All,

The following has transpired since I wrote my summary:

Barnes Lawson and I have spent a few hours going over the ordinance changes and he has submitted a letter to the Zoning Administrator asking for clarification. I have gotten some additional information that contradicts the portion of my Lot Coverage Summary that deals with undersized lots. I am emailing Susan Bell and Bob Brosnan to ask about the changes.

Details follow.

Letter to the Zoning Administrator

Barnes and I noted that (a) two sections had somewhat contradictory paragraphs; (b) there was no mention that submitted plans were not subject to the effective date of 11/15/05; and (3) it was unclear how nonconforming homes could be expanded upward.

Undersized Lots

Undersized lots supposedly got relief by being able to assume they had the minimum square footage for the zoning district. My summary says that this applied to the Main Building Footprint (House Footprint) as well as the Overall Coverage and I included a table with figures. The Zoning Administrator now says that this provision (Section 32-C-1-e) applies only to the Main Building Footprint. I just worked up some figures with someone building on an undersized lot in R-8 and found that the relief given for the main building was taken away when the overall coverage percent is applied. I do not have a table showing where the break point is.

I went to the sheets that staff prepared that explain how to calculate coverage and indeed there is wording that indicates what the Zoning Administrator is saying.

Email to Susan Bell and Bob Brosnan

I am concerned that the wording the County Board adopted has been changed subsequent to its adoption. It was my understanding that the Board adopted the wording in the Supplemental, which was a somewhat revised version of the ZORC/NC/Planning Commission document. I left the room after the County Attorney told Walter Tejada that his motion to adopt Option 4 was not OK because there was no Option 4. So I did not hear all of the discussion.

I have downloaded the video of the meeting, but it is a Windows Media Player file that will not play on my Macintosh. I would very much appreciate it if someone (BOB ATKINS?) would volunteer to review the last video segment (which is assume covers the motion and vote) to let me know what the County Board voted.

If the Board did adopt the supplemental, then how did a Section 32-C-1-e get into the ordinance? There is no e in the Supplemental. There also is a conflict of wording in two other sections and no mention that the 11/15/05 effective data does not apply to approved or in-process permits.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS GETTING MORE COMPLICATED.

MARTHA

• House coverage is the area of the footprint of the house, which is determined by calculating the square footage of what rests, directly or indirectly, on the ground. This includes bay-windows with floor space, chimneys, porches, decks four feet or higher above grade, cantilevered decks with horizontal projections that are four feet or more, and covered breezeways connected to the house.

• Overall coverage includes the house, driveway, parking pads, and accessory buildings (such as garages) that are two stories tall or have a footprint of more than 150 square feet.

The table below shows how the above coverage limits are determined.

Lot Size	R-5	R-6	R-8	R-10	R-20
Minimum Lot Size	5,000 sf	6,000 sf	8,000 sf	10,000 sf	20,000 sf
Oversized Lot Size	7,000 sf	8,400 sf	11,200 sf	14,000 sf	28,000 sf
House Footprint	R-5	R-6	R-8	R-10	R-20
Maximum Foorprint %	34%	30%	25%	25%	16%
..�with Front Porch %	37%	33%	28%	28%	19%
Maximum Footprint Size	2,380 sf	2,520 sf	2,800 sf	3,500 sf	4,480 sf
..�with Front Porch	2,590 sf	2,772 sf	3,136 sf	3,920 sf	5,320 sf
Overall Coverage	R-5	R-6	R-8	R-10	R-20
Maximum for Lot %	45%	40%	35%	32%	25%
..�with Front Porch %	48%	43%	38%	35%	28%
..�with Rear Detached Garage %	50%	45%	40%	37%	30%
..�with Front Porch and Rear Detached Garage %	53%	48%	43%	40%	33%

The maximum allowable house coverage and overall coverage varies depending on what zoning district the property is and how large the lot is. An additional 3% more house coverage is allowed for homes with a front porch-a porch that is attached to the front elevation and that has an area of at least 60 square feet on the front of the building, exclusive of any wrap-around or side portion. An additional 5% overall coverage is allowed for homes with a detached rear garage.

• Undersized Lots. About 19% of homeowners have lots that do not have the minimum square footage required for their zoning district. To calculate their house and overall coverage caps, these homeowners should use the "Minimum Lot Size" shown in the table rather than their actual lot size. This produces much higher coverage for small lots. (However setback rules still apply.)

• Oversized Lots. About 12% of Arlington lots fall into the "oversized lot" category employed in the new coverage restrictions for house footprints. These lots are 140% larger than the minimum required for the zoning districts. Homeowners with lots that are as large or larger than the "Oversized Lot Size" shown in the table should refer to the "Maximum Footprint Size" for their house cap. However, to calculate their overall coverage, they should use their actual lot size and the percents shown.

• Standard Lots. To calculate their house and overall coverage caps, homeowners whose lots are neither undersized nor oversized should multiply their actual lot size by the appropriate percentage.

According to an analysis by County staff, about 6.8% of single-family homes are larger than the maximum house footprint now allowed; and about 3.2% of single-family properties exceed the new overall coverage limit. (See Footnote 1 below) Many others are close to the new limits. A certified plat indicating coverage is required for additions.

The County Web site has: