‘Rezoning Ransom’: Repeal cash proffers

This editorial first appeared in The Daily Progress on Sunday March 3, 2013.  The full “Contradictory Consequences” white paper can be found at www.freeenterpriseforum.org under the reports tab.  The Free Enterprise Forum is a privately funded public policy organization focused on local government in the Central Virginia region.

 

By. Neil Williamson, President, Free Enterprise Forum

There are times you have to say no to one thing because you said yes to something else. Such is the case with cash proffers.

If a community believes in citizen vetted comprehensive planning, preserving rural areas by densification of development areas and economic vitality, then such a community must say no to the fatally flawed cash proffer system.

In the recently released “Contradictory Consequences” white paper, the Free Enterprise Forum research and case studies explain the impacts of cash proffers. Sold to the public as a way to make growth pay for itself, the unintended negative economic and planning impacts have caused localities across the Commonwealth to repeal this “rezoning ransom” and replace these funds with more dependable and equitable infrastructure funding options. Today, rather than simply recalibrating their cash proffer calculation, as Albemarle County is doing, full repeal is a much more economically and ecologically sensible and sustainable alternative.

Cash proffers are per unit fees “voluntarily” extracted from applicants seeking to rezone their property. In theory, such “voluntary” proffers would be directly tied to the costs associated with the increased density of a rezoning. In reality, cash proffers lower land values, encourage development contrary to comprehensive plans, and create false hope for outside infrastructure funding.

Lower land values, lower property tax revenue – In concept, cash proffers are voluntary payments made by landowners to mitigate the impacts of changing the prescriptive zoning on their property. The concept works best when the rezoned value exceeds the increased cost of the proffer. Such a symbiotic relationship is difficult to achieve with automatic inflation increasing cash proffers and fickle housing markets not keeping pace.

Albemarle	Single Family Detached $19,753Townhouse $13,432Multi Family $13,996
Charlottesville	No cash proffers
Greene	$5,778 per unit
Fluvanna	$6,577 per unit
Louisa	$4,362 per unit
Nelson	No cash proffers

Basic economic theory indicates any increased cost must be paid by an entity that is a part of the transaction. Many believe the increased cost of a cash proffer will be borne by the end user, the new homebuyer. This can only occur in a housing market that has constant upward motion.

If, due to market conditions, the end user is not available to accept the cost of the cash proffer it is the land owner, whose land will be discounted by the increased entitlement costs that cash proffers create. In turn, such reduced land values reduce the locality’s real estate tax assessed value and revenue (absent an increase in the tax rate).

‘By Right’ Development Encouraged Charlottesville and Albemarle are currently updating their State mandated comprehensive plans. These community vetted plans suggest the manner in which the locality wishes to grow in the next twenty years.

In many, if not most, cases the zoning in a locality’s development area does not match the comprehensive plan designation. While the property owner does not have to agree to the comprehensive plan changes, they cannot act on those new designations until they have rezoned the property. Alternatively, if the land owner chooses to move forward with the existing, some might call “stale”, zoning, which likely does not agree with the locality’s comprehensive plan, they can do so immediately without paying any cash proffers.

In 2011, a developer acquired the rights to a project that included property in The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Charlottesville does not have a cash proffer, while Albemarle’s exceeds $19,000 per single family home. After calculating the increased value of the land with the rezoning in each locality, the developer chose to rezone the property that was in the City (without cash proffers) and chose NOT to rezone the property in the county. This calculated decision was based on calculation of the cost (in money and time) of rezoning the County land exceeded the increase value.

Therefore, the land owner is incentivized to not to follow the community vetted comprehensive plan vision but instead to construct lower density, less thoughtfully designed developments. These projects are built to meet local building and zoning code but absent the enhancements and flexibility a rezoning might allow.

False Financial Hope – Forecasting cash proffer revenue is much like predicting snow in Central Virginia, localities do not know when it is coming, how much they are actually going to get or when it will stop. Cash proffers rarely, if ever, total the amounts localities are banking on.

In November 2012, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was presented a staff report outlining cash proffers that were in excess of $49.3 million dollars quite literally off the chart.

As one looks at this chart (right) and sees almost $50 Million dollars proffered, one might anticipate the cash proffer program is answering the very need it was designed but the Free Enterprise Forum estimates at least 28% of those proffers will never be collected as they are associated with the now defunct Biscuit Run Development.

It is interesting that while the State of Virginia acquired the property for a state park on December 31, 2009, Albemarle County continued to calculate those proffers as receivable in November 2012.

Rural Areas Jeopardized – According to the Piedmont Environmental Council, Albemarle County has in excess of 10,000 units already rezoned for residential development. Why have these not moved forward?

Have the embedded costs of development in Albemarle County, including cash proffers, created a cost burden the market is unable to bear?

If growth trends continue, won’t these embedded costs push residential development out of Albemarle County’s designated growth areas and into the rural areas?

The reality is that cash proffers contribute to the paradigm that rural residential development remains the least expensive, most profitable development option in Albemarle County.

If the cash proffers are pushing development into the rural areas and surrounding localities, what are the community costs of increased traffic, more costly government services delivery, as well as loss of ecologically contributing farmland, and productivity?

Cash proffers have produced a plethora of Contradictory Consequences without achieving significant benefit. Now is the time to repeal this rezoning ransom and replace it with a more sensible and equitable alternative.

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville. The full Contradictory Consequences report can be found at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Greene County BOS Approve Skyline CAP’s Request

By Brent Wilson, Greene County Field Officer

The Greene County  Board of Supervisors approved a request from Skyline CAP, Inc.  to rezone from R-1 to R-2 at their most recent meeting on August 28^th.  This is an increase in residential density per acre, in addition R-2 Residential allows multi-family dwellings by special use permit as opposed to the R-1 Residential only allowing single family dwellings.

The property is located on Jack Russell Lane off Celt Road near the school system in Stanardsville.  As a proffer or offering to the county, Skyline CAP, Inc. will restrict the additional residences to 55 and older.  This was a two step process – first to rezone to R-2 and then secondly to issue a Special Use Permit for a multiple family dwelling.

While the Free Enterprise Forum has no position on this, or any other application.  The Board of Supervisors believed the density change to R-2 in this area fit well with Greene’s Comprehensive Plan.

Affordable housing is a priority which these apartments will fit, especially for the elderly and disabled. Another favorable consideration is the parcel’s location, the apartments are near the town of Stanardsville, banking and shopping. The applicant’s proffering of a resident age restriction (55+) will mitigate any direct impact on the school system and the county funding of schools.

Concurrently with this application, Skyline CAP, Inc. is undertaking its annual survey of needs assessments of its localities. They are surveying both housing needs  and community needs  and are intended to identify the needs housing for seniors, disabled and homeless. The Housing Needs Assessment targets specific questions about what functionality is needed and what type of housing is needed. Within rental housing, it asks that you prioritize potential housing solutions. For home ownership, it asks what issues are most important from weatherproofing to methods of ownership.

While this self selecting survey has the same non scientific balance the Free Enterprise Forum faulted in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) livability survey, we again have decided to encourage folks to participate despite this lack of scientific sampling.

The Community Needs Survey targets employment, education, type of housing, money management and outlines the programs that they offer. Specifically, the survey asks to prioritize employment issues. In regards to education, the survey asks to prioritize types of education vs. child care. Housing issues are listed from lack of housing to knowledge of how to buy a home. Skyline CAP, Inc. was founded in 2009 and has the mission of helping those in need attain self-sufficiency. Here is the mission statement of Skyline CAP……

The agency is organized and operated as a not for profit corporation exclusively for community service activities including education and charitable purposes. Specifically, the purpose is to advance the general welfare and conditions of low income, elderly and/or disadvantaged person by providing programs and services that shall promote, develop and encourage activities and means to improve housing, educational and literacy needs. And further, will help low income families and individuals move out of poverty and help to alleviate the conditions associated with poverty; and to that d, sponsor, support, promote and undertake safe, affordable housing projects, education projects and other services to include the designated Counties of Greene, Orange, Madison, and in the future, contiguous counties that may be without community action services, without regard to race, religion, and national origin.

The Free Enterprise Forum believes Skyline Cap is a part of the affordable housing solution we wrote about earlier this week in a Daily Progress Guest Editorial.

——————————————–

Brent Wilson is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.

The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

“New Normal” Demands a New Affordable Housing Diagnosis

This editorial first appeared in The Daily Progress on Sunday, August 26, 2012

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By Neil Williamson, President, Free Enterprise Forum

Over the years, Central Virginia localities have attempted to address the need for affordable shelter in a variety of ways.  Every locality is mandated by the Code of Virginia to have an “Affordable Housing” chapter in their comprehensive plan. The Albemarle County Planning Commission is discussing their plan on Tuesday, August 28^th.

The Free Enterprise Forum believes the state mandate for an affordable housing chapter in comprehensive plans is both out-of-date and has created a myopic view of housing.  We encourage the Commonwealth and localities to use a wider lens and seek to understand how local actions, proffer requirements and regulations impact housing affordability across all price points.

The Free Enterprise Forum believes affordable housing must include the region’s significant affordable rental opportunities in addition to affordable for purchase housing.  Housing policy needs to be timely and comprehensive in addressing the needs of residents at all ages, income levels, and lifestyles.

While each locality is different in its approach, the Free Enterprise Forum believes there has been a misplaced emphasis on the supply side of affordable housing; we contend in most localities there could be an ample supply of affordable housing choices if financing and regulatory hurdles could be removed.

Further, as many of these policies were first written at the top of the housing bubble, it would be wise to revisit the concepts and the assumptions with the “new normal” in mind. 

If there is any lesson learned from the latest housing crash, it is that not everyone needs to, or should be, a homeowner.  Homeownership is of great value to a community but it is not for everyone.  National housing experts seem to agree 60-65% homeownership is sustainable.    Most of our localities already exceed this measure. 

What is each locality’s homeownership goal? 

Should a locality have a goal?

Source US Census 2010

It is important to note that the City of Charlottesville’s percentage of homeownership is significantly lower than the neighboring localities. 

Is this a bad thing?

Much of the City’s housing is rental student housing.  The University of Virginia generally houses just 30% of its full-time students on grounds.  The balance fills rental opportunities in both the City of Charlottesville and to a lesser extent the urban ring of Albemarle County. In addition, the compact design and availability of public transit increase viability of city rentals.

For the purposes of this discussion, affordable is defined as dwelling units with a monthly cost equal or less than 30% of the household income at 80% of area median income.  If we use an annual median income of $50,000, 80% of that income is $40,000 which suggests a budget of $1,200 a month for shelter (30%*40,000).  Albemarle County currently defines affordable as “Maximum sales price of $211,250.  Rents would be determined based on bedroom size and tenant-paid utilities; ex. 2br $1,029 maximum with owner paying all utilities”

Failure of Financing – The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) provides financing for the vast majority of “affordable” buyers.  The FHA is reluctant to finance condominium purchases, wary of the restrictions placed on property owners holding such property.  This regulatory roulette keeps many families off what could be their first step on the homeownership ladder.

A recent property search of the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) Multiple Listing Service (MLS) resulted in 582 properties being listed at $175,000 or less.  When condominiums were eliminated from the search, the number of properties available dropped by more than 18% to 473.  If FHA financing regulations were reduced, the number of truly affordable units for purchase would increase without building one “new” unit.

Down Payment Catch 22 – Down payment assistance money is being left on the table.   Financing issues are by far the most difficult to conquer.  Despite interest rates being at a historic low point, the number of folks who can qualify for a mortgage in the current market is relatively small.

With this difficulty of folks being able to qualify for mortgage financing because of  tightening of credit terms, the unintended result is the inability of down payment assistance funds to be distributed to those in need.  In order to qualify for the assistance, applicants must not exceed certain income limits and such a limited income (and a low credit score) will not qualify for the needed underlying mortgage financing.

Cost of “Public Services” Harms Affordability – Most planners agree locating affordable shelter near services makes for more efficient delivery of such services.  To build in such “development areas” requires the unit to hook up to public water and sewer.  The cost of these hook ups is $10,000 each in Greene County (slightly lower in the other localities). 

When presented with this question last year, Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Executive Director Gary O’Connell said that the ACSA is about building and maintaining infrastructure as well as providing water and sewer service efficiently to its customers; affordable housing is not an ACSA issue.

Cost of Community Design Harms Affordability – Many of the localities have pursued a complete street philosophy regarding new neighborhood construction.  A complete street may include curb, gutter, bike lane, on street parking, street trees and a sidewalk.  Each of these mandated amenities comes at a cost, making the delivery of affordable housing even more challenging.

Overlapping/Conflicting Agency Responsibilities Harms Affordability – Super agencies such as Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) often have overlapping jurisdiction with localities and each other, the additional time it takes to sort out this alphabet soup of regulators adds time and cost to every project.

Rental Stock Blinders – While the state code is very clear that rental housing is a part of the housing equation and several localities include the use of “affordable housing” proffers on rental assistance, rarely is such housing considered when calculating the availability of affordable housing.  

A recent review of the Blue Ridge Apartment Council website showed 158 properties currently available for rental under $850 a month.  While no such rental database exists for the outlying counties, it is reasonable to assume a significant portion of the affordable housing in those communities is being provided by private landlords both with and without the use of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) vouchers.  Comprehensive plans must recognize the significant role affordable rental stock has on the market.  In addition, localities should embrace the property owner community and build bridges to better serve these important taxpayers and service providers.

As localities prepare their five-year revisions of their comprehensive plans, the Free Enterprise Forum has several questions related to their housing policies:

• What is the locality’s goal percentage of owner occupied housing and why?
• What is a sustainable rate of homeownership?
• Is rental stock considered a part of the locality’s affordable housing inventory?
• How is the locality helping property owners achieve affordability?
• What is the level of community investment dedicated to affordable housing?
• Is the locality providing financial literacy training?
• If new affordable housing stock is created how will is stay affordable?
• Should dwelling units be distributed equally throughout the community or should they be focused close to services (transit, employment opportunities etc.)?
• Some of the affordable housing stock is of low quality.  This makes it less desirable for purchase and more expensive to maintain.  Can/should affordable housing policies include incentives to upgrade, or replace, substandard housing stock?
• Can, and should, localities forgive or reduce required fees on new affordable housing creation?

Just as the housing market is dynamic, the discussion of affordability must be an ongoing conversation.  The Free Enterprise Forum welcomes an open, comprehensive discussion regarding how to best support our community’s housing goals.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene,

FCI’s Greene County Development Proposal Narrowly Approved, 3-2

By Pauline Hovey, Field Officer

After a two-hour public hearing on Tuesday (2/28) evening, the Greene County Board of Supervisors approved, by a vote of 3-2, a controversial planned unit development (PUD) on Route 29 north that will bring townhomes to Greene County.

“This will put us in a unique market position that nobody’s serving right now,” Steve Jones, chief operating officer of Fried Companies, Inc., said after the meeting. “We think this is a better project that will provide more market diversity. There already are many single family options out there.”

The applicant BlueMarle LLC/Missus LLC/Fried Companies’ had requested a rezoning that would allow the developer to change its model from an approved 800 unit by-right subdivision to a PUD of 1,180 dwelling units, to include no more than 600 single family homes and 580 townhomes. This request has raised the ire and interest of local residents and businesses over the past several months, attested by the standing-room-only crowd that turned out for the public hearing.

Of particular interest here and in the Board’s recent denial of Greenecroft’s application to amend proffers is that both decisions are in opposition to the Planning Commission’s recommendations. The Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval of Greenecroft’s request, which also would have brought townhomes to the county and created less controversy among residents, and unanimously recommended denial of the BlueMarle/Fried Companies’ request.

About a dozen people on either side of the issue addressed the board, with many local business owners supporting the rezoning request because of the anticipated increase in their business and boon to the local economy the additional homes would bring. Referring to Fried Companies’ proposal to build the additional 380 homes over a 20-year period, Alan Pyle, owner of The Lafayette Inn in Stanardsville, said, “The question is, what do we have to gain for the extra 19 new homes per year?” Pyle noted the developer already has approval for 800 by-right homes on that site, so the traffic will increase regardless. But, he argued, if supervisors did not approve this PUD, they would not only not receive needed proffers but would eventually pass on the county’s water and sewer financial needs to taxpayers.

Pyle’s sentiments were echoed by other business interests such as the owners of the local Dunkin Donuts, Fabio’s Restaurant, and Anytime Fitness; Jim Kuznar of the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association; Harry Daniel, principal of the Greene County Tech Center; and Don Pamenter representing the Economic Development Authority board.

Those speaking against the rezoning were concerned about the additional traffic, the condition and safety of Preddy Creek Road, the increased need for fire and rescue services, the impact on the school system, and the county’s growing water and sewer needs. Some suggested the board take time to consider all options, including additional proffers, before approving the request.

“The capacity of the sewer plant will be reached without these additional homes,” warned Andrea Wilkinson, of the Ruckersville Citizens Council.

Former supervisor Carl Schmitt had several issues with the proposal, including the unneeded increased residential potential, noting that Greene County “is second only to Albemarle in population density,” and the public water supply. “We don’t even have the permit application approved yet,” he said of the water impoundment project. “Few people appreciate the difficult situation we’re in.”

Based on the number of townhomes expected to be built as a result of the rezoning, the applicant estimates the county will receive $7.6 million in tap fees. This amount is based on Greene’s current $20,000 combined water and sewer hookup fees. Proffers offered are $1.6 million in transportation improvements, three acres of land dedicated to public use, $570,000 in cash, and $1,500 per single family unit for the first three units. The developer is proffering a connector road running east to west, from Preddy Creek Road at its intersection with Autumn Oaks Lane through the development emptying onto Route 29. Although Jones said they would build the connector road, which was recommended in a traffic impact study, before any homes are constructed, the road is contingent upon VDOT’s approval of a traffic signal and entrance location on Route 29. Jones argued it would relieve the congestion on Matthew Mill Road that residents experience during commuter hours. “VDOT supports this connector road and is on record as saying the improvements they’re making to 607 will not be enough to alleviate traffic,” he said.

But local residents challenged that claim and many were particularly concerned about adding any vehicles to the already dangerous Preddy Creek Road—the site of numerous accidents and a few deaths. Greg Krystyniak, a licensed engineer and resident, expressed concern about the road’s current condition and suggested more proffers were needed to fix the road before allowing any increased traffic.

After the lengthy hearing, Supervisors Eddied Deane (at-large) and David Cox (Monroe) voted without hesitation to approve the project. Chairman Buggs Peyton (Stanardsville), despite noting some positive considerations about the project, voted against it, as did Supervisor Davis Lamb (Ruckersville).

When the vote came to Supervisor Jim Frydl (Midway), he wavered before approving the project. When the Free Enterprise Forum asked him later about his hesitation, Frydl said, “I thought it was the least bad of two bad choices. It was a tradeoff for the county to get some things we need from this decision and obtain more than we’ll lose. With the sewer plant debt looming and the future water impoundment, this will help offset payments. We’ll get 15 to 20 water sewer taps at a time with the townhomes.”

At the same time, Frydl is concerned about the board not following any written cash proffer policy and handling this on an individual basis. “It’s setting a precedent, making it difficult to make such decisions in the future,” he said.

———————————————–

Pauline Hovey is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.

The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credits: Greene County

Budget Woes Arrive in Fluvanna; Ullenbruch’s Support Erodes

By William J. Des Rochers, Fluvanna Field Officer

Well that did not take long. Just a week after Fluvanna County’s draft budget was announced, the fractures in the Budget Committee presentation appeared, with one committee member – new supervisor Bob Ullenbruch (Palmyra) backpedalling from his support for spending cuts and a large tax increase.

During the February 15^th Board of Supervisors meeting, at which there was a paucity of substantive action, some budgetary outlines did emerge. Subsequent conversations showed even more fissures.

Both supervisors Don Weaver (Cunningham) and Ullenbruch opposed establishing a capital reserve fund that would allow for planned replacement and repair of county facilities and equipment. This was one of the more novel additions to the Capital Improvement Plan by the Budget Committee and is designed to institute a more professional approach to county management.

Mr. Weaver introduced a number of other budget cut proposals to the Board that would drastically reduce the need for major tax increase, but the supervisors took no action on his proposal. Mr. Ullenbruch sought to introduce into this budget operational funding necessary to support future capital improvement projects beyond FY 2013. Chairman Shaun Kenney politely informed him that such expenditures would be irrelevant until such time as the projects are undertaken.

Subsequent conversations with government officials revealed heightened frustration with the turn of events. Instead of working from an endorsed budget committee proposal to the supervisors, the backtracking began almost immediately. For example, small cuts to constitutional officers — less than $100,000 — now may be restored if one supervisor gets his way, according to one source.

Moreover there is a strong element of mistrust creeping into the whole process. One supervisor has accused the staff of duplicity, saying he “was duped”, according to a senior official. Moreover, Mr. Ullenbruch has publically informed his colleagues that he “probably knows more about the budget than anyone at this table”. Frequently he also has publically informed the staff that they are wrong on particular points.

Frustration also was evident when Ullenbruch could not get one colleague to support his “government reform committee” proposal. It went beyond the Board of Supervisors’ governing authority and his colleagues returned it to him for further work.

The supervisors will meet with the Fluvanna School Board on February 22^nd for an initial budget discussion.

———————————————–

William Des Rochers is the Fluvanna County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.

The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Despite Greene PC’s Light Agenda, Anticipation High for Future Rezoning Issue

By Pauline Hovey, Greene County Field Officer

If Wednesday night (9/21) was any indication, the Greene County Planning Commission can expect a large turnout at the hearing on Fried Companies’ application for a zoning change to the proposed Rte. 29 Creekside Development. Fried pulled the application weeks before it was scheduled to go before the commission, and the hearing was rescheduled for November 16.

Although the Planning Department posted the change on the county website, some residents hadn’t gotten the news, and a small crowd showed up to protest the developer’s request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Rezoning to a PUD would allow a change in the planned development in Ruckersville from 800 single family homes to 1180 homes, including townhomes.

Ruckersville area residents had been circulating flyers and sending electronic communications anticipating the impact the proposed increase in housing would have on area traffic, schools, and emergency services. People continued to trickle in throughout the meeting, only to discover the application had been deferred.

Commissioners faced an unusually light agenda that evening, due to another miscommunication that caused two requests for special use permits to be rescheduled as well. Despite Planning Director Bart Svoboda’s attempts to contact the local weekly newspaper and ensure the county’s ad announcing the public hearing for the special use permits would run, the newspaper omitted the ad, thus forcing the commission to delay the hearing another 30 days. Chairman Norman Slezak expressed concern about delaying an already lengthy process for those residents requesting special permits, but the county has little recourse when staff are relying on factors outside their control.

As a result, most of the meeting was devoted to a stormwater retrofitting study presented by Leslie Middleton, executive director of the Rivanna River Basin Commission. A team from the commission visited various sites in Greene County to determine how water was running off the land and where and how drainage and removal of pollutants as water flows to streams could be improved. Anticipating the state will prescribe more stringent stormwater regulations, Middleton suggested the county could use this analysis in the future as it applies for grants, considers capital improvement projects, and looks at upgrades and expansions at existing facilities, such as the schools.

____________________________________

Pauline Hovey is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.  If you find this report helpful, please consider supporting the Free Enterprise Forum.  To learn more visit www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Programming the “Livability” GPS

By. Neil Williamson, President

This afternoon (9/20), the Charlottesville City Planning Commission and the Albemarle County Planning Commission will hold a joint meeting as a part of their “Many Plans, One Community” Comprehensive Plan update.  The agenda for this meeting includes a discussion of congruency of Environmental goals and the start of a discussion on the compatibility of land use adjacent t the City/County border.

On the surface such a planning exercise seems benign, perhaps even appropriate but it’s much more than a simple planning exercise.  This may be the first step in changing the priorities in each localities comprehensive plan.

Without being overly dramatic, the Free Enterprise Forum is concerned the “Many Plans, One Community” has predetermined the result of their three year process as if they were programming the destination on their GPS.

Please let me explain.

As a review, Federally funded ($999,000) “Many Plans One Community” planning exercise is being conducted to provide:

updates  to Charlottesville and Albemarle County’s comprehensive plans, the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan, and the creation of a Livability Implementation Plan for our area.

Each localities state mandated Comprehensive Plan must be updated every five years.  In their documentation, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) indicated that :

As a part of the Comprehensive Plan update process, the two localities will review current policies in existing plans.

Perhaps due to the funding source , the review of environmental goals is first up on the agenda for discussion with a number of meetings designed around solely that purpose.

Wait a minute, isn’t a comprehensive plan supposed to be, well, comprehensive?   Shouldn’t the planners (and the Planning Commissioners) seek to place the environmental goal in context to other goals (density, affordable housing, economic development)?

Taking a step back, it appears the staff has designed a “silo” based philosophy as it relates to the elements of the comprehensive plan.  Writing in a BusinessWeek post “Smashing Silos”, Evan Golden defined the silo mentality this way:

The term “silo” is a metaphor suggesting a similarity between grain silos that segregate one type of grain from another and the segregated parts of an organization. In an organization suffering from silo syndrome, each department or function interacts primarily within that “silo” rather than with other groups across the organization. Marketing may develop its own culture and have difficulty interacting with other functions such as sales or engineering. This manifestation of silo syndrome breeds insular thinking, redundancy, and suboptimal decision-making.

The Free Enterprise Forum is concerned that by leading with environmental goals the other priorities in the respective Comprehensive Plan may fall subservient.   While this may be completely appropriate and accurately reflect what the elected officials desire, the public may never know; because it is not being discussed comprehensively.

Clearly the “livability plan” GPS has been programmed with a single focus and destination in mind.

And very few citizens seem to be paying attention and fewer still are asking the hard questions:

What are the most important goals?

Are our goals in conflict?

Where is this taking us?  Do we want to go?  Why?

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

—————————————————————

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Charlottesville PC Welcomes New Member, Elects New Leadership, Reviews Entrance Corridor Applications

By. Amelie Bailey, 2011 Field Officer Intern

Charlottesville Planning Commission met on Tuesday (8/9) to discuss entrance corridor applications and rezoning on Elliot Avenue. At this meeting, the Commission welcomed its newest member, Natasha Sienitsky, who fills the position that opened when former chairman, Jason Pearson, stepped down earlier this summer.  The Planning Commission also elected Genevieve Keller as Chair and Dan Rosenweig as Vice Chair.

The Planning Commission, acting as the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB), approved a renewed entrance corridor certificate of appropriateness for the Fontaine Fire Station. The ERB previously approved the project in 2009 but that Certificate of Appropriateness has since expired. The Commission evaluated some modifications to the design including changes in fenestration, signage, building height, and some materials changes. The Review Board expressed some concerns with the design incorporating two different types of glass; one for windows, and a different glass used for a balcony railing. The project architect assured the Board that the balcony glass would essentially be unnoticed, and that using the two different glass materials would not be obvious or unsightly.

The ERB also considered an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to renovate the Martha Jefferson Hospital Building for use as CFA Institute headquarters. The applicant, Octagon Partners, intends to demolish the current emergency room entrance and some of the mechanical buildings. They also plan to renovate the South wing to include more windows, and to create a new business entrance on the west side of this wing. The project will leave the Cardwell, Rucker, and historic Patterson wings untouched. Staff recommended that the concept and changes to the buildings be approved but also recommended that the Review Board see a detailed landscape plan (which was not available on Tuesday) at its next meeting.

The Review Board approved of the plan in concept and granted a certificate of appropriateness for the general location and basic massing of the new construction of the business entrance, as well as the demolition of the HVAC equipment area, and demolition of the emergency room entrance area. However, commissioners expressed interest in having more detailed documentation on the specific changes to the building, especially in regards to the landscaping plan including streetscape, fenestration in context of the existing buildings, and proposed lighting. The ERB decided to require that these elements be resubmitted for review to receive a separate certificate of appropriateness.

The Planning Commission initiated preliminary discussion for rezoning of 5.49 acres in the Elliot Avenue area as requested by Southern Development. This area will need to be rezoned to PUD in order to allow development of 45 dwelling units, 7 of which are to be affordable units. The Planning Commission expressed approval of the common woods area in the design, and voiced appreciation for the inclusion of neighboring property owners in the design process. The Commission also received clarification on the connectivity of roads through the development. The project will move forward to a public hearing in September.

———————————————

Amelie Bailey is the 2011 Field Officer Intern for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization. If you find this report helpful, please consider supporting the Free Enterprise Forum. To learn more visit www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Greene BOS sets Cap on Rezoning Application Fees

By Pauline Hovey, Greene County Field Officer

Following a recommendation from Planning Director Bart Svoboda, the Greene County Board of Supervisors agreed to set a $12,000 cap on the application process for rezoning at its July 12meeting. On May 24, the board had requested Planning Department staff review the application fees, which are currently set at $2,000 + $100 per acre.

In his research, Svoboda noted that fees “from one locality to another vary greatly,” from as high as $35,605 + $200 per acre and as low as $100. “Based on information and studies conducted by various localities, it appears that the real cost to process a rezoning application in Greene County is in line with the current fee,” Svoboda said in his report. “However, it is apparent that the majority of localities subsidize the application process.”

Based on the current fee, the rezoning application process alone could cost developers tens of thousands of dollars. “If we are in the mindset of promoting business,” Svoboda said during his presentation to the board, “I’d suggest capping it at $12,000.”

Supervisor Jim Frydl (Ruckersville)

Supervisor Jim Frydl (Ruckersville) expressed confidence in Svoboda’s recommendation.

“The fees were revised to cover the department’s time, energy, and advertising,” Frydl said, referring to changes made to the fee structure in recent years. As a result, the potential high cost incurred to apply for rezoning was an “unintended consequence.” Frydl said he believed the director’s current recommendation “is a fair representation of that time and cost.”

Chairman Steve Catalano (at-large) also conveyed his support of Svoboda’s ability to determine the development costs incurred by his department and the amount needed to cover those costs. “At the end of the day, you’re responsible for the department’s self-sufficiency,” he said.

The board approved Svoboda’s recommendation, which will go into effect immediately. This is the first time the county has proposed a cap on application fees.

During a public hearing on a request from business owner Matthew Morris of Mack Morris Heating and Air Conditioning to rezone approximately 4.5 acres of a 9.01 acre tract, the board heard from residents concerned about the impact and “intrusion” on a residential neighborhood. Morris has operated his business in the area since 1985 but wants to expand and build a 10,000 sq. ft. facility on the proposed property. Svoboda reported that the county’s comprehensive plan encourages mixed-use development in growth areas that offer commercial, office, and residential development, and this business is located in the “designated growth area.” The proposed 4.5 acre lot is already designated a mixed-use residential on the future land use map, and the Planning Department recommended approval with acceptance of the submitted proffers. Despite residents’ concerns, supervisors unanimously agreed with the department’s recommendation.

Greene County Commissioner of the Revenue Larry Snow

In other matters from the board, Supervisor Frydl noted that the board has failed to receive any reports requested from the Commissioner of Revenue over the past several months and expressed concern that supervisors need such reports to determine the number of businesses in the county and which businesses hold licenses or have gone out of business. Frydl said he regards this as a “valid request and a valid report” for the taxpayers.

Since past boards have not requested such reports from various departments and have not followed any protocol in this area, Catalano noted, “We’ve been inconsistent in our requests, so I suggest we put together a list of what the board needs from each department and how often we would require reports” before taking any further action. The end result was the board agreed to hold a future workshop to determine what reports they will need, from what constitutional officers, and how often.

________________________________________________

Pauline Hovey is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization. If you find this report helpful, please consider supporting the Free Enterprise Forum. To learn more visit www.freeenterpriseforum.org

(Photo Credits Greene County www.gcva.us)

Council Votes No on US 29 Bypass

By Amelie Baily, 2011 Field Officer Intern

Charlottesville City Council met on Monday night (6/20) to discuss affordable housing, as well as to respond to the recent decision by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to reconsider construction of a US 29 Western Bypass.

Matters by the Public featured several individuals voicing frustration with the process by which the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors reached their decision to request that the Charlottesville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) reconsider building the Western Bypass. These citizens described the process as lacking transparency. The decision to reconsider was made late at night, and was not included as a regular agenda item.

Several councilors echoed frustrations with the process as well as the decision itself, as they discussed whether to advise City MPO representatives (Councilors Huja and Szakos) to approve or vote against the project.

The Bypass has been estimated to cost between $250 and $300 million, and some believe to result in approximately 1 minute of travel time saved for commuters (though no one could site a specific study that claimed this).

Council members generally agreed with one another that the project was an inefficient use of limited transportation funds, and expressed concern that the project would transfer funds away from transportation projects of greater interest to the City such as Belmont Bridge. Currently, there is no clear answer as to where the funds would come from if the project were approved. Councilors voted 4-0 (with Councilor Huja abstaining) to advise the MPO representatives to vote against the project if a vote is taken at the next MPO meeting.

In the first of several discussions on affordable housing, staff recommended approval of the transfer of an Elliot Avenue lot to Habitat for Humanity, who will partner with Southern Development Group in creating a mixed income development. The proposed development includes 48 homes, 7 of which will be affordable housing units. Four units will be developed by Habitat for Humanity, while the other three will be provided by Southern Development Group. Due to an error in providing adequate notice of a public hearing on this matter, the official public hearing will not be conducted until the next City Council meeting, scheduled for July 5th.

Staff also negotiated the purchase of four town house lots located on the corner of Nunley and Paton Streets from Habitat for Humanity in order to create much needed affordable housing options for community members. Two lots are intended for special needs individuals who are Region Ten Community Service clients. One of the additional two lots is intended for a transitional housing project and the other for first time home buyers. The total cost of all four lots is 150,000 dollars. However, the total proposed cost with design and construction costs included will be $690,000. Council unanimously approved the purchase of the lots.

In Response to Council request, city staff presented a plan for greater implementation of “Section 3” in the region. Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 requires that HUD (Housing and Urban Development) financial assistance be accompanied by an effort to direct training, employment, and other opportunities to lower income individuals. This federal law applies to contractors when HUD funding is greater than $200,000 and/or the contract is over $100,000. The proposed plan contains seven goals with proposed actions to take in order to fulfill such goals. Among the changes is the creation of a temporary staff position to coordinate the proposed plan. This position will be funded out of CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds and supplemented by CHF (Charlottesville Housing Fund) as well as CRHA (Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority) funds. Council unanimously voted to approve the resolution.

The Carver Precinct voting location will be moved temporarily due to a 15-month renovation project on the Carver Recreation Center, which will begin in July of this year. Staff proposed that the precinct be moved to the Virginia Institute of Autism building, which is located off of Rose Hill Drive, approximately one mile from the Carver Recreation Center. The benefits of such location are the accessibility, size, and sufficient parking available. Council expressed a desire for significant signage on both Rose Hill Drive and 250 Bypass, as well as near the Carver Recreation Center. They also requested that staff consider creative ways of shuttling voters from the Carver Recreation Center to Virginia Institute of Autism. The new location was approved to be further discussed at a second reading.

Staff updated Council on the progress in designing the new Belmont Bridge. The aim is to create a safe, attractive, and multi modal access bridge. Initial designs include pedestrian access on both sides of the bridge, on-road bike lanes, two northbound lanes, and one southbound lane. At least one lane of traffic in each direction will remain open during construction, as will pedestrian access. Staff emphasized that they are carefully considering aesthetics of the bridge, as was requested by citizens. Council member Kristin Szakos inquired if a sound barrier (between the Pavilion and Belmont) would be constructed, however staff admitted that it was most likely not possible, given funding.

———————————–

Amelie Bailey is the 2011 Field Officer Intern for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization. If you find this report helpful, please consider supporting the Free Enterprise Forum. To learn more visit www.freeenterpriseforum.org