the build-to requirement was intended to encourage subdividing larger parcels into smaller lots, but stakeholders said the rule assumes greenfield conditions and can produce impractical results in an older city with established, large lots. The commission sought concrete examples and said staff requested affected parties email specific parcels to show where subdivision is technically infeasible.
Staff response and next steps: Staff acknowledged the tension and asked builders to provide parcel-specific examples so technical fixes can be drafted. Staff noted the intent is to promote smaller lots in new development but admitted the rule is producing complications in established neighborhoods and large historic lots.
What residents raised: Other speakers connected build-to/massing issues to broader neighborhood concerns — including preservation and neighborhood fit — and commissioners asked staff to look for faster fixes that would avoid forcing applicants into costly special-exception processes.
Ending: Staff asked developers and neighbors to send examples and technical details by email and promised to log the issues for the cleanup process.
