I would like to do away with the development of substandard lots altogether but I am afraid that is not a dominant view in the community.

I wish I had more luck stopping pipestems. But, again, people hate them until they are threatened with being taken away — then the homewoners come out of the woodwork to defend their right to develop their properties.

Again, great job Dan!

Rob, it is your right to disagree, but of all of the things that could be said of the City’s handling of Zoning since the adoption of the 1959 [!] code, knee-jerk would have to be the most inapplicable.

knee-jerk adj (informal disapproving)
1. given or occurring immediately and automatically, without thinking, and usually expressing habitual attitude or prejudice
2. tending to respond in the same way to any situation

Andy, these are some of the very questions that will be addressed and which are being discussed in the ZOAC (and by the Supreme Court decision). The very short version of the history is that the 1944 Zoning Ordinance required 50′ average width, but the 1959 code changed it to 60′ but provided a “grandfather” clause. Until 2003, there were no instances of development of these lots, when apparently the entire linguistic history of Western Civilization was erased by the founding of Google or something.

Basically, the lot requirements are for area and width (now measured at the front setback line). R-1A requires 75′ width and 11,250sf area, while R-1B requires 60′ and 7,500. Setback or yard requirements are different as well: 40′/30′ rear, 15′/10′ side and 25-30′ minimum in the front (but not less than the average of the neighboring houses, another issue to debate). Are these the right numbers? Perhaps not, but the fundamental question is whether an individual property owner should decide these things or whether there should be regulations applied to the use of land based on community standards. I say as a neighbor I have a property right in these regulations that needs to be weighed against the rights of owners to do as they please, and that we need to all get together and figure something out.

More broadly, the issue for the City is the cost of increased single family development. Our fiscal model suggests strongly that the government service cost is more than the expected tax revenue, and unlike larger developments where developers pay proffers for school capital and other infrastructure costs, the local government has no power to charge the costs to the source. It is true that school population has fluctuated widely over the decades, but there is no question that a measurable part of the recent increase in population is attributable to added single family homes, and we know that the capital cost of adding a seat to our schools is $50,000 (MEH cost $30M for 600 seats).

From a high level it sounds like this… someone owns a lot that is “sub-standard” – which means (as far as I can tell) that it isn’t big enough (or shaped right) to allow construction of a building that would meet existing building standards.

If the building standards were in place before the owner came to own the property then shouldn’t they be out of luck if they want to build something on it?

I can see a problem where an owner has new rules applied to them – because it would reduce (maybe significantly) the value of their land. Is that the root of this problem – that long-time owners are having the value of their land reduced by *new* limits being placed on them?

Many of you know that I unsuccessfully sued the City in 2006 regarding the exact issue of the prior construction of a home straddling a substandard lot line. There have been about eight decisions of the VA Supreme Court in recent years upholding the principal that anything the City chooses to do (some of which I agreed with and some not) would not be overturned judicially. I could not believe our good fortune when Mr. Schefer (rest his soul) sued to challenge the ordinance, and again when the VA Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, which I had every expectation would result in a decision not just sustaining the specific action we took, but also approving the principal that local governments have very broad power to regulate land use. Now we need to summon the political will to use those tools to match our rhetoric about neighborhood preservation.

About two years ago the Council embarked on a comprehensive zoning re-write, appointing a Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC) whose members have been meeting publicly with staff more than monthly. Staff and ZOAC are nearing completion of a public comment draft package, and then we expect to have hearings devoted to the residential and commercial code issues and eventually adopt a 21st Century Zoning Ordinance. I have more to say on the specific issues surrounding our neighborhood (ie residential) zones, but for now I am encouraged by the willingness of the ZOAC to tackle these issues in a meaningful way. While the residential issues are important and will be contentious, the real heart of the endeavor is to produce better tools for economic development to implement our Comprehensive Plan (which is also set for its five year refresh in 2010).

There are many issues with these infills especially water run off which occur with sub standard and standard lots. Too many times contractors put in drainage, bury the pipes and have the run off go into neighbors yards. This practice has been around for years and unknown too many residents their run offs are flooding out their neighbors yards.

The City has tried to address this with additional drainage and rain gardens, but we need to look at a more integrated approach of City and residents working together to address excessive run off especially as we enter into mosquito season.

The language in our code allows substandard lots to be developed “if they cannot be reasonably combined with other property to meet minimum size requirements” — yet the City allows people to split off a substandard lot and develop it…. how can you argue that it cannot be combined if it WAS combined with another piece of property? I am not against infill (if it is done right) but I maybe City needs to revise that language to be honest about what they actually allow. Then, ideally, they should consider the impact of more than just height — for instance the current code allows side yard setbacks to be reduced to as little as 7 1/2 feet for a substandard lot — it’s 15 feet for everyone else…..