Fluvanna PC Considers Revamped Development Plan

By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer

PALMYRA — Debate swirls about the proposed Walker’s Ridge development at the old Rivanna Resort, the alternative is to keep what the Rivanna Resort had planned and approved.

At the May 22 Planning Commission meeting, Justin Shimp, representing the developer, did not add many new specifics of the Walker’s Ridge proposal.  In addition, he did not fully answer some of the questions  by the chairman Barry Bibb. Shimp did provide concepts, but no actuals.

The exchange brought a lot of emotion to the second public comment section.

“You are looking for a disaster,” said resident James Gibson.

Gibson wasn’t alone in those feelings. None of the residents in attendance spoke in support of the Walker’s Ridge plan after the informative meeting.

The development is a proposed rezoning of 232 acres from R-3 to Plan Urban Development. The current zoning allows over 230 units. The proposed zoning change would allow 1,180 residential units with 180,000 square feet of commercial space.

The proposed development would use a series of localized central water and sewer systems. The water would come from a well system with storage tanks, similar design to Fork Union Sanitary District. The sewer system would consist of a drip system to filtrate the used water back into the ground water supply.

“What we propose is to take the water out of the ground and put it back into the ground,” said Shimp, who serves as the civil engineer for the project.

The current zoning status was approved in 2009 for the once proposed ‘The Point at The Rivanna Resort’. The proffers included as a part of that rezoning include:

• traffic improvements to the road as designated in the 2009 study
• $50,000 for construction of traffic light at the main entrance if required by VDOT within five years of successful site plan approval
• restriction of the golf course as a public golf course
• $5,000 cash proffer per residential unit to be used for the new high school or development of the then-proposed Pleasant Grove Community Center
• $1,000 cash proffer to the Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation for emergency repairs to low income county residents’ houses
• provision to provide water and sewer connection for the Palmyra Fire Station
• provision to provide water and sewer connection for expansion of sewer services in the Fluvanna area
• various exterior architectural guidelines for both residential and commercial buildings

The water and sewer connection provisions are nearly void because the Palmyra water system could only provide enough water for less than 75 more residential units, per a report by the public works director in the Walker’s Ridge planning documents.

Walker’s Ridge will not use the golf course but have building throughout the property. The plans call for fairways and golf cart paths to be used in calculating trail and open space in the PUD.

The PUD proposals divides the land into 47 percent open space, 35 percent residential and just six percent commercial. The proposed commercial space would be 180,000 square feet.

The proposed residential unit break down is 560 multifamily units, 318 townhomes, 205 single family detached homes and 97 single family attached homes. Proposed amenities include ponds, trails, playground, athletic facilities and possible swimming and fitness facilities.

If Walker’s Ridge does not get approval, the current zoning for what was the Point at The Rivanna Resort would still apply.

Walker’s Ridge could have the Planning Commission public hearing at the next meeting, June 26.

——————————————————————-

The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.

Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum.  He is the founder of the Fluco Blog.  Additional writings can be found at www.Flucoblog.com

Monticello Proposal Still Infringes Property Rights

A open letter to Albemarle County Planning Commission:

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

Many thanks to Albemarle Director of Planning Wayne Cilimberg for forwarding me the new submissions the Thomas Jefferson Foundation has presented for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan for discussion. The Free Enterprise Forum regrets the majority of the public will not get to see them in advance of the Planning Commission discussion this evening. Again, I regret I will not be able to join you this evening due to a previously scheduled family event.

Considering our outspoken position in favor of individual property rights, we believed a response to Mr. Cilimberg would be appropriate given this newly available information.

After reviewing the e-mailed documents, we agree that this iteration of language is significantly better than the language the Thomas Jefferson Foundation originally wanted. In addition it is also improved from the language the Foundation inserted into the existing Comprehensive Plan.

Recognizing this marked improvement, the Free Enterprise Forum must continue to oppose the intrusion of local government into this basic property rights issue. We ask the section be removed entirely from the Comprehensive Plan.

Please let me explain.

Regardless of their status or import, The Thomas Jefferson Foundation is a property owner with property rights. Their neighbors are also property owners with rights. Because of their position in the community, they have successfully lobbied Albemarle County to insert language into the state mandated planning document that will require the County to act as the Foundation’s agent in delivering voluntary design guidelines to limit the property rights of parcels that may be seen from the “Big House”.

The rationale for this inclusion , according to tonight’s staff report is “In recent years, keeping up with all site plans, subdivision plats, rezonings, and special use permits has been difficult for TJF staff”. As Planning Commission Mac Lafferty regularly reminds the public, the planning staff has increasing responsibilities without the requisite increasing in staffing.

Is Albemarle County now in a position to provide additional staff work for the Thomas Jefferson Foundation?

Will Albemarle extend this courtesy to other property owners as well?

The Free Enterprise Forum is aware that Albemarle County is blessed to have the homes of two presidents within its borders. Why has the County not provided the same accommodations to the staff at Ash Lawn?

This issue of visual impact is an issue between property owners not an issue for government. The reality of voluntary guidelines being delivered by government when a building permit is pulled or a pre-application process is initiated is nothing more than a thinly veiled requirement.

Considering all of the above, we find it ironic that Albemarle County and the home of the drafter of the Declaration of Independence are advocating Comprehensive Plan language that makes some property owners more equal than others.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this issue.

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

Heavy Handed Albemarle Comp Plan is Not Ready For Prime Time

By. Neil Williamson, President

The 2013 Comprehensive Update to Albemarle County’s Comprehensive Plan is headed to public hearing on Tuesday (4/2) night.  The plan is available online, but the Free Enterprise Forum purchased a hard copy from the Planning Department for the princely sum of $168.

The new plan weighs in at about half the weight of the previous plan and we applaud the use of appendices rather than embedding policies and master plans into the text of the comp plan. 

We are encouraged by the brief (shortest in the Comp Plan) but meaningful chapter on Economic Development as well as the recognition of the importance of agriculture and forestry to the rural areas. We are encouraged that the document asks the question ‘How do Cash Proffers hinder density’.

But with that being said, we find the comprehensive plan to be lacking a consistent, unified voice.  For all the brevity of the Economic Development chapter, there are long winded almost evangelical undercurrents written into the Natural (and Historic) Resources chapters that have little or no concern for the cost of implementation nor property owner rights and do not belong in this planning document. 

  …the County should develop the action plan to focus on conserving ecological integrity at the scale of the landscape.  The landscape approach focuses on a wide scale (square miles rather than square feet) an the management of major land features (e.g., forest blocks, watersheds, urbanized areas) to both conserve ecological diversity and support conservation measures (such as conservation easements) or for restoration efforts.  This plan should also establish conservation approaches for aquatic conservation through land management techniques designed for a specific watershed. (5.1.14)

The concept of a historical protection ordinance has been a flaw in Albemarle County’s comprehensive plan for years.  In this iteration, the concept has been vastly expanded to use GIS technology to create a historic overlay layer and empower (likely without legislative authority) the Architectural Review Board to evaluate development proposals and by right building in and adjacent to the Historic Overlay.

Strategy 2b.3: Expand the Authority of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to include the review required under the recommended historical overlay district ordinance.  Revise the make-up of the ARB to include members with expertise in historic preservation and revise the name of the board accordingly.

Strategy 2b.4: Establish an advisory review by the ARB of all rezonings, special use permits, site plans, and subdivision plats for proposals located within or abutting a locally designated historic district to ensure that historic preservation considerations are available as part of the decision making process. (5.2.10)

The Free Enterprise Forum has already written extensively about the Monticello Land Grab that is currently drafted into the comp plan has attempted to put into the Comprehensive Plan.  To be clear there is no reason for Monticello’s viewshed to be enumerated in the Comprehensive Plan.  We encourage Monticello to work directly with their neighbors to discuss how each of them exercise their property rights and leave government out of the equation.  

Upon further study, it became clear that Monticello is not the only entity seeking to regulate aesthetics.  Under the Cultural and Scenic resources section the comprehensive plan calls for expanded (again without legislative authority) power for Albemarle County:

The County’s scenic resources are highly valued and contribute both to the quality of life and the tourism economy.  Existing regulations only go so far in protecting the resources.  Greater ability to regulate aesthetics is desired to help preserve these qualities. (5.2.14)

The Transportation chapter section of the Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated to reflect reality.  Without population increases exponentially above the current projection, automobiles will continue to be the dominant form of transportation and home buyers will continue to choose homes that best fit their lifestyle choices rather than being limited by transportation availability.  Highlighting an anti car/anti personal mobility bias the plan states:

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.  Today, and n the future, the local transportation system is faced with the challenge of finding adequate revenue, an aging transportation infrastructure (and an aging population), higher energy prices, and accommodating future population and employment growth….

Since our founding, the Free Enterprise Forum has had issues with the mandated neighborhood model form of development and the manner in which the County has now codified THE MODEL rather than a model.  Considering the importance of this document and our ten years of experience with THE model shouldn’t more time be taken to see how these “principles” have turned out in real projects both good and bad?  In addition, based on all of the evidence light rail will not work in Albemarle County in the next 50 years; why then is it still on page 5.5.19 of the comprehensive plan. 

The Free Enterprise Forum appreciates the significant effort staff and the Planning Commission have put into the document thus far.  We believe there are positives in this iteration but we also believe it could still be better.

We hope that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors take their time with the document that is supposed to guide our community for the next twenty years.

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.

‘Rezoning Ransom’: Repeal cash proffers

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

 

By. Neil Williamson, President, Free Enterprise Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greene BOS Approves Region Ten Rezoning

By. Brent Wilson

At the January 22nd Greene County Board of Supervisors meeting, Jennifer Hinkle, Director of Greene County’s Region Ten Community Service, requested a rezoning of a 1 acre parcel from R-1 to B-1. The site has had a special use permit for usage of the R-1 class since 1981 and for many years housed a fitness center . The acre plot is situated in a residential area just east of Stanardsville off Route 33 Business on Lambs Lane. B-1 rezoning would allow a professional office to be located on the site. The Greene County Planning Commission had approved this request at its November 15, 2012 meeting .

Hinkle explained that VDOT estimates fewer vehicle trips per day.

The Comprehensive Plan  supports business growth in the Stanardsville area. Region Ten has been in service to Greene County since 1972. The need to move locations is caused by the lack of space in their current facility which serves approximately 60 students and 40 adults.

Lisa Roberston, Region Ten’s attorney, spoke about Region Ten’s service to Greene. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Region Ten is a long time resident of Greene County showing an ability to coexist beside residential property. The current space for Region Ten has residential on two sides and the new space would meet most of the B-1 requirements in a residential area.

However, the majority of the speakers come out opposed to the B-1 rezoning for Region Ten. Wendell Lamb gave the history of the property, 17 acres, that dates back to his mother’s home. He got the special use permit for the fitness facility and then sold the business. He gave each of his children 2 acres of land around the facility and he still owns part of the property. His argument was – would you want Region Ten in your family plot when there are other places in Greene they could locate?

Several other speakers against the rezoning brought up issues of the B-1 class. There is not enough parking spaces, there is not handicapped parking for both levels and no elevator within the building, there is not enough set back, etc. Many believed this to be spot zoning.

None of the speakers against the rezoning spoke negatively toward the work Region Ten does, they spoke out against the location only. However, several speakers were both supportive of the organization’s work and the new location. In addition, Region Ten in Greene County provides space to the Food Bank  in Greene County.

After the public comment, County Attorney Ray Clarke, reminded the BOS that this was a land issue and not specifically about the building on the site. The site review issues related to the building should not be considered. The question of spot zoning  is valid only if the specific location receives benefit. If there are benefits beyond the specific site, then it is not spot zoning.

The BOS then spoke on the issues. Clarence “Buggs” Peyton (Stanardsville) began the discussion by stating that B-1 zoning would allow a variety of new commercial uses on the property (see page 29 of Greene County Zoning Ordinance ) whereas the SUP was for only the one use. He felt the Comprehensive Plan designated this area primarily for family development.

Supervisor Davis Lamb (Ruckersville) agreed with Peyton.  Supervisor Eddie Deane (At-Large) stated he appreciates what Region Ten brings to Greene County. If the rezoning is approved then, Region Ten would have to deal with any non-conforming issue at that time, Dean suggested. 

Supervisor David Cox (Monroe)  had similar questions about what Region Ten would have to do to be in compliance. Chairman Jim Frydl (Midway) echoed Cox’s zoning questions and Greene County Planning Director Bart Svoboda answered that the current building probably is non-conformance as it stands today for B-1 zoning.

Peyton made a motion to deny the rezoning request which was defeated in a 2-3 (Cox, Dean, Frydl – No) vote.  Cox made a motion to approve the request which passed 3-2 (Peyton, Lamb – No).

——————————————–

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

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

Why Albemarle’s “Fast Track” Is Headed Off The Rails

By. Neil Williamson, President

In yesterday’s (3/7) Albemarle County Board of Supervisors meeting there was a staff presentation and discussion of creating a “fast track” for select industries that require land use designation changes.

Aaron Richardson of the Daily Progress has a very good synopsis of the “bickering” story.  The real disagreement between the supervisors seemed to be a deep philosophical rift regarding how much review should be waived, or accelerated, for one particular desired business and how would businesses could qualify for the accelerated review.

The reality is that some portion of the Board is looking to set the business qualification bar so high that no business could qualify.

The Staff Report suggested only those businesses identified in the soon to be released Targeted Industry conducted by the  Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED).  In addition to being identified in the TJPED Study staff suggested additional specific objective criteria must be met to qualify for the Fast Track:

Staff recommends that a formal fast track review process be reserved for qualified target industry enterprises located within appropriately designated development areas that also meet two or more of the following criteria:
 Projects that provide a minimum (amount to be determined) number of jobs with higher wages than the prevailing County average;
 Projects that bring in a minimum (amount to be determined) capital investment;
 Projects that are anticipated to result in a minimum (amount to be determined) positive fiscal impact to the County; and
 Projects that generate over 50% of their revenue from outside the TJPED region. [emphasis added-nw]

In discussion, several Supervisors thought any qualifying business should meet all of the criteria.  Mr. Rooker was concerned that the environmental impacts of the business were not a part of the fast track qualification.

It seemed obvious from the discussion that some of the supervisors had great trepidation about creating any process that would accelerate the approval process for anyone.

Other localities in the state, those that are eager to embrace new business, have set up fast tracking of applications for specific targeted areas.  As an example, Loudoun County makes their  “modified approval process” for the following types of projects:

New construction for businesses in these targeted industries:

• Life Sciences
• Technology (hardware and software)
• International Business (business with foreign ownership seeking U.S. location)
• Post-High School Educational Facilities
• Homeland Security and Defense Contractors
• Projects compatible with the operation and future development of Washington Dulles International Airport
• Office/flex/industrial buildings that are over 75,000 square feet
• Commercial projects in rural Loudoun focused on tourism-related activities, such as country inns, rural resorts and restaurants

So Loudoun has created a list of specific industries it wants to attract and is actively providing those industries staff support and expedited review – this is not rocket science folks.  But considering the tenor of the conversation yesterday the Free Enterprise Forum believes the battle over which projects should be fast tracked is a waste of time. 

If Albemarle County is not willing to use the TJPED targeted industry study as the only filter for fast tracking projects, then they should focus all of their limited staff time on fixing the track for everyone.

If instead, the citizens of Albemarle wish to see more career ladder jobs moving into the surrounding counties, do nothing.  In that case, I predict very few, if any, of the new “targeted industries” will locate in Albemarle. 

Perhaps, that was idea all along.

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.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credits: gettingdownunder.com

 

Greene Supervisors Fail to Approve Proffer Changes for Greenecroft Developer

By Pauline Hovey, Greene County Field Officer

Despite the Greene County  Planning Commission’s unanimous decision in December to recommend approval of Ted Corp, Inc./Greenecroft LLC’s request to amend proffers for their nearly 24-acre tract Planned Unit Development (PUD), the new Board of Supervisors voted against the amendment at its meeting on February 14. Once again the argument for and against more rooftops in Greene took over at a public hearing, ending with tough news for the developer, who was hoping for greater flexibility in the use and design of a commercial property located on Route 33 West.

The proffers the Board had approved in July 2004 required the development to consist of a maximum of 21, one-acre commercial parcels. Rob Lynch, manager of Ted Corp, Inc./Greenecroft LLC, argued that, because of the amount of commercial space now available, this requirement has created a hindrance by not allowing the market to dictate the size of the parcels. “I would love to do more commercial, but there’s already a lot of unused commercial space in Ruckersville,” Lynch said, as he explained his request for more flexibility in being able to reduce the size of the lots and build townhomes as well while maintaining 30-percent commercial use. Although the planning commissioners had agreed that the mixed-use PUD was a good model for Greene, a majority of supervisors and some residents saw it differently.

Residents who were not in favor of this change expressed concerns about future water shortages, the impact that additional homes would have on the schools and fire and rescue services, and the amount of cash proffers being offered. However, most residents of Greenecroft and the Four Seasons subdivisions spoke very favorably of Ted Corp, Inc., as a conscientious and trustworthy developer. “This developer has been a class act in the three years I’ve been here,” said Greenecroft resident Mark Sanford, who saw this as an “attractive proposal. I believe we can trust what the developer will do.”

Greene business owners like Vic Shaff, who also resides in Greene, spoke in favor of the amendment, noting, “We need these rooftops,” and with townhomes shown to bring in “40 percent fewer kids, changing proffers makes sense.”

Supervisors Jim Frydl (Midway) and Eddie Deane (at-large) agreed and favored the amendment. “The whole point of a PUD is to meet the market,” Frydl said, adding that flexibility is needed in areas that the county’s comprehensive plan has determined to be growth areas. From the standpoint of calculating cash proffers for townhomes, Frydl said the calculation made sense, and noted there is a lack of this type of housing in Greene – an indication that townhomes would be a favorable addition.

But Chairman Buggs Peyton (Stanardsville) and new supervisors Davis Lamb (Ruckersville) and David Cox (Monroe) voted against the request for various reasons, including concerns residents had addressed, such as a perceived increased need for sheriff, fire, and rescue services and a potential water shortage. Peyton seemed particularly concerned about changing the amount of cash proffers. “I don’t agree we should reduce proffers under any circumstances,” he told the board. As a result, they denied the developer’s request 3-2.

———————————————–

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

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

Fluvanna Planners Set CIP Priorities

By William J. Des Rochers, Fluvanna Field Officer

Fluvanna County’s Planning Commissioners unanimously forwarded the staff’s capital improvement (CIP) budget proposal to the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on January 25^th. The CIP calls for spending $21.3 million over the next five years on such facilities as a new swimming pool, an intergenerational center, and a new animal shelter. There also is a major E-911 planned upgrade that will cost some $4.9 million over the next two fiscal years.

The Planning Commission recommended the E-911 upgrade as the most critical project facing the county and also recommended that the supervisors fund the school bus and patrol car requests – an additional $2.8 million over the next five years.

There are also school upgrade projects highlighted and a capital reserve fund proposal that would be drawn upon for emergency repairs. The initial reserve would be funded at $156,000 and surpluses would be carried over year to year.

At the direction of the Board of Supervisors, planners also invited public comments on the sign ordinance with a view towards amending it if necessary. In recent months the ordinance has become a contentious issue among some members of the business community.

Only five members of the business community provided comments, none of which addressed specific concerns, but were more concerned that the county provide a “business friendly” environment. One businessperson: former supervisor Chris Fairchild disagreed and stated that he believed the environment already was friendly towards business. The Commission will consider some changes and will report back to the supervisors after it holds a public hearing, expected in April.

As reported in an earlier blog, the Planning Commission has an ambitious work program scheduled for the coming year. Here is a list of the major issues to be considered as well as the anticipated month for the public hearing on each:

· Amend the parking and landscaping sections of the Zoning Ordinance – April

· Amend the Sign Ordinance – April

· Amend A-1 zoning district and create a new rural zoning district – June

· Develop a cash proffer program – July

· Develop specific program policies for the transfer/purchase of development rights – October

· Review of the Conservation Easement Program – December

After the public hearings, commission recommendations would be forwarded to the supervisors for appropriate action.

Planners also selected a new chairman and vice-chairman to serve in 2012. The new chairman is James Halstead Jr. (Palmyra district) and Donald Gaines (Rivanna).

The next meeting will be held on February 22^nd.

———————————————–

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

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