TJPDC Technocrat or Trumpeter Swan?

By. Neil Williamson, President

Sean Tubbs of Charlottesville Tomorrow reports in this morning’s Daily Progress that Stephen Williams’ contract as Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) will not be renewed.  While the Free Enterprise Forum has often questioned much of the TJPDC’s work under Mr. Williams, we wish him only the best in his future endeavors.

Where does the TJPDC go from here?

In selecting its next executive, should the TJPDC Board seek out planning professionals who have rich resumes filled with writing, securing and administering grants?

Should the Board focus on the significant transportation component of the job and look to transportation and transit professionals with a litany of studies and reports under their belt?

Or should this regional planning organization consider seeking out a “Trumpeter Swan” who may or may not have the planning credentials but has a resume filled with assignments that required leadership, consensus building and risk management?

Please let me explain.

The “Trumpeter Swan” moniker is attributed to advertising giant David Ogilvy who in seeking new Creative Directors wrote a space advertisement seeking “Trumpeter Swans who combine personal genius with inspiring leadership – we have an opening for one of these rare birds”.

Such talented individuals tend to be long on world experience and short on academic credentials.  In addition, the most successful trumpeter swans are self aware of their own shortcomings, as such they tend to surround themselves with high level talent without fear of being out shined.  

But the question remains would such a rare bird have an chance of survival in the TJPDC environment?

The safer choice is a technocrat; someone who has worked their way up through the planning ranks perhaps with a smaller region.  Such an individual would know ‘how to play the game’.  This is the lens which was used to select the past two TJPDC leaders.

Which direction will the TJPDC Board go?

Stay tuned.

Respectfully submitted,

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville.  www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Albemarle’s Development Double Standard Allows The Library To Cross The Road

By. Neil Williamson, President

On Wednesday (5/1) the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors have an $11.8 Million dollar consent agenda item regarding the relocation of Northside library from its current rental space in the Albemarle Square Shopping Center to a location just west of the intersection of Rio Road and US 29.

The Free Enterprise Forum is concerned a double standard may be in play as this is a “public” project as opposed to a private development. As private development interests are regularly told that the financial demands of regulatory approvals are not the concern of the County. 

In the past, Albemarle has taken such opportunities to showcase how well their projects embrace the goals of the comprehensive plan and build to the highest criteria.  In this case, we believe the county has identified a parcel and is trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

Would a private development get the same free pass?

Currently the Northside Library is in a retail center with significant parking as well as other community facilities within reasonable walking distances such as a bakery, a number of restaurants, a movie theater, a private health club, as well as a new grocery store.

It is important to the discussion that the County is in a lease agreement in this space and that agreement is up for renewal/renegotiation in 2014.

The new site is located on the south side of Rio Road West, just west of the intersection with US29.  The staff proposal is to reuse the existing structure to house both the Northside Library (30,000 sq. ft.)as well as long term County warehouse and storage space (20,000+ sq. ft.).

The site is bounded by commercial land on all sides and is zoned for HC Highway commercial. 

The headquarters for the Daily Progress is located immediately to west on Rio Road.

Interestingly, this same parcel (in combination with the adjacent parcel) was under consideration for a Homewood Suites hotel location in January of last year. 

That project went to Albemarle’s Architectural Review Board (ARB) on January 4th.  At some point after the ARB issued their initial 15 demands (including the need for 3D Modeling) for future submittals, the investors in the hotel project chose to move the project into the more business friendly City of Charlottesville (read the January 3, 2012 ARB minutes here).

While we are not suggesting the ARB review was the exclusive cause of the hotel project relocation, it certainly was one of the contributing factors.  So now, as the private development (tax generating) option has been eliminated we are looking at a public use on the parcel.

Seeing this item on the Board of Supervisors consent agenda leads us to believe last Tuesday’s discussion at the Albemarle County Planning Commission may be the only public discussion regarding this project. 

Staff met with the Board of Supervisors in closed session early this year to initiate this discussion and to place contractual “holds” on the land to allow for due diligence.  Staff has projected the upfit of the property to be in the $8 million dollar range (~$166 per sq. ft.) as compared with $250 a square foot for new construction.

The staff conveniently found the project to be generally consistent with the demands of the facilities and would be a positive redevelopment of this parcel.  Unlike a private development, the focus of the Planning Commission discussion was not as directed “whether the general location, character and extent of the proposed facility are in substantial accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan” but instead focused on the economics of this infrastructure addition.

The Neighborhood Model portion of the Comprehensive Plan places significant importance to interconnectivity of roadways, pedestrian orientation, relegated parking and multi model access.  

Section 5.9.15 of the proposed Comprehensive Plan includes:

Strategy 2a: All government facilities in the Development Areas should conform to the principles of the Neighborhood Model.

The reality is the West Rio site is not well placed to become a neighborhood center, it is not located near significant residential activity and  the existing bike lanes end at Berkmar.  While the location is “not completely devoid of residences,” according to County staff the density of this residential is low, and access from those homes to the site is challenged.

Commissioner Tom Loach perhaps put it most succinctly when he said “Theoretically, this is not the Neighborhood Model”.  But Loach also said, “ we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”.

Commissioner Rick Randolph voiced cost effectiveness concerns saying “Focusing on the ideal should not get in the way of this moving forward”.  Commissioner Ed Smith echoed this sentiment stating “It’s not a campus atmosphere but it is the lesser of two evils”.  Commissioner “Mac” Lafferty believes this is an opportunity that will not repeat itself. 

As a part of the discussion, Commissioner Don Franco pushed County staff suggesting there might be ways to make the project more Neighborhood Model friendly and asked if the applicant (the County) was prepared to make commitments to mitigate the negative impacts of the redevelopment.  He was concerned that by approving this use, the County might end up in a “firing range” situation where as a commission they have no choice but to approve the site plan regardless of the many concerns.

Commissioner Bruce Dotson enumerated a laundry list of things he would like to see in a library site: Activity center, pedestrian friendly, open space, green space were all important items he wanted to be in the Comprehensive Plan.  How this project failed to measure up to those standards was relatively clear.

To address these concerns staff has suggested that future improvements to make the project more pedestrian and bicycle friendly could be reprogrammed from the proposed Berkmar Extension. The Free Enterprise Forum is very troubled by the suggestion of removing a transportation backbone to make a library fit on a less than ideal site.

Loach was OK with the idea that the applicant (the County) would do their best to address them.  Would a private developer get this level of trust?

In the end the unanimous Planning Commission decision supported the library use with the condition that the applicant (the county) “come as close to the Neighborhood Model as possible”  Perhaps this will be the language used in all future land use discussions – I have my doubts.

Respectfully submitted,

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville.  www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credits: Free Enterprise Forum

Map Credit: Bing.com

Will Increasing Regulation Increase Prosperity?

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson, President

On the national level, President Ronald Reagan famously said, “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it”. 

One has to ask, Do the majority of our elected representative support or oppose this concept?

Just as the leaders of our community are being asked to think big regarding their comprehensive plan goals and objectives, they continue to consider government actions that would demonstrably add bureaucracy, and cost with limited public benefit.

Interestingly, the proponents for this type regulations work hard to use a lexicon that discourages opposition. Charlottesville, the “Human Rights Commission” sounds like something everyone should agree on. It was perhaps because they did not want to be seen as opposing “Human Rights” that a majority of City Council favored adding enforcement language to this politically appointed group. Aaron Richardson of The Daily Progress reports:

“The council on Monday night reached consensus to hold a public hearing on the ordinance that would establish a commission that could investigate, mediate and make judgments on claims of discrimination in small businesses and delegate claims from larger businesses to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. .

… Councilor Kathy Galvin told the council on Monday that she was skeptical of the effect a commission with full enforcement powers could have on local businesses. She added that discrimination is not the only thing keeping low-income residents and minorities out of work.”

The Free Enterprise Forum applauds Ms. Galvin’s persistence on this critical issue. Back in December of 2011, the Free Enterprise Forum asked if you could be in favor of Human Rights and Opposed to the Human Rights Commission.

We said, “the Free Enterprise Forum fears that moving forward with the politically appointed Human Rights Commission, based on its current construct and goals, will do more harm than good for City economic opportunities across all demographic cohorts”.

Couple this with Charlottesville’s tax rates, the newly enacted Stormwater fees, one has to wonder how much more regulatory burden can businesses withstand before looking at space outside the City. 

Things are not significantly better in Albemarle County, where their Planning Commission is considering a number of new overlay zones that will increase complexity, reduce property rights and increase the scope and size of local government.

“Adopt a historic overlay district ordinance to recognize and protect historic, architectural, and cultural resources, including individual sites and districts at the local level.

Expand the authority of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to include the review required under the recommended historic district overlay ordinance. Revise the make up of the ARB to include members with expertise in historic preservation and revise the name of the group accordingly”.

This is in addition to the Monticello “land grab” vista preservation overlay (note the verbiage change), the new proposed “Biodiversity” inventory and action plan. Clearly there is an undercurrent in government that more control is better government. The Free Enterprise Forum respectfully disagrees.

All of these regulatory hurdles have an impact on economic development and stability.  This morning’s (4/22) Washington Post featured a Sarah Halzack article explaining DC bucking the trend of “Job Sprawl”.  Citing Brookings Institute’s Elizabeth Kneebone’s study showing DC was the only one of 100 studied that had added jobs to its urban core.  According to the article:

“Decentralization of jobs can have either a positive or negative effect on a metropolitan area.  The implications of this shift can depend largely on a region’s land-use policies as well as the quality and reach of its transit system. [Emphasis added-nw]

“Particularly for low income residents, if jobs move further out, if there isn’t reliable transit and they don’t have a car, that could limit their opportunities,” Kneebone said.

This information coupled with the Charlottesville dearth of jobs in the so called “Orange Dot” Report proves economic realities must help shape local policies if we wish to attract and retain JOBS to live in our region.  The concept of economic vitality has been woefully understated during the community discussions regarding poverty, employment issues and property rights.

While we appreciate Monticello’s contribution to the community, we believe they are a private property owner. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation takes great pains to mention that it receives no government support but now is asking Albemarle County to serve as a middle man between the mountaintop and their neighbors. Perhaps the Foundation might choose to use a part of their most recent $10 million dollar gift to directly reach out to their neighbors rather than mandating local government do so.  

While we understand and appreciate the goals of biodiversity, we do not believe this chapter should be the longest in Albemarle’s Comprehensive Plan and we question the need for a Biodiversity Action Plan that virtually deputizes the Natural Resource Committee.

While we remain very concerned with human rights, we are equally concerned that unnecessary red tape will push more businesses out of not only Charlottesville but the entire region. 

While we believe the importance of historic places, we find that property owners, not government, should determine what to do with their property.

If we as a community choose to ignore the significant negative implications of over regulation on business development and retention, the resultant community may not be one you wish to see preserved.  Just as one can ask if the community vision is “Aspen or Austin”, if  these proposals come to fruition a better question may be should Charlottesville be known for Making Products or Making Beds.

Today, we find ourselves at  a tipping point, as the number of government overlays, rights commissions and review boards increase, the economic vitality of the region decreases by an inverse proportion.

Which way will the scale fall?

Stay tuned.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville.  www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan–Deep in the Weeds

By. Neil Williamson

An open letter to the Albemarle County Planning Commission:

April 15, 2013

Mr. Calvin Morris, Chairman, Albemarle County Planning Commission

Dear Chairman Morris and members of the Albemarle County Planning Commission,

Thank you for the extended deadline to provide written comments on the Albemarle Comprehensive Plan. Staff should be commended for marshaling this process forward and seeking to limit the size of the plan (which is still too big).

Before we get to our analysis of the plan, the Free Enterprise Forum wishes to highlight the failure of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission to meet the deadlines associated with the joint City/County/TJPDC/UVA livability plan. In concept this over 1 million dollar expenditure was to “inform the comprehensive planning in the City and County”, the money has been spent but the work is not yet complete. The plethora of meetings, public input sessions and joint Planning Commission meetings produced a number of benefits but absent the final work product the effort must be deemed a failure. While appreciative of the supplementary benefits, the Free Enterprise Forum remains concerned that this project was mismanaged by the lead agency.

We have reviewed the entire plan and our comments are organized sequentially with the plan.

Chapter 2 Growth Management Policy – page 2.2.2 the joint City Count statement “the scale and scope of the impacts of new development on this infrastructure necessitate greater financial participation by new development in addressing this need.” The statement infers that absent new development infrastructure would be adequate – which is not true. A lack of concurrency of infrastructure has been a concern of the Free Enterprise Forum for over ten years. If the answer to this concern is to make Development area projects even more expensive, this will force development into by right status , into the rural areas, or out of Albemarle County entirely.

Page 2.2.3 should recognize that the County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has not kept up with the community needs.

Page 2.2.4 The Free Enterprise Forum is concerned with the concept of priority areas within the development area. We recognize the limitation of public funds and the need to focus those funds. Where we are concerned is the language: “Land Use decisions should be made consistent with the priority areas established in the Development Area Master Plans. The County may decide not to approve new rezoning or special use permit outside of the designated priority areas as planned facilities are not in place to support the proposed project and the existing neighborhoods. If approved, however, as a part of the land development process, developers will need to provide more significant levels of improvement to ensure adequate infrastructure and services are available to the area.”

If, as we contend, the County has failed to properly fund and construct concurrent infrastructure, the cost to provide adequate infrastructure to both new and existing residents is now on the private land owner whose development area parcel happens not to fall in the “Priority Area”. For the same reasons as cited above this will accelerate the kind of By Right development the Comprehensive Plan indicates it wishes to avoid.

As an aside, The Free Enterprise Forum is concerned with the growing power of appointed Community Councils. We are troubled that development proposals are regularly referred to these councils for their blessing prior to going before the Planning Commission.

Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan and Background – Page 3.2 The 1998 Sustainability Accords these items have appeared in the Comprehensive Plan since their passage. While there has been little discussion of these accords the plan states “Goals for sustainability were most recently adopted in 2007 when the Comprehensive Plan reaffirmed the accords” Has the Planning Commission, or any other body really reviewed the sustainability accords recently? They were written 15 years ago. Should we accept these accords as if they came down from the mountain on stone tablets? Or should they be examined prior to passing the comprehensive plan that would “reaffirm the Accords”

Historic Preservation Page 3.9 (joint City County goals) “To do this the City and County will: Colloborate with the University of Virginia, Ashlawn-Highland, Monticello and other community organizations on historic preservation matters.” The Free Enterprise Forum finds the failure to include property owners in the list of collaborators is an error and speaks to an institutional bias in opposition to property rights.

Chapter 5.1 Natural Resources – Page 5.1.1 This chapter is in need of editing. It speaks to the importance of an issue that the Natural Resources chapter of the comprehensive plan is 30 pages while only 11 pages are dedicated to the economic development chapter.

Page 5.2.4 Mountain Protection – This section correctly identifies the Mountain Protection Ordinance as being rejected by the community in January 2007. IS there a reason for including this text in the plan? The issue has been resolved. This text should be removed.

Page 5.1.10 Stormwater Management – The plan states “Evidence has shown that, once constructed, many facilities are not maintained properly.” While this may be true in some areas, it is clearly not true in other areas. This text is prejudicial and should be reworded.

Page 5.1.13 Objective 1: Retain Biodiversity in the County – “This information should be used to create a database that includes both landscape features such as habitats and critical slopes areas and species occurrences from point observations. The database should then be included in the County’s Geographical Information System so that County staff and the public can use the information for conservation purposes. The information could also be used in reviewing requests for legislative approvals.” [emphasis added]

Is Albemarle County prepared to limit development in their development area based on the number of species established by a biodiversity inventory? What possible project could be approved under such a standard?

Page 5.1.14 Biodiversity Action Plan “Building on this analysis, the County should develop the action plan based on conserving ecological integrity at the scale of the landscape” Ecological integrity is an undefined buzz word that promotes existing conditions while failing to recognize potential ecological benefits of development (or redevelopment) This entire concept should be removed from the plan

Page 5.1.15 Strategies – In no other chapter does the work of the comprehensive plan fall so directly on one group of unelected individuals. The Natural Heritage Committee is continually mentioned as a resource and an “expert” on Biodiversity. Interestingly this group has lost more than half of its members in the last year and the clerk’s office has not received any interested applicants in the last two months.

Page 5.1.19 Strategy 4d.3 – “Apply a general risk management approach to the public water supply watershed whereby land use management takes priority over design and best management practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate risk from land development activities.” Reading between the lines of this dense statement, it suggests regardless of placement in the development areas, any parcel should not be developed if it is within the public water supply watershed. This could be read as a call for no development. This is absurd.

Page 5.1.19 Strategy 4e.1 – The explanation of groundwater is overly verbose and at times nonsensical. The suggestion that “A new well may also draw water from the flow that is going to a different resident’s well” is gently worded enough to be technically correct but contradicts testimony provided to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors from then Water resource Manager David Hirshman.

Chapter 5.2 Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources – Page 5.2.3 “Moreover the number of resources destroyed in recent years suggests that continued reliance on solely voluntary measures would not be adequate to protect those resources. Instead a combination of strategies is necessary, including voluntary techniques, regulation, education and financial incentives.” The Free Enterprise Forum calls for regulation to be removed from the strategies listed. This community has a firm desire for voluntary measures and incentives but Historic Preservation Ordinances are unacceptable.

Page 5.2.8 – No one of the strategies for historic preservation includes the phrase with the consent of the property owner.

Page 5.2.10 Strategy 2b1: “Adopt a historic overlay district ordinance to recognize and protect historic, architectural, and cultural resources, including individual sites and districts at the local level”. We acknowledge that this language exists in the current comprehensive plan but we have not seen significant public support for a new confiscatory historic overlay. The Free Enterprise Forum asks that this language be struck from the Comprehensive Plan.

Page 5.2.10 Strategy 2.b.3: “Expand the authority of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to include the review required under the recommended historic district overlay ordinance. Revise the make up of the ARB to include members with expertise in historic preservation and revise the name of the group accordingly”. Considering our significant concerns with the existing regulatory over reach of the ARB, the Free Enterprise Forum does not support the creation of the Super ARB and ask that it be struck from the Comprehensive Plan.

Page 5.2.10 Strategy 2b.7: “To discourage the destruction of important historic resources, seek enabling legislation that would allow the County to impose meaningful civil penalty for inappropriate demolition, razing or moving of any designated historic resource. This enabling legislation should also authorize the County to use civil penalties collected to fund components of the County’s historic preservation program.” The fact that the County can’t work with existing legislative authority and is seeking to develop a civil penalty slush fund to be used for preservation suggests this is not a true priority for the County. If the county wishes to preserve a historic building or landscape – they should buy it.

Page 5.2.12 Strategy 4a: “The County should help protect Monticello’s viewshed using these measures:” The Free Enterprise Forum has been very outspoken on this issue. Time and again when we raise the issue we have been told this is a voluntary program. Reading the introductory statement this is not voluntary it is declarative.

While we believe all of strategy 4a should be dropped, we ask that if you consider retaining any language it be improved to recognize that the “protection” Monticello is seeking is at the cost of other tax paying property owners rights. Perhaps change this directive to encourage communication (not cooperation) between Monticello and other private property owners regarding visual impacts (not viewshed).

Page 5.2.12 Strategy 4a.5: “Staff should be aware of the Viewshed area and be especially careful when applying land use regulations to properties in the viewshed.” Again we believe the whole section should be dropped but this is ridiculous is staff NOT to be careful in applying land use regulations elsewhere in the County. This is superfluous and suggests additional special treatment that does not exist in code!

Page 5.2.14 Cultural and Scenic resources (last paragraph): “Existing regulations only go so far in protecting the resources. Greater ability to regulate aesthetics is desired to help preserve these qualities“. Recognizing the balance of this chapter calls for increased regulatory powers and aesthetic controls, the Free Enterprise Forum asks how this balances with the “desire” for economic development. Albemarle County is at a critical tipping point where over regulation, while seeking to maintain the existing condition, may forestall the economic advancement of the community.

Page 5.2.21 Plan for Scenic Resources Objective 1: Support wider enabling legislation for regulating aesthetics in specified areas of importance.” Once again the desires of the property owners will be secondary to the powers of regulations for “areas of importance” This objective and the following strategy should be dropped from the plan.

Page 5.2.21 Strategy 1a: “Support enabling legislation for Albemarle County to provide for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district”. Based on the Free Enterprise Forum’s opposition to the Monticello viewshed overlay one can imagine we are equally, if not more, concerned with the concept of a tourism enhancement overlay district that would hinder the property rights of Albemarle citizens. We do not believe this is the general direction of the Board of Supervisors at this time and question whether the Planning Commission, utilizing Zero Based Planning, has fully vetted this question. If such a proposal were to go forward, the Free Enterprise Forum promises to fight it at the local and state level.

Page 5.2.22 Strategy 2f: “ Consider additional EC [Entrance Corridor] designations as appropriate, or as road classifications change for roads such as the John W. Warner Parkway, Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road), Route 692/712 Plank Road, and Route 810 (Brown’s Gap Turnpike)”. Albemarle County today has 19 Entrance Corridors. The Free Enterprise Forum believes this is a gross misuse of the enabling legislation. The Free Enterprise Forum asks that the number of entrance corridors be reduced to ten and that no new road may be added as an entrance corridor unless one is removed.

Page 5.2.23 Strategy 2g: “Review the EC guidelines for effectiveness in protecting the integrity of exceptionally scenic EC corridors, such as Route 250 West.” Now the EC guidelines are not enough the concept is to plan for super guidelines for those “exceptional corridors”. If Albemarle County is serious about create protection for the exceptional, the Free Enterprise Forum suggests simply reducing the number of Entrance Corridors and implementing the exceptional strategies on that reduced number.

The natural progression from this concept is recognized in the last line of this section “recommendations for stricter zoning regulations in the ECs may be an outcome of this review”.

Page 5.2.24 Objective 5: Preserve important views as they relate to tourism and recreational assets. This objective and the strategies supporting it suggest a regulatory solution to the organic change of the community. How does this balance with the economic development [or ecological in the case of controlled burns, timber harvesting].

Page 5.2.24 Strategy 5b: Protect the Monticello viewshed as indicated in the historical Resources Section. – see our comments above

Chapter 5.3 Economic Development: While the Free Enterprise Forum is concerned that the Economic Development chapter is the shortest in the Comprehensive Plan, we applaud the inclusion of this important concept.

We are concerned that the length of the Natural Resources chapter is three times that of Economic Development chapter. While both are important, the Free Enterprise Forum believes ample opportunity exists to balance the chapters to better reflect their equal import.

Chapter 5.4 Land use for the Rural areas. The Free Enterprise Forum applauds the inclusion of economic sustainability as a goal for the rural areas. The best way to keep land in agricultural and forestry uses is to allow ancillary uses to help economically support the primary uses.

Chapter 5.5 Land Use for Development Areas, page 5.5.11: Tables for remaining non-constrained land the tables were not updated by the time the document was released to the public for review. We are eager to see the new numbers and anticipate they will consider the land that is now slated to be Biscuit Run State Park to be “constrained”.

Page 5.5.11: “Several studies over the last seven years have indicated that the County has enough rezoned commercial square footage to last more than 20 years. The Studies did not include analysis of already zoned commercial areas or the potential for redevelopment. Because of the amount of work that has already been done on the topic, staff is not going to perform another retail analysis. Instead, attention will be paid to the land designated for industrial and/or employment uses ”. This is a false choice. There is no reason the Planning Commission (or the BOS) should not demand that a retail analysis be conducted for this 5 year update of the comprehensive plan. While the studies are mentioned they are not cited and in just about every case I am aware of these reports were completed with an agenda (both pro and con). Albemarle should insist a proper accounting of commercial space be conducted as a part of this plan.

Page 5.5.15: Objective 1: Achieve high quality development through the application of Neighborhood Model principles. The phraseology of this objective is troublesome. The Free Enterprise Forum believes most if not all applications that come before the Planning Commission have to balance the principles of the neighborhood model to their projects goals and site limitations. We respectfully suggest that the word “flexible” be placed between through and application to better reflect the reality of development [and redevelopment] in Albemarle County.

Page 5.5.19: “A network of streets and convenient routes for pedestrians, bicyclists, buses and other transit, including the potential for light rail in the future allows alternatives to driving”. Back in 2009, we wrote extensively regarding the population required to support the investment of light rail in any community. While we are aware of the highly popular Tide line in the Virginia Beach area, we also recognize they have significantly higher population to support light rail. This twenty year comprehensive plan does not include such population projections; therefore this reference, while fanciful to many in the planning community, should be removed.

Page 5.5.20 Relegated Parking The Free Enterprise Forum believes the parking regulations in Albemarle County are in need of review and revision. The Comprehensive Plan provides an opportunity to suggest such a review. No other principle has received more attention than so called relegated parking. We call on Albemarle County to review the parking regulations with the Albemarle County Police Community Safety through Environmental Design Officer and report back to the BOS prior to moving forward again endorsing relegated parking in the Comprehensive Plan.

Page 5.5.22 “Review the cash proffer policy to assess what effect it may have on density”. Earlier this year the Free Enterprise Forum provided the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors our white paper “Contradictory Consequences” on cash proffers. We encourage examining our paper, and the examples included, to evaluate the effectiveness of cash proffers on density. We anticipate your findings will be similar to ours that a cash proffer policy encourages by right development at a density and form that is contrary to the County’s approved Comprehensive Plan.

In 2007, Albemarle County looked to Chesterfield County a model for cash proffer legislation. It is interesting that Chesterfield is now contemplating repeal, or at least rolling back, its cash proffer policy. It may be time for Albemarle to take similar action.

Page 5.5.25 Strategy 6b: “Make land use decisions that are consistent with Priority Areas that are established in the Development Area Master Plans. Do not approve proposed rezonings and special use permits outside of the priority areas when planned facilities are not in place to support the project and existing neighborhoods, unless the proposed project will provide significant improvements to ensure adequate infrastructure and services are available to the area”[emphasis added].

As stated above [under growth management] If, as we contend, the County has failed to properly fund and construct concurrent infrastructure, the cost to provide adequate infrastructure to both new and existing residents is now on the private land owner whose development area parcel happens not to fall in the “Priority Area”. For the same reasons as cited above this will accelerate the kind of By Right development the Comprehensive Plan indicates it wishes to avoid. The Free Enterprise Forum is opposed to the se of Priority Areas to reject land use applications that would otherwise have been approved.

Page 5.6.11: “Fund programs of the County’s Housing Department to implement housing policies.” Similar to our concerns regarding the Natural Resource Chapter mandating the County “Hire” an environmental planner, the Free Enterprise Forum does not believe the comprehensive plan is the proper place for the housing department to be requesting additional funding.

Page 5.7.3: “Dispersed development patterns have helped promote a transportation network that is mostly focused on the automobile. In the past a more abundant supply of cheap land and fuel encouraged development patterns that have become hard to sustain”. This anti automobile philosophy is prevalent throughout academic papers in planning. The reality is the automobile is and for the foreseeable future will be the primary form of transportation for the majority of Albemarle’s population. Given advances in fuel economy, hybrid vehicles and transit opportunities, we must question if the current development patterns are really “hard to sustain”?

The Free Enterprise Forum believes multi modal opportunities should be evaluated and implemented but only after recognizing that people who live, work and play in Albemarle County appreciate and invest in the independent mobility of the automobile.

If you have made it this far, thank you. The Free Enterprise Forum is appreciative of the considerable effort of staff, planning commissioners and the public to engage with this document. In addition, thank you for the extension for written comments, as the 3,000+ words above indicate this is a dense document and required time to digest.

We look forward to being a part of the continuing dialog on this issue.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville.  www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Why Albemarle Needs Zero Based Planning

Comments to the Albemarle County Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan Update Public Hearing April 2, 2013

Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission my name is Neil Williamson and I work for the Free Enterprise Forum a public policy organization based in Albemarle County.

We find many positives in this revised Comprehensive Plan. The inclusion of a chapter on Economic Development is a welcome shift. The plan length, while still too long, is probably half the size of the previous iteration. We also applaud the use of appendices to catalogue important supplementary material.

Even with those positives, throughout the Comprehensive Plan Update the Free Enterprise Forum has raised significant concerns with the general direction of the plan. It is only now, when viewing the plan in total that we have identified a critical flaw in the Plan’s development.

While we remained concerned about several of the proposed changes in the Plan, we are most concerned that the entire plan has not been fully vetted by this commission.

Staff has continued to highlight the changes to the Comprehensive Plan but has this body fully evaluated those items that remain in the Plan?

Did this commission hold a vote to retain the Historical Preservation Ordinance and related Architectural Review Board expansion to cover all parcels within or adjacent to the historic overlay? It’s in there

Has this Commission been briefed by counsel on the legal standing or lack thereof regarding the word Viewshed? It’s in there

Speaking of viewshed, prior to this hearing had you even seen the new land grab language that The Thomas Jefferson Foundation strong armed into this draft document? It’s in there

Does this Commission really believe in the next 50 years there will be the population density required to support light rail? It’s in there

Does this Commission believe the Comprehensive Plan should demand the hiring of an environmental planner? It’s in there

Unlike the special interest groups that have drafted much of the proposed comprehensive plan, the Planning Commission is charged with representing the entire community.

This plan lacks a unified voice that balances community needs with property rights. Previous plans did not fully meet this standard.

The Free Enterprise Forum is asking the Planning Commission not to accept the Current Comprehensive Plan as the baseline but to practice zero based planning.

Examine the whole document.

Albemarle’s Comprehensive Plan Update Deserves a Comprehensive Review.

Thank you for your service to the community.

Respectfully submitted,

Neil Williamson

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

 

Monticello’s Comp Plan Land Grab

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson, President

“The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:36

Considering Thomas Jefferson’s strong belief in personal property rights, one must wonder what Jefferson would think of the Foundation that bears his name seeking to use Albemarle County’s Comprehensive Plan to enact ‘voluntary’ restrictions on the property rights of landowners whose properties might be visible from Monticello.

The Free Enterprise Forum sees this as an effective land grab via comprehensive plan.

Please let me explain.

According to Merriam-Webster, the term land grab was first used in the middle 1800′s  “to describe a usually swift acquisition of property (as land or patent rights) often by fraud or force”.

Today, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Inc., owner and operator of Monticello, is calling for the creation of a “Monticello Protection Area” overlay in Albemarle’s Comprehensive Plan.   The Foundation contends that the view from Monticello is an important part of their dual nonprofit mission of education and preservation.  They are seeking to have input on any development/construction activity that occurs within this “Protection Area”. 

The map below, prepared by Foundation staff and included in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, illustrates the vast area Monticello wishes to exercise their ‘voluntary’ design control.

The current iteration of Albemarle County’s Comprehensive Plan includes a significantly smaller Monticello view shed map.  The map below includes both the current (in blue) and proposed (in gray)  view shed maps:

This is a huge increase in area and includes parcels that, due to topography can not be seen from Monticello (example: portions of Avon Street Extended).

Foundation staff provided both the verbiage and the map to be included in the just released Albemarle Comprehensive Plan.   The word voluntary does not appear anywhere in the documents provided.

From the draft Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan (as drafted by the Foundation):

The Monticello Protection Area is defined by the GIS map on file with Albemarle County which depicts all property visible from the Monticello mountaintop.  The intent of the Guidelines for Development within the Monticello Protection Area (MPA) is to protect the historic character of Monticello and the rural character of entrance corridors, particularly as it relates to the visitor experience. The implementation of these guidelines is intended to maintain the historic and rural character of the area for both visitors and residents to improve the economic vitality of this community resource.

Members of the Foundation staff have indicated property owners will not have to abide by their ‘voluntary’ restrictions.  They simply want to make the landowners aware that the view from their very important community asset might be negatively impacted by something the landowner could lawfully do with their property.  The Foundation also wants to suggests ways property owners could change their plans to better suit the desires of the Foundation.

The Free Enterprise Forum believes if included in the Comprehensive Plan, the regulatory reality (different from the true legal standing) is that the Foundation would have effective design control power over all development in the “Monticello Protection Area”. 

The guidelines the Foundation has proposed are exceedingly specific and overreaching.  The Foundation wants to weigh in on the color, arrangement, lighting and even placement of windows on properties they do not own.  They are mandating a seat at the table at every rezoning Albemarle considers in their view shed.  In addition, while they want to have the ability to enjoy the view of properties they don’t own, they specifically do not want windows facing their property.  Lest you think we have overstated these voluntary restrictions, here is exactly as they appear in the Draft Comprehensive plan:

Bright pastels and whites on exterior faces of buildings and roofs can be distracting when viewing the natural landscape from Monticello. Muted colors for roofs and walls that blend with the natural landscape (ie. mid-spectrum browns and greys, sandy tones) can be substituted for bright pastels and whites on building faces and roofs.

To minimize impact, avoid large roof expanses, especially those of one color—mottled coloring that combines light and dark elements for roofs is preferred.

Surfaces that are prone to glare and reflection increase visibility and should be avoided whenever possible.

For example, expansive windows facing Monticello should be avoided.

Flood lights, up- lights and exposed bulbs are more apparent in the night sky than shielded fixtures. Lighting for buildings and parking areas can use shielded fixtures at lower heights to reduce impacts. Whenever possible lighting should not be placed higher than the tree line.

Lighting on the tops of cellular towers should be avoided when possible.

Lighting for buildings and parking areas should use fixtures that reduce/eliminate glare.

Employ techniques that break up massing.

Development that breaks the mature tree line is more apparent than development that is lower than the mature tree line. Special consideration should be given to development which is higher than the mature tree line to camouflage impacts.

Parking can always be broken up with interspersed plantings of trees and other landscaping.

When there is no conflict with Entrance Corridor or Neighborhood Model guidelines, the preferred location for parking is on the far side of buildings as viewed from Monticello.

Landscaping to screen buildings and parking should employ trees which will generate a mature canopy of trees.

Monticello welcomes the opportunity to assist homeowners and developers who are contemplating construction in the MPA. Please contact Monticello with any questions about these guidelines.

Projects that require discretionary land use permits should consider offering a proffer that addresses protection of the views from Monticello. Albemarle County could consider conditions that protect the views from Monticello when special use permits are issued.

Considering the revised map and the voluntary restrictions listed above, development (that the Comprehensive Plan seeks to encourage) just got a great deal more difficult in the Monticello visible development areas of Albemarle County.  In addition, The Free Enterprise Forum questions the legal standing for the existing Monticello view shed protection in the current Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan.   

In 2004, we cheered when the Foundation purchased a neighboring 334 acre parcel now known as Montalto.  This purchase is the proper way to control view shed – you want it — buy it.

When President Thomas Jefferson looked west to the expansion of the United States, he initiated the Louisiana Purchase.  I firmly believe Jefferson would advocate for the protection of property rights over the view shed protections currently proposed.

Despite the fact that they wrote it, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation should now ask the Albemarle County Planning Commission to remove the “Monticello Protection Area” map and the associated  ‘voluntary’ land grab language from the Comprehensive Plan before prior to sending it on to the Board of Supervisors.

As Jefferson wrote “Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of.” –[Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:440]. 

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

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

Image Credits:Thomas Jefferson Foundation Inc.

Is It Time for an Albemarle ‘Super Supervisor’?

FREE ENTERPRISE FORUM EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson, President

In our annual break from public meetings, the Free Enterprise Forum asks if the time come to popularly elect an at-large member of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors?

This would break the 3-3 tie situations where nothing moves forward due to the even number of supervisors.  But why stop there?  Perhaps the public, rater than the supervisors, could even directly elect the Chair of the Board of Supervisors?

Please let me explain.

Currently, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has six members and the members work, or don’t work, amongst themselves to elect a Chair.  According to Charlottesville Tomorrow:

In a tradition dating back to the late 1980s , supervisors have rotated through the chairmanship with the newest members getting in line for their chance to lead the board for a two-year term. By custom, Snow would become chairman and Thomas would become vice chairman.

But a funny thing happened on the way to Duane Snow’s 2012 Chairmanship; the politics of the US 29 Western Bypass.  If Snow wanted to be Chair, three of the supervisors (Chris Dumler, Ann Mallek, Dennis Rooker) insisted they have representation on  the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).  Dueling motions failed 3-3 and the two sides did not agree to a solution, therefore according to Robert’s Rules of Order the previous chair and MPO representation would continue until such a time when the Board could elect a new chair.

The Albemarle County Board is scheduled to vote again on chairmanship on January 9th.  It is unclear what, if anything, has changed since last January.  We very likely could witness the same 3-3 dueling motions.

The Free Enterprise Forum has written about the importance of counting to four on a six member board.  In the past, Supervisor Rooker has mentioned the benefits of a six member board including the need to develop coalitions and work together.  Supervisor Boyd regularly mentions that such split votes are the anomaly and the vast number of votes the Board takes are 6-0.

Interestingly, in the same Charlottesville Tomorrow post regarding the leadership vote in January 2012, Boyd said:

“There are other things looming, like the Crozet library and the land swap for athletic fields at Biscuit Run, that people will need support from a majority,” Boyd added. “Let’s don’t set up this 3-3 split as the table we are sitting at for the rest of the year. That wouldn’t be good for the county or anyone.”

The Free Enterprise Forum researched the sixteen localities in Virginia that are frequently used by Albemarle County for benchmarking purposes.  Of these localities, all but one (Prince William) have an odd number construct of their governing body.  Less decisive is the concept of a chair that is elected at large.

Locality	Population	Number of Board Members	Elected Chair
Albemarle	98,970	6	NO
Augusta	73,750	7	NO
Bedford	68,676	7	NO
Charlottesville	43,475	5	NO
Fairfax	1,081,726	9	YES
Frederick	78,305	7	YES
Hanover	99,863	7	NO
Henrico	306,935	5	NO
James City	67,009	5	NO
Loudoun	312,311	9	YES
Louisa	33,158	7	NO
Montgomery	94,392	7	NO
Prince William	402,002	8	YES
Roanoke	92,376	5	NO
Rockingham	76,314	5	NO
Spotsylvania	122,397	7	NO
Stafford	128,961	7	NO

It is important to note that having an odd number also creates the propensity for significant ideological swings in your Board.  This is especially true in Loudoun County where they do not have staggered terms for Board members.

If an at large “Super Supervisor” was in place today, this man or woman would represent the entire county and would likely be the swing vote on many contentious issues.  If the “Super Supervisor” was also the chair, they would control the agenda of the meeting as well as preside over the Board of Supervisors meetings.  

In both private and non profit Board governance, many consider an odd numbered Board to be a sound business practice that can help speed decision making.  The Free Enterprise Forum recognizes that there are times that such increased speed is not desirous in local government.

It is illuminating that the Albemarle County Planning Commission has seven voting members one from each magisterial district and one that is appointed by the entire Board of Supervisors.  If at large representation is good enough for the PC why not the Board itself?

Considering the 3-3 logjam at the Board, the time has come for the community to debate the merits of both an odd numbered Board and an at-large elected Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.

The Free Enterprise Forum believes such a decision could increase citizen representation as everyone would be represented by their magisterial district as well as the Chair. We also believe such a decision could create an incredibly powerful voting block, that could go either way, on the Board. 

If this is the will of the voters, would an organizational structure designed to create a voting majority on the Board of Supervisors be a bad thing?

Or do Albemarle citizens prefer the current structure with its structural flaws as this design promotes collaboration and coalition building.

That can only be answered by the community discussion; but if Albemarle citizens choose not to to discuss the obvious structural issues in their current government construct, we may spend at least another year counting to three.

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

Photo Credit: NBC29

Comments on Albemarle County’s Rural Areas Rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan

October 30, 2012

The Free Enterprise Forum appreciates the efforts of Albemarle County staff in the rewrite of the rural areas chapter but there is a consistent tension in the document between rural area residential uses and rural area agricultural uses.   On page twelve, the chapter identifies the 1994 recommendations of farm operator that state “County Policies that support farmers regarding nuisance conflicts generated by residential uses in the Rural Areas” later on that same page it discusses ancillary “non-agricultural” to use the comp plan term “can have physical and nuisance impacts on surrounding rural land.”  I am confused which is the nuisance the agricultural use or the residential use.

The Free Enterprise Forum requests that landowner rights be included in those items the plan seeks to protect on Page 7.  It is important to recognize the rural areas are in their current state not because of government action but because of landowner stewardship.  We suggest the words inserting after protect “land owner rights and” the key elements that give the area its character.

The chart for residential uses on page 2 in the rural area is accurate, but misleading.  The rural area units do not compete with the condos and apartments.  A more accurate chart would compare Single Family Detached housing in the rural area vs Single Family Detached in the development area.

Under Conservation easements the Comp Plan notes 18.6 percent of the county is now under conservation easement.  What is the goal? 

If ¼ of the County’s land mass was tied up in perpetuity would that be enough? 

Is Albemarle County spending on such easements a proper metric for success? 

The chapter cites 70 farms in Albemarle County that sell local products to local consumers (Page 4).  I anticipate this number was taken from the Piedmont Environmental Council’s  Eat Local Campaign (Which is a great program).  Later in the document (and on the county’s website) the plan cites 26 wineries (there are 2 that I know of not yet listed) I believe this metric needs to be checked as only 7 Albemarle wineries are included in PEC’s list.  I suggest coordinating with Albemarle County Farm Bureau on this issue.

 We have spoken to staff regarding the objectives on Page 19 as being too broad.  Any new use, beyond a hayfield, would generate more demand on police and fire, will change the character of the area, and based on our understanding of the fractured aquifers and Virginia water law the concept of drawing groundwater from others should be removed.

Considering the fastest growing form of agriculture is farm wineries, we were surprised to see the assertion on page 20 “This situation is complicated by the tendency of winery events (which often include weddings and other gatherings to use their rural surroundings as an attraction without significantly supporting or promoting agricultural production”.  Nothing could be further from reality, as countless winegrowers have testified weddings and events generate new customers, sales and provide economic support for the agricultural uses.   These types of events were deemed as “usual and customary” by the General Assembly in HB 463. We ask this offending language be removed.

 We ask for a minor modification on Page 21 where the comp plan states Additional measures are needed to resolve issues, such as requiring a sound management plan.  We suggest changing to read “Additional measures need to be evaluated …”

 On Page 23, we ask you to drop 3b — the limitation of one or two special use permit events is too limiting.  Each special use permit should be considered on its own merit and conditions.

 We ask you reconsider the groundwater language in strategy 4b

 In Objective 5 we don’t understand why you are expanding some recreational activities while limiting others.  As the County is 95% rural areas we wonder why you would preclude a swim or tennis club in the rural areas to serve those residents as a special use permit.

Again we appreciate staff’s work on this document and hope you bring forward a comprehensive plan chapter that respects landowner rights and preserves rural enterprise economic sustainability.

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.

Comments on Albemarle County’s Natural Resources Chapter Draft

October 30, 2012

The Free Enterprise Forum believes Albemarle County’s Natural Resources chapter needs to refocus on natural resources and move away from the pull of biodiversity. While one school of biodiversity seeks to maintain and restore habitat to maintain the status quo another school suggests alterations in our biodiversity are continuous and humans, while having an impact, are a part of that continuous change.

In the past, we have raised significant concerns with the mission statement that is placed on Albemarle County’s website regarding the Biodiversity committee.  It states there mission as ” The mission of the Natural Heritage Committee (NHC) is to maintain and restore the County’s native biological diversity and provide a healthy environment for the citizens of Albemarle County.” This is far broader than the authority granted by the Board of Supervisors.

Throughout this chapter I see the Biodiversity Committee as assisting and informing staff decisions without input from elected officials.  This is a mistake.

On page 2 of the chapter it states, without scientific back up, “Biodiversity is essential to human life”.  Later it indicates that humanity has an ethical responsibility to care for other life forms on earth.  How can the natural resources chapter place ethical constraints on other chapters.  Ethics, and religion, do not belong in the comp plan. Some might suggest that humanity has an ethical responsibility to provide adequate shelter to other humans but that does not appear in our affordable housing chapter.  Both these statements should be removed.

On Page 4 there is a map referenced regarding areas for mountain protection but it does not indicate how such map is to be determined or if it is the map that was refused by the Board of Supervisors previously.

Reading between the lines on Page 12 the Free Enterprise Forum believes the Biodiversity Action Plan should be renamed the Biodiversity Downzoning Plan.  We are most concerned that a biological inventory informing land use decisions might preclude landowners from exercising their property rights in the name of biodiversity with limited benefit.

While respecting the intentions of the overzealous Natural Heritage Committee we believe the introduction of biodiversity as a land use metric is simply a back door to population control and the potential extinguishing of development rights without compensation.

In addition we fear the Biodiversity action plan would be in direct opposition to much of the neighborhood model design of dense development and pocket parks in the development areas.

On Page 14 we believe Objective 1 strategy a – should include language about preservation of property rights while encouraging sensitive site selection and design ….

On Page 18 we believe the use of the term “tragedy of the commons” to be unnecessary and prejudices the document.

On page 19 under Objective 3 strategies a and b seem to be in conflict and need to be reworded or combined.

On Page 20 – The Free Enterprise Forum believes Comprehensive Plan language should suggest not dictate we ask that Strategy d be we worded as follows – “Consider watershed divides when evaluating any future changes to Development Area boundaries to coordinate land use planning and water resources policy.”

I also noticed a couple of typos which I will forward to staff.  Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this document

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Neil Williamson, President

Want to Improve Industrial Zoning? Eliminate It!

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson, President

The idea of increasing the availability of light industrial land and reducing the level of regulation is really about the development of career ladder jobs.  So regardless of the dense arguments that follow regarding zoning regulatory burdens, one must remember the over arching goal is to locate quality jobs closer to qualified workers.

According to Younger & Associates the  “Hidden Employment Pool” reported in the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED) Targeted Industry Report is significant:

When the components of the labor supply pool are combined [recent graduates, unemployed desiring work, underemployed and part time desiring full time work], the total Hidden Potential Labor Supply can be seen. … In the TJPED region, employers have a potential labor pool of over 95,100 workers, many with past work experience and training that can be beneficial to employers in key industry groups.

With this as the demographic and economic backdrop, Tuesday night Albemarle County is considering a fairly comprehensive update of its industrial zoning ordinance.  While the Free Enterprise Forum applauds this update and asks that amendment F be adopted to allow limited industrial uses in commercial zoning, we feel that the entire concept of industrial zoning should be reexamined.

Technology advances significantly faster than regulation [This current Zoning Text Amendment dates back to 2009].  Even the staff report indicates the problem with contemplating all the potential uses “it is virtually impossible to anticipate every industrial use”.  Considering that zoning is enforced on a complaint basis; it seems intuitive that the drafting of any zoning ordinance is similar to fighting the last war.

So why not scrap the entire zoning classification game and work on what really matters – impacts to the neighbors and community.  Why should Albemarle County, or any locality, care if I am making widgets, wallets or wing nuts in my light industrial facility?

It shouldn’t matter.  But since the beginning zoning has focused on what you are doing on a parcel rather than how what you are doing may impact others.

What should matter is the development of reasonable, enforceable performance standards for any and all industrial uses.  Rather than spending months and thousands of dollars to get a piece of paper that allows you by special use permit (or special exception) to create jobs and build widgets, that money can be spent building your production facility/studio/flex space to be nimble to market demands and respectful of your neighbors regarding noise, emissions and traffic impacts.

Albemarle County’s proposal goes halfway in this direction as it requires all industrial uses provide a certified engineer’s report (Sec 4.14.5) addressing the control of emissions, discharges and other by-products of the use.  But all of this is under their very specific permitted uses – if the externalities are the same, the actual use should not matter.

This is not an entirely new idea.  Performance Based Zoning has been tested in several localities across the United States with mixed success.

What is Performance Based Zoning?

According to a paper prepared by the Minnesota Department of Administration:

Performance zoning is a land use planning concept that has its roots in building codes that established performance standards as opposed to specification standards. An example of a performance standard would be “that walls, floor and ceiling be so constructed as to contain
an interior fire for one hour”. A specification standard example would be “that walls, floor and ceiling be constructed of 4 inch thick masonry or stone”.

This concept transmuted into a system of industrial zoning by permitting defined industrial activities and locations based on measurable adverse externalities and their effects on adjoining properties. An adverse externality is an economist’s term that is defined as a harmful effect of one economic agent’s actions on another. Examples are pollution from factories (a production externality) and smoke from cigarettes (a consumption externality). Industrial performance zoning permitted the location of specific businesses and activities theoretically anywhere in a community based upon their measurable pollution impacts relative to their surroundings, human and natural, as opposed to being permitted only in established specific areas on the community’s official land use map.

In a paper published in Planning and Markets, Indiana University’s John R. Ottensmann explains the economic rationale for current so called Euclidian Zoning:

The economic justification for zoning is that the regulations prevent the negative external effects associated with the proximity of incompatible land uses (Clawson 1971, Moore 1978). By eliminating these externalities, the argument goes, zoning can produce a pattern of land use that results in greater overall economic efficiency than would occur in the absence of regulation.

By introducing controls on the private use of land, however, zoning necessarily results in land use decisions that are less efficient from the perspectives of the individual landowners. Proponents of zoning argue that these private inefficiencies would be offset by the increases in economic efficiency obtained by the prevention the negative external effects associated with unregulated patterns of land use. But the question arises as to whether the private inefficiencies created are indeed offset by the reduction in externalities (Nelson 1989). Furthermore, even if the net social benefits associated with zoning are positive, the question remains as to whether traditional zoning creates greater private inefficiencies than would be produced by alternative, more flexible forms of land use regulation.

We recognize there would be significant work to move forward with the creation of a performance based industrial zoning ordinance but we believe the economic benefits far outweigh the upfront bureaucratic costs.

A performance based industrial standard would better, and more specifically, protect adjoining landowners and could significantly improve the economic development opportunities, and employment potential, for the locality that embraces the challenge.

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, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.

Photo Credits- Biotech 8, Richmond, VA; Indiana University