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

 

Why Didn’t Somebody Call The Police

By. Neil Williamson, President

Albemarle County just released its latest draft of their comprehensive plan.  A large portion of the plan regards land use.  Interior to the land use portion is the concept of the “neighborhood model”.  The Neighborhood Model is a form of New Urbanism that promotes pedestrian orientation, building mass, interconnected streets, multi modal transportation options and even public art.

But what about crime?  There is an increasing volume of research indicating some elements of new urbanism promote criminal activity. 

So we were most interested when Albemarle County announced in July 2011 that a new Crime Prevention Officer position (click here for the media release).  Ten year Albemarle Police veteran Steve Watson, a CEPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) Certified Police Officer was selected for this position.  According to the County media release:

Officer Watson’s duties and responsibilities will include managing community related events, and coordinating the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program and the Neighborhood Watch Program.  Officer Watson will be the liaison between the community and the police department as it relates to crime prevention.

In a telephone interview with the Free Enterprise Forum, Officer Watson indicated he has had no interaction with the Planning Department regarding Crime Prevention and the Neighborhood Model but he would welcome such a conversation.  Frankly, Officer Watson seemed almost evangelical about his passion for CPTED.

Considering this newly acquired talent, why didn’t somebody call the Police? 

During the discussion of relegated parking (once merely a part of the Neighborhood Model, now written into County Code), the Free Enterprise Forum asked what the Albemarle County Police Department thought of this planning concept.  Based on our limited understanding of CPTED, hidden parking lots created a fertile environment for criminal activity.  Our calls for police involvement fell on deaf ears.

Basic CPTED theory focuses on examining the built environment and how CPTED principles apply to problem solving, community planning, and safety and security assessments. 

The National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) offers certification in CPTED and indicates the basic coursework provides:

The Basic CPTED course covers the theory behind CPTED and give an overview of the history of crime and the physical environment; the basics of CPTED principles and how they work; applying successful applications and techniques of CPTED to specific crimes; how to consider CPTED principles in plans to secure key public places and facilities; and how to conduct a community safety assessment using CPTED principles.

• CPTED applications to specific crimes and “hot spots” locations
• Specific practical techniques including street and security lighting, landscaping, barriers, traffic calming, and target hardening
• Role of maintenance, ordinances, and other local laws in strategies to prevent crime and improve quality of life
• How to conduct a community safety assessment using tools based on CPTED principles
• How to consider CPTED principles in plans to secure key public places and facilities
• How to link neighborhood volunteers to local crime prevention, community building, and homeland security initiatives.

Naively perhaps, the Free Enterprise Forum believed that the Albemarle County Planning Department would know that the Albemarle County Police Department had this new position dedicated to Crime Prevention and would utilize this resource to evaluate the Comprehensive Plan review.  [Remember this Comprehensive Plan revision included a Million Dollar Grant to help Albemarle coordinate planning work with Charlottesville and the University].

There is mention of CPTED in the Current Comprehensive Plan under Parks and Open Space:

The design and location of open space determines how fully it will be used. For example, a public space framed by building fronts, surrounded by neighborhood thoroughfares, and accessible to nearby residents is inviting and safe. Such principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) can improve siting decisions, as can such criteria as locating parks near paths or major destinations like schools and other public facilities

But nowhere in this state mandated document is there significant consideration of crime prevention through better community design.

For a government dedicated to the health, safety and welfare of its citizens,  that is a crime.

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

‘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

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

Light Industrial Land Availability = JOBS

By. Neil Williamson, President

On Tuesday (10/11) The Albemarle County Planning Commission will be discussing the upcoming revision for their Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the size and location of the Development Areas.

The Free Enterprise Forum has reviewed the 100+ page staff report and was disappointed at the lack of focus on light industrial needs within the development areas.

While the report includes statistical census data relating to jobs, all of the discussion regarding “land capacity for growth” is focused on residential growth.  Albemarle planning staff has indicated it wishes to discuss industrial land in a separate portion of the Comprehensive Plan update, The Free Enterprise Forum disagrees. Now is the time to focus on the potential expansion of the development areas to accommodate job growth (and retention).

Way back in 2008, we wrote about the lack of Light Industrial land in Albemarle County.

In 2010 when Albemarle County’s Business Facilitator Susan Stimart produced her report on the Light Industrial land  it indicated only about 100 acres of Light Industrial Land was available.

Charlottesville Tomorrow penned an article about the 2010 report, citing the among the report’s conclusions:

In general, the report recommends the county take several steps to increase the amount of land available for industrial use. Using employment statistics extrapolated from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Stimart estimates the county will need between 184 and 500 additional acres of land zoned for industrial uses by 2018 in order to meet future employment needs.

The article went on to quote one local environmental advocate’s opposition to development area expansion (and the related jobs).

Jeff Werner with the Piedmont Environmental Council said the county has squandered much of the land that had been zoned light industrial. During the residential and retail boom of the last decade, many properties that had been zoned for light industrial use were rezoned to make way for new developments such as Albemarle Place and Hollymead Town Center.

Werner specifically pointed to the March 2008 rezoning of 88 acres off of Fifth Street Extended to make way for a new shopping center.

“I don’t recall anyone from the development community raising any concerns about that,” Werner said

“Given that the county has been willing to rezone light industrial lands for retail, I see no need to expand the growth area.”

Mr. Werner is correct that land that was ill suited for industrial has been rezoned over the past decade. In each case the applicants successfully argued that their “stale” industrial zoned land had a higher, better use as residential or commercial should be rezoned to that use.   

When such upzoning  of industrial land occurs, if the community is committed to light industrial jobs, then there is a need for replacement capacity by expansion of the development area.

Earlier this year, in a meeting of industrial land users one more than one company indicated significant frustration with the lack of available industrial property and suggested they may be leaving Albemarle because of this lack of capacity.

Given that as a community we have limited funds to spend on infrastructure, doesn’t it seem silly to prohibit light industrial activity where the infrastructure already exists (or could easily be located)?

To be clear, changing the Comprehensive Plan does not change the underlying zoning on the land, it merely opens the opportunity for the land owner to request such a rezoning (and for the land owner to “voluntarily” proffer improvements required to mitigate the projects impacts).

Back in July 2008, Planning Commissioner Tom Loach indicated his preference was for Master Plans to dictate any changes to their respective development areas.  The Free Enterprise Forum  disagrees, the Board of Supervisors (and their appointees on the Planning Commission) are much better positioned to address county wide employment opportunity needs rather than  Master Planning Groups.

When we highlighted the shift of jobs moving out of manufacturing and into Leisure and Tourism (Making Products or Making Beds), we were taken to task by some asking what did we want government to do? 

Here is what Government can and should  do – Plan  for Job Creation and Retention.  If we fail to address this need in this Comprehensive Plan update, we are destined to lose enterprises.

Tuesday night the planning staff only wants to talk about residential growth, we suggest the Planning Commission lead the process by pushing staff to consider industrial expansion, now.

In Albemarle we are asking the Planning Commission to make Jobs- Job One.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

———————————————————————-

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

Many Staffs, Many Plans — Is the New Planning Paradigm Staff Driven?

By. Neil Williamson, President

Thanks to a three year, $999,000 grant from the Federal Government, The City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, The University of Virginia and The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) are working together to develop the “Livable Communities Planning Project”. 

The Free Enterprise Forum has raised significant concerns of the different perspectives regarding livability between city residents and county residents.  The Meadowcreek Parkway and Community Water supply issue are just two of the latest examples of different visions.

But this week, we are also concerned that the professional staffing for this project is ideologically homogenous with a significant new urbanist philosophical bent.  In a normal planning process we would not be as concerned because it is a more formalized public process with significant resident and business input.  This process values input but is process driven.

Summer Fredrick, a former Senior Planner in Albemarle who resigned to join TJPDC specifically to  head up this effort, said in the Daily Progress last week:

“This is a process-driven project, but the process is only as good as the input we get.”

The kick off event, held in the lobby of Albemarle County’s Lane Auditorium seemed crowded as folks milled about looking a number of different posters and speaking to planners about the Livable Communities Planning Project. 

Reflecting on the meeting, I was struck by the large number of staff in attendance.  I looked back on the photo by Brian Wheeler that ran in The Daily Progress:

Photo Credit: Charlottesville Tomorrow Staff Identification by Free Enterprise Forum

It is important to note that The Free Enterprise Forum has worked with staff from all of the organizations represented in the Livable Communities Planning Project.  On the whole we have found these staff members to be solid planning professionals.  Given the federal funding and the significant in-kind staff support each of the participants are bringing to the table, citizens must remain vigilant that their perspectives are represented.  This will require a three year commitment from community members as well as advocacy groups.

We know the staff will remain engaged; will the public?

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 and Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

 

VDOT Takes the Places29 Driver’s Seat (or not?)

By. Neil Williamson, President

Included in last night’s public input session on Places29 was a new twist, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will (or might) not certify the comprehensive plan section if it does not include all of the grade separated interchanges recommended in the transportation study they paid for as a part of the planning.  Without such 527 certification from VDOT, the Comprehensive Plan chapter would be invalid.

Reporting to the Board of Supervisors, Albemarle County’s Chief of  Planning David Benish prepared a PowerPoint slide that indicated “VDOT would not certify the comprehensive plan under Chapter 527” in his verbal presentation he changed the verb to “could”.

According to the VDOT website:

Chapter 527 of the 2006 Acts of Assembly added § 15.2-2222.1 to the Code of Virginia. The legislation establishes procedures by which localities submit proposals that will affect the state-controlled transportation network to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for review and comment. The chapter also directs VDOT to promulgate regulations to carry out the provisions of the statute.

The statute intends to improve how land-use and transportation-planning decisions are coordinated throughout Virginia by establishing standardized methodologies (definitions, analytical methods, etc.), procedures for analyzing transportation impacts and providing that information to citizens and policymakers.

Supervisor Ken Boyd bristled at the idea that VDOT (and the General Assembly), who is not providing needed road construction funding and has significant funding issues of their own would come in and dictate that the community build interchanges that it may not want.  Benish seemed to back off of his statement and slide and indicated this was not a “direct threat” from VDOT but a discussion point for staff.

The Free Enterprise Forum believes this is a critical point.  VDOT was considered a partner in the Places29 land use and transportation comprehensive plan when it started in 2005.  Now due to General Assembly action in 2006, Albemarle may have to accept (and possibly fund) the improvements dictated by the transportation study, whether the citizens agree or not.  If this is accurate, VDOT, not the locality, will drive local comprehensive planning as it relates to transportation.

Considering the the Department of Transportation’s current funding and staffing challenges, I am remain unconvinced the General Assembly has fully prepared VDOT to get behind the wheel on this issue.

If this turns out to be merely a PowerPoint slide added to the presentation by staff to use the potential of VDOT denial under 527 as a leverage point to push the interchanges forward — well that’s a horse of a different color.

More about Places 29

—————————————————————

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 and Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Stanardsville and Greene County – Learning from The Neighbors to the South

By Terri Gulyas, Greene County Field Officer

With an eye toward a revitalized collaborative relationship, the Stanardsville Town Council voted unanimously on May 10 to endorse the Greene County Planning Commission to also serve as the Planning Commission for the Town of Stanardsville. The Planning Commission will utilize the Stanardsville Town Ordinances in making recommendations to the Town Council while continuing to use Greene County ordinances for the rest of the County. Members of the Planning Commission and the Town Council have expressed enthusiasm at this opportunity for the Town and the County to continue building a strong relationship while hoping to avoid some of the pitfalls encountered by neighboring districts. The public hearing on the Proposed Budget for the Town of Stanardsville for FY 2010-2011 reflected an additional line item for administrative expenses ($500) for the Planning Commission.

Speed limits, particularly on VA 230, were discussed and the question was raised as to how speed limits are determined. The governing body would need to make a recommendation to VDOT for a change in the limit. VDOT would then conduct a study and have public hearings before making a decision. The Council opted to recommend keeping the speed limit as posted but will investigate the possibility of getting “reduced speed ahead” signage.

Concerns were raised about property maintenance ordinance differences between Stanardsville and Greene County. Currently Stanardsville has a property maintenance code but Greene County does not. Town property owners held to a different standard than county property owners are frustrated when there is proximity to poorly maintained property. Changes in the working relationship between Stanardsville and Greene County may facilitate greater alignment of town and county ordinances.

Parking for Main Street businesses was discussed. The parking lot behind the Town Hall is scheduled for line painting for parking spaces. There was a request that signage in the lot indicate which spaces were available for public parking. This led to a broader discussion of the need for more parking vs. improved signage for parking that is already available.

It was suggested that business owners contact the Greene County Chamber of Commerce for assistance in this matter. One business owner queried about the process of Chamber membership and wasn’t aware that businesses did not need an invitation to join the Chamber. A greater representation of Stanardsville businesses in the Greene County Chamber of Commerce would be another way to facilitate the esprit de corps between the Town and the County.

Greene County Planning Commission Considers Capitol Improvement and Comprehensive Plans

 By.  Teresa Gulyas, Greene County Field Officer

The April meeting of the Greene County Planning Commission opened with the introduction and welcome of new member Frank Steele.

Planning Director Bart Svboda reported on the status of the Greene County Capital Improvement Plan. Radio systems for E911 have been implemented and construction on Pump Station 13 is 80% complete. Commission members expressed disappointment with the input from several departments for the next fiscal year. Some departments were unable to prioritize projects and ranked all projects as number one. Other departments provided no response and input that was received reflected “almost a mirror image of last year’s requests” per Norm Slezak, Planning Commission chair. Commissioner Davis Lamb expressed the need for a solid Capital Improvement Plan to be able to get meaningful proffers from developers.

The Commission discussed its role in the process of capital planning and felt that they could not ascertain the accuracy of the costs of any given project. They did feel strongly that the CIP should reflect what is in the Comprehensive Plan and so deferred decisions until the next meeting. This will provide time to compare the two documents and make sure that all projects listed in the Comprehensive Plan are addressed in the Capital Improvement Plan. Departments will be asked to provide additional input no later than May 7 with clarity as to how they derived their figures.

The Planning Commission unanimously approved the two recommendations of the Agricultural and Forestral District Advisory Committee. These recommendations included reducing the time frame of the District from ten years to five years (four years is the minimum required by Virginia) and approval of Article 3 regarding the continuation of districts. The Commission wants to ensure that property owners have information about land that has switched from belonging to an AFD to a conservation easement. Anthony Herring, Planning Commissioner, suggested that related maps be color coded to differentiate how these lands are protected.

Stanardsville officials are in the process of advertising the ordinance that would be required for the Greene County Planning Commission to serve as the Planning Commission for Stanardsville. After a public hearing, the Town Council will decide whether or not to approve the ordinance. Pending approval, the May agenda for the Greene County Planning Commission will include items for recommendation to either the Stanardsville Town Council or the Greene County Board of Supervisors.

Leon Szeptycki, Director, UVA Environmental Law and Conservation Clinic, presented the “Reducing Runoff from New Development: Recommendations for Greene County” report. For more information or to obtain a copy of the report, contact the Rivanna Conservation Society. With Greene County poised at the headwaters of the Rivanna and Rapidan rivers, it is in control of the quality of water for the area and neighboring counties downstream. The report discusses the correlation between development and water quality with a goal of reducing the amount of impervious surface area. Among the recommendations included are:

• Reducing parking space requirements for professional office and retail buildings
• Increasing landscaping designed to collect and filter runoff in new parking lots
• Allowing landscaped islands incorporating stormwater features in the middle of cul-de-sacs
• Offering incentives to developers to preserve trees and utilize low impact development features
• Implementing a comprehensive buffers ordinance to protect water quality and water supply

The Comprehensive Plan was reviewed but layout and graphics errors remain a problem. A representative from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission stated that the plan will need to be put into a more sophisticated computer program to eliminate these problems. The Commission unanimously agreed that these issues should not delay presentation of the plan to the Board of Supervisors.