|
Background
It has recently been noted that the definition for “Lot”
contained in the Zoning Ordinance does not always define a
lot as a legal parcel of record, but rather sometimes allows
an owner to designate the boundaries of a “Lot” regardless
of legal lot lines.
Specifically, Section 15-300 provides the following
definition of “Lot”:
LOT:
For the purpose of this Ordinance, a parcel of land that is
designated at the time of application for a special permit,
a special exception, a building permit or a
residential/non-residential use permit, as a tract all of
which is to be used, developed or built upon as a unit under
single ownership. A parcel of land shall be deemed to be a
lot in accordance with this definition, regardless of
whether the boundaries thereof coincide with the boundaries
of lots or parcels as shown on any map of record. For
purpose of residential development only property under
single ownership divided by a private street or a public
street shall be considered as one lot providing the
following is not involved:
A. The street is not an interstate or primary highway.
B. The street is not a zoning district boundary which
divides the property.
C. The residential development is not proposed as a
conventional development.
This language was added to the Zoning Ordinance in 1981,
with the adoption of the new ordinance. It appears to have
been based on the Fairfax County Ordinance, which was
utilized as a model for the 1981 regulations. The current
Fairfax County definition of “Lot” is similar in many
respects:
LOT:
For the purpose of this Ordinance, a parcel of land that is
designated at the time of application for a special permit,
a special exception, a Building Permit, or
Residential/Non-Residential Use Permit, as a tract all of
which is to be used, developed or built upon as a unit under
single ownership. A parcel of land shall be deemed to be a
lot in accordance with this definition, regardless of
whether or not the boundaries thereof coincide with the
boundaries of lots or parcels as shown on any map of record.
The definition seems to limit the ability to designate a lot
to applications for special permit, special exception,
building permits and residential/non-residential use
permits. The meaning of “residential/non-residential use
permit” is also not entirely clear, as this is not
terminology currently utilized in other locations of the
ordinance. No alternative definition of “Lot” is provided
for the types of applications not listed above (e.g.
subdivisions, site plans).
The purpose of this proposed amendment is to seek
clarification from the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors as to their intent with respect to defining
lots, and to provide clearer language within the ordinance
in support of that intent.
Discussion
The term “Lot” is utilized throughout the ordinance as a
basis for determining various requirements. For example:
density is calculated on a lot by lot basis; yard
requirements establish setbacks from lot lines; landscaping
buffers are required at lot lines; and parking is required
to be on the same lot or an adjacent lot as the
development. Historically, in each of these cases, and
most other cases where the term “lot” is utilized in the
zoning ordinance, “lot” has been interpreted to mean a lot
as recorded in the land records of the County, and various
requirements are calculated on the basis of these legal lots
of record.
The existing definition for “Lot” in the ordinance is
therefore not consistent with its historic application.
Staff is suggesting revised language that establishes the
definition of a “lot” to be a legal lot of record.
The Planning Commission initiated the proposed text
amendment on July 26, 2007. Staff subsequently proposed
additional language be added to the definition to clarify
that where an existing legal lot of record was split by a
public road that such parcel is considered two lots, one on
each side of the street, consistent with longstanding
interpretation of the zoning and subdivision regulations.
The Commission held a
public hearing on the amended text amendment on August 30,
2007 and voted unanimously to recommend approval.
|