The purpose of Article 72-5 and the various sections and subsections
set forth herein is to establish community standards for development
in the City, to assure the development of land in an orderly fashion
in harmony with existing and planned patterns within the community,
to improve the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens;
to develop community centers with adequate highway, utility, health,
educational and recreational facilities; to provide residential areas
with health surroundings for family life; and to ensure that the growth
of the community will be consonant with the efficient and economical
use of public funds.
A.
General. Except where otherwise expressly stated, the standards in
Article 72-5 apply to all development in the City, as well as to all
rights-of-way.
B.
Time of review. Compliance with the development standards set forth
in Article 72-5 shall also be required:
C.
Existing development.
(1)
Review for compliance with the standards in Article 72-5 shall
take place as part of the review of an application for approval of
a site plan, subdivision, planned development, cluster development,
special use permit, special exception zoning permit, or other development
approval required by this chapter, as may be applicable in a particular
situation.
(2)
The requirements of this Article shall not apply to any development
that is the subject of a site plan, or a recorded subdivision plat,
approved prior to October 8, 2013.
A.
Subdivision names. New subdivisions shall be identified by the name
by which the intended subdivision is to be known. Names shall not
duplicate or closely approximate names already in use in Fredericksburg,
Spotsylvania County or Stafford County. The proposed name shall be
reviewed for approval by the Geographic Information System Manager,
the Emergency Communications Center Supervisor, and the Fire Marshal.
B.
Street names. New streets shall be identified by the name by which
they are intended to be known. Names shall not duplicate or closely
approximate names already in use in the City. The proposed names shall
be reviewed for approval by the Geographic Information System Manager,
the Emergency Communications Center Supervisor, and the Fire Marshal.
A.
Materials, dimensions, and construction details for monuments and
corners on streets shall be in accordance with VDOT requirements.
B.
All other lot corners shall be marked with solid metal pins not less
than 5/8 inch in diameter and 24 inches long and driven so as to be
flush with the finished grade. When rock is encountered, the solid
metal monument shall be set in a hole drilled at least one-half inch
deep in the rock.
[Added 4-27-2021 by Ord. No. 21-08]
A.
Purpose
and intent. The purpose of this section is to identify, evaluate,
preserve, excavate, and interpret archaeological resources located
within the City of Fredericksburg during the process of land development
in order to promote the general welfare, education, and economic well-being
of the City and to disseminate archaeological and historical data.
B.
A reconnaissance
(Phase IA) archaeological report shall be required for any development
that requires major site plan approval. The developer shall submit
the report for review with the major site plan application. In the
alternative, the developer may begin the application process with
a Phase IB, II, or III study.
(1)
The
reconnaissance report process shall be completed by an archaeologist.
(2)
Tasks
included in the reconnaissance study shall include a background literature
and records review at the City of Fredericksburg and the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources (DHR), archival research as appropriate,
field study, and preparation of a report.
(3)
Associated
field studies shall include a visual inspection of the property including
documentation through photography, written notes, and mapping.
(4)
The
archaeologist shall perform limited subsurface investigation as part
of the reconnaissance when he or she deems necessary. In those instances,
the following standards apply: (a) excavation shall include a minimum
of two judgmentally placed shovel test pits to assess soil integrity
and the potential for intact archaeological deposits; (b) shovel test
pits shall be no smaller than 15 inches in diameter, excavated at
intervals no greater than 50 feet, and will continue to sterile subsoil,
if possible; (c) all soils from shovel test pits must be screened
through one-fourth-inch hardware cloth and all materials retained
for analysis. Recovered artifacts are the property of the landowner.
(5)
Data gathered during the background review, archival research, and field study shall be incorporated in a report that meets the DHR's guidelines for technical documents. The report shall be reviewed by an individual meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards as part of the major site plan application through the process set forth in § 72-26.1C.
(6)
If
the Zoning Administrator finds, after review of the reconnaissance
report, that an archaeological site does not exist or that no significant
archaeological resources will be adversely affected by the development,
the major site plan application may proceed through the remainder
of the review process.
(7)
When
the Zoning Administrator finds, after review of the reconnaissance
report, that an archaeological site may exist and that significant
archaeological resources may be adversely affected by the development,
the Zoning Administrator shall request an identification-level survey
(Phase IB) accompanied by archival research, as needed. The identification-level
survey shall meet DHR guidelines for archaeological studies and include
one of the following subsurface studies as approved by the Zoning
Administrator: (a) the excavation of systematic shovel test pits at
a maximum of fifty-foot intervals; (b) the excavation of systematic
shovel test pits using a close-interval grid (ten- or twenty-five-foot
intervals); (c) the excavation of backhoe trenches in areas with the
potential to contain features; or (d) the excavation of sample test
units. Soils removed during the fieldwork shall be screened through
one-fourth-inch mesh as meets state guidelines, and all artifacts
shall be analyzed. The results of the archival research and fieldwork
shall be included in an identification-level report and submitted
to the Zoning Administrator for review.
(8)
If
the Zoning Administrator finds, after review of the identification-level
(Phase IB) archaeological field survey, that an archaeological site
exists and is likely to be significant, and that the project will
adversely impact the site, then he or she may require the applicant
to submit Phase II evaluation testing or Phase III data recovery,
as appropriate.
(a)
The major site plan shall incorporate mitigation measures to preserve
or accommodate archaeological resources, such as avoidance or recovery,
reduction in the size or scope of land-disturbing activities, or the
implementation of other mitigation measures as recommended by the
archaeologist, to the degree possible.
(b)
Should avoidance not be achievable, a memorandum of agreement shall
be executed between the Zoning Administrator and the developer to
outline the steps required to meet this section. The memorandum of
agreement shall be prepared in accordance with DHR procedures, and
shall include an archaeological scope of work developed in consultation
with an archaeologist.
(c)
Failure to implement mitigation measures in accordance with the memorandum
of agreement shall constitute a violation of this chapter subject
to § 72-72.
(d)
The Zoning Administrator may approve the major site plan application
before the completion of the required Phase II or Phase III investigations,
only if feasible and consistent with the purposes of this section
and upon ratification of a memorandum of agreement.
(9)
If unexpected archaeological resources are discovered on the development site after approval of the major site plan without the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures, then the Zoning Administrator shall issue an order to cease and desist all development activity in the affected area for up to seven days in order to develop and implement mitigation measures that meet the criteria in Subsection B(8)(b).
C.
The administrator
shall waive the requirement for a Phase IA archaeological report after
determining that a site is unlikely to contain archaeological resources
based on a finding that:
(1)
The
site is assessed or predicted to have a low, medium-low, or medium
probability of yielding archaeological resources as determined by
application of the City's archaeological assessment and predictive
model;
(2)
The
site has been previously graded or disturbed to the extent and in
a manner that would significantly diminish the research or public
value of archaeological resources on the site, as evidenced by existing
site features, historic aerial photography, or other documentation;
D.
Upon receipt of an application for a development that requires a minor site plan, residential lot grading plan, or certificate of appropriateness, within an area designated as medium-high or high priority, the Zoning Administrator shall evaluate the development to determine if an archaeological site is likely to exist and if significant archaeological resources may be adversely affected by the development. The Zoning Administrator is authorized to monitor the site during approved land-disturbing activities. If the Zoning Administrator identifies archaeological resources, then he or she shall issue an order to cease and desist all development activity in the affected area for up to seven days in order to evaluate the deposits and develop and implement mitigation measures that meet the criteria in Subsection A.
E.
The reports
and field surveys required under this section shall conform to the
criteria established in the Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources
Survey in Virginia published by DHR.
F.
Determinations
of the significance of archaeological resources shall be made on the
following criteria:
(1)
Research
value. The extent to which the archaeological data that might be located
in the development area would contribute to the expansion of knowledge
of that type of resource.
(2)
Rarity.
The degree of uniqueness of the resources in the development area
and their potential for providing archaeological information about
a person, building, structure, event, or historical process, for which
there are few examples in the Fredericksburg area.
(3)
Public
value. The level of importance that archaeological resources in the
development area possess due to association with a significant person,
building, structure, event or historical process.
(4)
Site
integrity. The extent to which soil stratigraphy and original placement
and condition of archaeological resources in the development area
have not been disturbed or altered in a manner which appreciably reduces
their research or public value.
(5)
Presence
of materials. The extent to which archaeological resources or evidence
of historic buildings or structures are present in the development
area.
(6)
Impact
upon resources. The extent to which any proposed land-disturbing activities
will alter or destroy archaeological resources which have archaeological
data potential.
