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

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

Want to Improve Industrial Zoning? Eliminate It!

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson, President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Performance Based Zoning?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

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

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

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

By Pauline Hovey, Field Officer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———————————————–

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

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

Photo Credits: Greene County

Streamlining? – End the “Fake” Public Input

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson

Albemarle County’s Board of Supervisors will meet on Wednesday (9/1) to discuss the Legislative Review Process including rezonings and special use permits.  While the staff has proposed a number of important shifts including codifying application requirements (to “reduce scope creep according to the staff report) but it fails to address the easiest of the issues – elimination of “fake” public input.

The Free Enterprise Forum believes the public should be engaged in a rezoning as it is a change of land use.  With that being said it is important to acknowledge this change of use must be in accordance with the county’s comprehensive plan, a publically debated document seen as “a guide” for future development.

Public engagement and discussion of whether the rezoning is in  accordance with the Comprehensive Plan is appropriate and important; but once the application decision has been made, subsequent waivers (and site plan approvals) should not be used as opportunities for the public to revisit the rezoning decision.

The level of detail required in Albemarle County for a rezoning is incredible.  Such detail could, and should be used to consider the entire parcel (and conceptually the related critical slopes waivers, stream crossings etc.) during the rezoning public hearing.  

As identified in the Resource Management study conducted last year:

Site plans and subdivision plans are primarily technical in nature, and, if a plan meets all criteria, it must be approved. These plans may be approved by staff, except for County Code (14.218). The code stipulates that the Planning Commission will review a plat plan if anyone requests they review. This is in keeping with the County’s commitment to maximum citizen participation, but may mislead citizens as to their degree of impact at this stage. (emphasis added – nw)

Currently the Albemarle Planning staff have a negative presumption when it comes to granting waivers.  That is, the answer is no unless the applicant can provide a compelling reason why the waiver should be granted.  In addition, such administrative waivers may be called up by members of the planning commission.

Considering the level of detail required and the significant opportunity for public comment during the rezoning process, the Free Enterprise Forum believes once a rezoning is approved, all waivers should have a presumption of approval and be administratively approved. 

Recognizing the need for objective performance standards to be set to allow for an administrative approval, Albemarle County should work with developers, engineers, surveyors and environmental specialists to determine and codify these performance standards.

To hold a public hearing on a waiver that clearly meets the standards set forth in the ordinance is a waste of taxpayer money, a waste of applicant money and, more importantly, generates unrealistic citizen expectations that the Planning Commission has any power to deny the waiver. 

This is the type of “fake” public engagement that should be rooted out of the legislative process.

Respectfully submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

—————————————————————

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

Greene County’s Haste Makes Waste

By. Neil Williamson, President

On May 24, 2010, the Greene County’s Board of Supervisors held a special meeting which the Free Enterprise Forum called a “Secret Public Meeting”. The purpose of the meeting was to enact a Water Service Area and mandate new homes constructed within the service area hook up to public water and sewer. The new code chapter was made effective immediately and a public hearing to be held within sixty days of the action.

Interestingly, on May 24th, the Board also took action regarding the Greene County Water and Sewer Service Area Policy and revisions to the zoning and subdivision ordinance [revised 7/06/10 6:15 pm, the County placed separate legal ads for the two ordinances] that are not up for public hearing according to the legal notice published in The Greene County Record (July 1, 2010).

With the ordinance available for review and the public hearing now scheduled for July 13^th, the Free Enterprise Forum has serious concerns with the language in the Water and Sewer Service Area Policy and the Ordinance revisions.

The Policy reads in part:

Reliable public water and sewer service is essential to the welfare of many Greene County residents and businesses and is a key element in future sustainable growth within the County.  The provisions of these services is limited by water availability and the public water and sewer infrastructure.  To address these considerations, the policy herein promulgated establishes the area in the County where public water and sewer services will be nominally available.

Most localities (including Greene until May 24th) specify a maximum distance from a water main or sewer line that a property owner would be mandated to hook up. The Greene County ordinance reads “nominal” in terms of distance.

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law defines Nominal as:

Trifling, token, or slight; not real or substantial; in name only.

Nominal capital, for example, refers to extremely small or negligible funds, the use of which in a particular business is incidental.

The obvious question left by this enigmatic reference is nominal to whom? The County may judge the cost of extending a water pipe and sewer line over a half mile to reach the main to be “not real or substantial” or it may not, the ordinance is not clear on this issue.

Throughout the Zoning Ordinance revision (that does not seem to be up for public hearing on Tuesday), the term ‘New Construction” is used.

Public water and sanitary sewer hookup is mandatory for new construction within the Water and Sewer Service Area (WSSA) in accordance with these 16-17 regulations, unless the Greene County Board of Supervisors, in consultation with the Rapidan Service Authority (RSA) find that the capacity of the public water and/or sewerage system is inadequate to serve the proposed development.

What of developments that have already been developed [streets and curbs in] with water only hook ups?  A strict interpretation of this language would prohibit Greene County from issuing a building permit for any structure not hooked up to both water and sewer.  We have heard from one applicant that there is some significant confusion on the implementation of this facet of the ordinance.

The Free Enterprise Forum believes the intent of the policy is geared toward new home construction but as written, if one chooses to add a deck to an existing home within the water service area, one could be mandated to tie in to the water system. While this is not the intent of the ordinance such sloppiness should be expected when such legislation is rushed.

Greene County made a significant investment in the water treatment facility and is actively pursuing additional community water supply sources. Based on this investment, and the repayment of debt required, it is clear that Greene County needs to mandate water hookups within the service area or the taxpayers (rather than the ratepayers) will be saddled with the debt.

There is a middle ground available to Greene County, constructing a mandated hook up policy built on the concept of volume and distance would be a good start. In addition, the policy should recognize (and provide credits) for over sizing infrastructure that in turn provides revenue opportunity for the authority by increasing the authority’s capacity.

Mandating water hook ups for new residential construction increases the cost of development and this cost will be passed on directly to the new home buyer.

Such a mandate alone would be a challenge regardless of process but considering the non public manner this language was developed, one can’t be surprise by the output.

It reminds me of the old saying, “If you don’t have time to do It right, when will you find time to do it over?”

—————————————————————

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

Albemarle drops – “Open for Business”

By. Neil Williamson

Albemarle County is currently holding roundtables to discuss their proposed economic development action plan (pdf).   This evening (6/23) the first of the roundtables were held.  There was a very good showing of a cross section of Albemarle County including business interests, agricultural interests, environmental interests and regular citizens.  In total, we counted over 35 individuals at the meeting.

The original draft plan was developed by a small group of stakeholders including the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce and The Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED).  This original draft went to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in June. 

The Free Enterprise Forum is fascinated by the word smithing that is being conducted to take the meaning out of much of the document.

In the original draft:

1. EXPAND COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY – convey to the business community and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) that Albemarle County is “open for business.”

In the revised draft (new language in italics):

1. EXPAND COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY – convey to the business community and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) that Albemarle County is “open for business.” committed to working with businesses to promote economic vitality.

Words have meaning – are you open or not?

In addition, during the roundtable we raised the importance of those enterprises that might not be “businesses”.  Our community has several large “non-profit” employers that contribute a great deal to the fabric of the community including providing important services (and the jobs that go with them).  The Free Enterprise Forum prefers using the verbiage “enterprises” instead of businesses to recognize the importance of employers that may not fit the strict definition of business.

Words have meaning and the more the Economic Development Action Plan is edited with squishy word and vague statements the weaker a document it becomes.

If Albemarle County is serious about economic development it should shout it from the rooftops for all to hear.  The Free Enterprise Forum believes the Action Plan should say Albemarle is “Open for Business” or accept that it is closed for economic opportunity.

 

—————————————————————

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

Greene Supervisors Hold Secret Public Meeting

By. Neil Williamson, President

The Free Enterprise Forum has learned on  Monday, May 24th at 11:45 am the Greene County Board of Supervisors held a special meeting and signed a waiver that allowed the Board to waive public notice of the meeting. 

Fueling local conspiracy theorists, the Supervisors also chose not to alert the media to the gathering or even make mention of their secret public meeting in their regularly scheduled meeting held the very next evening.

 The items discussed in the secret public meeting included an amendment to the Greene County Code pertaining to regulation of private water and sewer systems, amendments to special use permit regulations relating to water and sewer utilities, amendment of definitions in the subdivision ordinance pertaining to private water and sewer systems and adoption of the Water and Sewer Service Area (WSSA).

The Free Enterprise Forum has obtained the documents from Monday’s  meeting and has posted them to the web. 

These are important public issues.  Clearly the Supervisors felt the matter was urgent and could not wait the two weeks for standard public notification.  While it appears Greene County may have met all the legal requirements to hold this secret public meeting, they should have done more.

• The Clerk has a small Board agenda distribution e-mail list, surely a quick e-mail could have been sent alerting these self identified stakeholders a special meeting had been called.
• The agenda for the meeting could have been posted to the website [it had not been posted as of 10:00 am 5/27].
• The public documents from the meeting could have been posted to the website [these had not been posted as of 10:00 am 5/27].
• At a minimum after holding the secret public meeting on Monday morning, when the Board met again on Tuesday evening, they could have let the public know of the meeting and issues that were discussed.

The public perception (and perhaps reality) is of a Board of Supervisors that is willing to hold secret public meetings to advance their agenda.  The public should demand more transparency. 

Just because it may be legal doesn’t make it right.

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

Greene County BOS Discusses Sheetz Rezoning

By.  Teresa Gulyas, Greene County Field Officer

Greene County Board of Supervisors Meeting March 9, 2010 

Public Session items:

Public hearing to consider request from Sheetz, Inc/Ronald & Mary Lamm to rezone from B-2, Business to B-3, Business approximately 1.50 total acres located on Seminole Trail and identified on County Tax maps as 66-A-9, portion of 66-A-10 and 66-A-12.

  The Sheetz store located at the corner of US 29 and Route 607, opened in June, 1997 and has been one of the more successful stores in the area according to Mr. Augustine, a representative for Sheetz, Inc. After 13 years of steady growth in Greene County, the company is working with VDOT to improve traffic patterns to facilitate existing traffic and enhance safety. Plans also include updated signage and new colors.

The Board responded favorably to the plans and the request was approved unanimously but deferred any action.

Public hearing to consider request from Lamm Properties, LLC/Preddy Gables, LLC/Rapidan Retail, LLC to amend proffers approved on July 13, 2004 (RZ#04-152) for property zoned R-2, Residential and B-3, Business, containing approximately 95.9 acres total located in Ruckersville on Seminole Trail and Preddy Creek Road identified on County Tax Maps as 66-(A)-48, 51, 52, 52B. (RZ#09-003)

Mr. Jefferson Steve Jones, representing the property owners, said that the original proffers included tennis courts on the property. The owners have offered to place the tennis courts on school property for shared community use if desired. 

Several board members expressed concerns about traffic impact and would like more information from Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). The decision was deferred until the April 13 meeting so that VDOT comments can be considered.  

Public hearing to consider request from Barbara McNamara & Nancy Tardiff to have 128.91 acres, identified on County Tax Maps as 46-(A)-45, 45A, and 45 B which are zoned A-1, Agriculture, and located on Dyke Road and Bacon Hollow Road, removed from the St. George Agricultural and Forestal District (AFD). (AFD#09-001)

Margaret Ramsey represented the property owners. The request had been approved by both the Greene County Planning Commission and the Agricultural and Forestal District committee.

The Board unanimously approved the request.  

Discussion regarding awarded allocation in the amount of $2,425,596 of Qualified School Construction Bonds for eligible school projects.

 Greene County School Board Member Troy Harlow, School Superintendent Dave Jeck and GCPS Business and Facilities Director Kim Powell appeared before the Board to answer questions regarding this recently awarded bond. The bond would be used for an energy performance contract with Ameresco. Details about the bond are forthcoming.

 Matters from the public

Ms. Woodson from Greene County Primary School came to request support for her kindergarten class’s project. Through Hearts Across America, her class has received a box from a 52 man unit in Iraq. The class is collecting donations so they can send return boxes to the unit. The greatest need is for the $12.50 postage needed for each box. Other popular donations include pillowcases and ear plugs.

Consent Agenda – unanimously approved 

1. Minutes of February 23, 2010 meeting  
2. Authorization for Sheriff’s Office to apply for grant in the amount of $16,477 from DMV for highway safety. 

 

Other matters from the Board.

Mr. Peyton mentioned that the School Board decided to withdraw the plan for salary reductions and reinstated plans for summer school. They will be requesting an increase in funds for the 2010-11 school year.

Mr. Frydl reports that the first draft of the Board of Supervisor bylaws is ready for review.

Mr. Catalano said that insurance deductibles were brought up in the meeting with the Ruckersville Citizens Council when discussing emergency services revenue recovery. Susan Gibbs is working on a story for the Greene County Record that will precede an informational meeting open to the public scheduled for March 23.

Post (and headline) updated 3/23/10 to reflect the correct final action of the Board on the Sheetz Rezoning and the proper identification of Rapidan Center spokesman.

Albemarle Winery Ordinance Improves With Age

By. Neil Williamson, President

Last week (2/16) the Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on the revised Farm Wineries ordinance.  While the Free Enterprise Forum was highly critical of the concept of regulating the industry (see Albemarle’s Agricultural Angst post), this proposal has improved dramatically with age.  The Albemarle County wineries are to be commended for productively engaging with staff and planning commissioners regarding their concerns with the proposal.

Recognizing that Albemarle County is in the heart of the richest appellation in the state, the Monticello Wine Trail, and that winery events are an important revenue stream to keep land in agriculture, the Planning Department staff listened to the concerns of the industry regarding the previous draft ordinance. 

The Free Enterprise Forum agrees with the philosophical underpinnings of this decision.  Staff correctly identified the Comprehensive Plan’s primary purpose of the rural areas is to be supportive of agriculture.  Staff also concluded that winery weddings with under 200 persons attending are usual and customary for farm wineries in the Commonwealth.

Staff believes wineries will seek a single special use permit for all weddings exceeding 200 persons.  Such a special use permit will come before the Planning Commission for approval.  One of the factors for consideration of approval is the frequency of such events.   

The Free Enterprise Forum does not believe this should be a decision point.  If a facility is suited to handled in excess of 200 persons, that same physical plant will be able to do so on a regular basis.  The frequency consideration should be dropped from the special use consideration.  In addition, the enforcement of such frequency conditions will be problematic at best.

Despite this rather technical disagreement with the Special Use portion of the ordinance, the Free Enterprise Forum finds the revised ordinance to be dramatically more winery (and agra-tourism) friendly and applauds the changes that have been made. 

The ordinance will go to Public Hearing at the Planning Commission in March.

—————————————————————

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