Sunny Day? Albemarle Prohibits Greens, Endorses ‘Green’
By. Neil Williamson, President
What does Albemarle want for the rural areas (95%+) of the county?
On this and other issues, Albemarle County’s Board of Supervisors is putting the fun back into dysfunctional.
Earlier this month, the Supervisors enacted two Rural Area Resolutions of Intent that are as similar as a ten pound bag of gold and a ten pound bag of manure. Both weigh ten pounds but one is more valuable than the other because the supervisors like it better.
Please let me explain.
First up on April 5th, buried on their consent agenda as attachment “T”, the supervisors decided they don’t like golf, swim and tennis clubs in the rural areas:
WHEREAS, it is desired to implement the Rural Area Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan by removing “swim, golf, tennis, or similar athletic facilities” as a use permitted by special use permit in the Rural Areas zoning district because those uses are no longer consistent with the County’s policies and objectives for the Rural Area
During the Comprehensive Plan discussion (which reads such regulation should be considered) many of the folks opposed to such recreational activities in the rural area have suggested they generate too much traffic and take
up too much land mass. Interestingly, this would effectively ban new golf courses in Albemarle County as we wrote in a piece earlier this month (A Tradition Like No Other–Albemarle Again Seeks to Ban Golf).
So imagine our surprise when the same Board of Supervisors later on the same day used climate change as the justification for changing their regulations regarding rural solar farms.
To be cost effective, these farms will take a large amount of acreage and require significant additional infrastructure.
The sunny view on solar is different than that of swim, golf and tennis clubs.
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter “the Plan”), Chapter Four, Natural Resources, Objective Eight states the County shall, “Recognize changes occurring to the earth’s climate to anticipate and mitigate impacts to the County.”; and
WHEREAS, the County, the City of Charlottesville, and the University of Virginia formed the Local Climate Action Planning Process Steering Committee (hereinafter “LCAPP Committee”) in 2010, which recommended that all three entities integrate the role of energy and carbon emissions in projects and planning and that the entities identify and promote actions that enable the community to reap the health, economic and environmental benefits that accompany sound energy-based decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board accepted the LCAPP Committee’s recommendations on September 7, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Plan, Chapter Twelve, Community Facilities, Objective Ten, Strategy 10(a) provides that the County will, “Continue to ensure the adequate provision of electricity, telephone, fiber optics, and natural gas services to support existing and anticipated development in the County through coordination with utility companies”; and
WHEREAS, permitting the siting, development, construction, operation, integration, and decommissioning of large-scale solar energy systems may assist the County’s efforts to achieve the aforementioned objectives in the Plan as well as the LCAPP Committee’s recommendations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to consider amending the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to achieve the purposes described herein;
So, despite the Comprehensive Plan’s discouragement of commercial activity in the rural areas, it is OK if they like your product or service provided. As property rights advocates, we believe both uses should be permitted in the rural areas. 
We even agree that a special use permit is an appropriate route to make sure swim golf and tennis clubs as well as solar farms have adequate protections in place to remain harmonious with the surrounding rural areas.
We do not understand how the Board of Supervisors can call for a ban on rural area recreation the same day as they endorse the concept of a commercial field of glass that will require regular maintenance, transmission lines and have equal if not greater significant neighborhood impacts.
Perhaps there are some politics involved in such in-congruent decisions.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neil Williamson, President
Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson County. For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org
Photo Credits: Sigora Solar via Facebook
Sayonara Shucet
By. Neil Williamson, President
Late yesterday afternoon (3/30), the embattled Elizabeth River Crossings (ERC) named former Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Commissioner Philip Shucet as their new Chief Executive Officer.
Shucet has most recently served as a consultant to VDOT as a facilitator and problem solver for challenging projects including the Route 29 Solutions panels.
Virginia Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne said in the ERC News Release:
I know Philip personally and am confident he is the right man for the job.
It does not appear everyone in the Transportation Department was as prepared for Shucet’s sayonara as Secretary Layne. According to VDOT’s Lou Hatter:
The Route 29 Solutions project team will work through VDOT Commissioner Kilpatrick’s office to develop a plan going forward.
While appreciative of the professionalism and speed of Route 29 solutions project management, the Free Enterprise Forum has been a vocal critic of the meeting tactics and lack of true public engagement offered by Shucet’s panel process. In our 2014 post Shucet’s Charade – A Public Participation Illusion:
The Route 29 Advisory Panel is, perhaps unwittingly, playing a part in a masterfully orchestrated and expertly conducted illusion of public participation where the questions, concerns and opinions of panel members are being denied or actively dismissed. No votes are taken nor consensus measured. All the while the facilitator is complementing the panel for its incredible positive forward momentum.
In our three years of observation, we have grown to appreciate the charming manner in which Shucet manages (some might say manipulates) meetings and their outcomes. His pioneering (for VDOT) of video streaming meetings promotes transparency but not participation. By reviewing e-mails and phone calls received, Shucet can color the manner in which the complaint was made and how VDOT, or the contractor handled it.
As a facilitator extraordinaire, he has stayed true to the “Shucet Six” we first identified in 2014:
- Control who is in the group. The number of participants and their representative groups selected to provide appearance of balance of perspectives
- Control Content, Agenda and Release of Data Controlling when and where data is released allows the facilitator the opportunity to build “proper context”
- Reduce/Eliminate Outside Influences. By removing public comment from the meetings and accepting it only online, Shucet insulates the panel’s meetings from being distracted by a boisterous critic [AKA Citizen]
- Demurely Dominate Conversation. Shucet’s down home drawl, overzealous compliments and genteel demeanor seem to engage the entire panel in discussion while his voice is most often heard directing the conversation. In addition, strictly limiting the group meeting time to two hours also helps this technique succeed.
- Limit Decision Options. While the Route 29 Advisory Panel was supposedly provided nine options to consider in their first meeting, Shucet brought forward just four options to the second meeting as possibly moving forward based on the “Professional Judgment” [note the word opinion was not used] and screening of the Technical Team.
- No Voting and Don’t Ask for Consensus. After three years, how many votes have been taken? None. How many times has consensus been “tested”? Never. The closest is when Shucet indicated he saw a number of heads nodding.
None of this is news and it does not change the fact that Shucet has served in this role well. Personally and professionally I consider Shucet to be an excellent public servant. That being said, I also believe he and I see the role of the so called “advisory” panels differently.
This morning blogger Jim Bacon applauded Philip Shucet, Transportation’s First Responder:
Bacon’s bottom line: Most people working the interstices between the public and private sectors are usually looking to line their pockets by trading on their relationships. Philip Shucet is a different breed. Not to say that he hasn’t done well for himself as a businessman and consultant in recent years, but he could work anywhere in the country he chooses and probably make a lot more money. Fortunately for the commonwealth, Shucet, who lives in Virginia Beach, has chosen to dedicate much of his career to public service and tackling some of the biggest, stickiest transportation problems. We’re lucky to have him.
Recently, in a conversation with VDOT officials someone asked me if I believe the blue tourism oriented destination signs, that were offered to impacted US29 businesses made a difference during the Rio/US29 interchange construction.
I indicated that while the signs likely did not change anything significant, they were an important step to let the local businesses know VDOT was aware (and listening) to their very real concerns – perhaps such tepid tranquility is the overall goal of these panels as well.
How and who will replace Shucet in the facilitator role is the challenge for the future, for now we say Sayonara Shucet, we wish you fair winds and following seas.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neil Williamson, President
——————————————————————-
Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson County. For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org
Photo Credit: Cvillepedia
VDOT Panel’s Pocahontas Problem
By. Neil Williamson, President
This Sunday’s (3/12) Daily Progress Editorial discusses “Beginning Anew on Hydraulic” painting a rather optimistic picture of the regulatory and political process planned to design, secure funding and build improvements to the Hydraulic and US29 intersection.
But the Editorial forgot Pocahontas.
Please let me explain.
Regular readers are aware of the Free Enterprise Forum’s position opposing the Rio/US29 grade separated interchange. Despite that opposition, we have been impressed with the manner the project was completed. Now the Daily Progress editorial board is comparing the Rio intersection process with Hydraulic:
And the process through which the Rio project was completed did, in fact, contribute to its success. That process can be replicated, regardless of what kind of engineering design it eventually produces.
In fact, it is being replicated. The meeting last week of state and community leaders follows the pattern used in the Rio project: A panel of local elected officials, business owners and citizens is meeting regularly to discuss the Hydraulic venture, provide input and help guide decision-making. Their involvement is aimed at ensuring that local interests are represented in the state’s drive to speed traffic through a congested bottleneck.
This is where Pocahontas lesson comes in:
What I love most about rivers is you can’t step in the same river twice – The water’s always changing, always flowing
Just prior to the seating of the so called “29 Solutions” panel, there was significant state and federal dollars allocated and a contract awarded to a project (the western bypass) that had enjoyed (4-2) support from Albemarle’s Board of Supervisors and then Republican Governor Robert McDonnell. In November 2013 elections, the balance of power on the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors shifted left and Democratic Governor Terrance McAuliffe was elected. Then in February 2014, the project was effectively prohibited by a letter from the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency.
Cvillepedia described the situation in the manner:
Aubrey Layne, Virginia’s Secretary of Transportation, convened a panel in the spring of 2014 to suggest alternatives for money that had been allocated by the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
With the project [Western Bypass] presumed dead, former VDOT commissioner Philip Shucet has recommended alternate uses for at least $200 million that had been allocated to the bypass. The alternatives include $54 million to extend Berkmar Drive across the South Fork Rivanna River, an additional $10 million to further extend Hillsdale Drive Extended to Holiday Lane in Charlottesville, and $81 million to build a grade-separated intersection at Rio Road and U.S. 29. The Commonwealth Transportation Board adopted a new six-year improvement program that included the projects at its meeting on June 18, 2014. [17] That meant the Western Bypass project was defunded. [5]
In addition, in a deft politically savvy move, McAuliffe required ALL the Route 29 “solutions” be completed by October 31, 2017 (coincidentally just prior to Election Day 2017).
The Pocahontas lesson that was not lost on Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) contract facilitator Philip Shucet. In the first meeting of The Hydraulic Planning Advisory Panel last week, he highlighted that unlike the previous panel which was considering how to spend a pot of money already allocated to the district the project or projects would have to compete for limited transportation dollars via VDOT’s Smart Scale evaluation program in 2018.
Secretary Layne’s charge to the Hydraulic panel includes this concern as well as hinting at the potential political in fighting at an intersection that is 3/4 in the City of Charlottesville and 1/4 in Albemarle County:
Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne’s charge to the Panel:
To provide general advice and input to the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, VDOT and the Commonwealth Transportation Board regarding future land use and mobility improvements in the general area near the Hydraulic Road and Rt. 29 intersection.
The Secretary understands that land use decisions are in the hands of the localities, but also emphasizes that decisions to submit a future Smart Scale application for state-funded transportation improvements are also in the hands of the localities.
The multi jurisdictional work (land use, design and funding) of Hydraulic Road will be significantly more involved than the challenges at Rio Road. While we agree that the process will be informed by the work of Rio, we are also reminded that Pocahontas quote is actually derivative of the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus:
No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.
Not only is Hydraulic a very different intersection than Rio,the land use work ahead is different and the funding is nowhere near secure.
Yes the facilitator is the same, as are some of the panel members, but this multi-jurisdictional land use and transportation effort will be a VERY different process and the outcomes (and their timing) are far from certain.
Stay tuned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neil Williamson, President
Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson County.
Photo Credits: Disney
March Madness–Albemarle’s Planning Philosophy
FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL
By. Neil Williamson, President
Imagine you are a college basketball player and in the final tournament game, the officials change the rules – calling fouls that usually would be ignored and ignoring others that would usually be called.
In addition, the basket automatically changes height dependent on which player is shooting and from where. There was no change at the rules committee, there was no open discussion amongst coaches – those charged with making the decisions just changed how they judged things – this is Albemarle County planning philosophy today.
Please let me explain.
Albemarle, in big ways and small, is changing the way they look at property where the Rural Areas and Development Area boundaries meet. The Comprehensive Plan, which is only a guideline, calls for density up to the edge of the development area (see below) but recent actions see that philosophical pillar being eroded.
On the development area side, the Adelaide proposed subdivision on the edge of the Crozet development area provides one example of eroding, or perhaps evolving, planning philosophy.
In the Crozet master plan the land was designated for “3-6 dwelling units an acre” – the Adelaide proposal came in at 5.5 units an acre. (editor’s note the Free Enterprise Forum does not take positions on specific projects only policy thus had no position on this or any other application).
In her defense of her vote in opposition, Supervisor Ann Mallek wrote to the Crozet Gazette:
I stand behind my vote to deny Adelaide to uphold important features of the Crozet master plan … .The primary reasons for my vote were stated in the resolution I read as part of my motion to deny. Three supervisors thought the density was acceptable at the high end of the range. Three thought the density should be at the low end of the range. A 3-3 tie results in denial of the application.
Additional reasons for my vote:
- New density on the edge of the growth area, surrounded by forest and rural uses, should be at the low end of the range suggested in the comprehensive plan and master plan for Crozet. …
- The highest density buildings were placed at the highway, further encroaching on the rural nature of the State Scenic byway. Emphasis added – nw
Regarding the rural side of the line, earlier this year during a discussion of Farm Winery, Brewery and Distillery events, Supervisor Diantha McKeel said:
We’re looking at, in my district, on Hydraulic Road, in the middle of the urban ring.. an event center [winery] essentially an event center surrounded by 25,000 homes. It is in the rural area but in the urban ring. The folks that live in the area are very patient with music from Albemarle High School, they love the band on Friday night – but to have something that brings in this type of traffic and noise and impacts without some restrictions is unnerving and I get that it is a little unusual place.
To prevent having rural enterprises adjacent to the development areas Supervisor Rick Randolph suggested:
Perhaps none of the edges of the winery parcel can be outside of the rural area.
Albemarle County Attorney Greg Kamptner informed Randolph such a provision would be in violation of state law.
All of this discussion took place despite the explicit direction of Albemarle’s Comprehensive plan that calls for clear edges between development and rural areas. Interestingly the very neighborhood McKeel discussed was called out in the plan
8.26 Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Clear Boundaries with the Rural Area
Strategy 2r: Promote use of Development Area land up to the boundary with the Rural Area. Do not require transitional areas between the Rural Area and Development Areas. Part of Albemarle’s beauty and attractiveness for residents and visitors is their ability to clearly see and appreciate the features of both the Rural Area and Development Areas. Discerning the boundary between the designated Rural Area and the Development Areas is important because it affects where and how new development should take place.. . .
Visual clues are also helpful in identifying the Development Areas-Rural Area interface. Land use on
both sides of the boundary should be so distinct that residents and visitors know they are in the Development Areas or the Rural Area. Theses visual differences help to define expectations and appreciation for the different areas. Figure 20 clearly shows that the left side of Rio Road is in the Rural Area and the right side is in the Development Areas. . .
Transitions of large-lot subdivisions at the boundary are discouraged, as they are neither rural nor urban.They are too small for agricultural uses and muddy the edge. Emphasis added – nw
One easy solution would be to expand the development areas to encompass what McKeel calls the urban ring. Dependent on the size of the expansion it could create, for a time, a buffer area of non conforming uses.
The larger core question revolves around the duality of two comprehensive plan land types, Development and Rural. A plurality of planners today see the world in a less binary reality. The most popular planning philosophy of the day deals with the concept of “Transects” which is taken from the environmental sciences.
The Center for Applied Transect Studies (CATS) Explains transects this way:
To systemize the analysis and coding of traditional patterns, a prototypical American rural-to-urban transect has been divided into six Transect Zones, or T-zones, for application on zoning maps. Standards were written for the first transect-based codes, eventually to become the SmartCode, which was released in 2003 by Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company.
A similar picture appears in Albemarle’s Comprehensive Plan. Interesting question – where would you say the development area starts in the image above? T-3? T-4?
Based on recent actions, it is difficult to say where the Supervisors believe the Development areas begin and the rural areas end.
- The question is how does this now shaky planning philosophy pillar impact the community vetted master plans and how does the rural area gain a voice in the discussion since by design they are outside of the master plan areas?
- Should Albemarle consider abandoning its density dogma across the entire development area and seek to create a new comprehensive plan category?
- A further question would be if Albemarle should consider proactively rezoning all the development areas land to make the community supported densities occur rather than the adversarial nature of the current rezoning process.
Once again we have more questions than answers, let March Madness begin.
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: Denver Post, Albemarle County, Center for Applied Transect Studies
Albemarle Passes The Bucks ($1.4 Million) To Unelected CACs
By Neil Williamson, President
In Wednesday’s (2/1) meeting, without so much as a formal public hearing, Albemarle County’s Board of Supervisors plans to send a $1.4 million dollar piggy bank to the unelected Citizen Advisory Councils so that the elected officials don’t have to make the hard budget choices.
Nothing they are doing is illegal, it’s just not right. Please let me explain.
Albemarle’s annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Budget is laborious and involves significant number of staff hours to determine the staff priority for Capital projects such as vehicles, buildings and renovations.
Over the last 13 years the Free Enterprise Forum has been impressed with the level of detail and careful consideration the CIP committee (including citizen representation and 2 elected BOS members) have put into these discussions. There have been times when one geographic portion of the development areas had CIP projects that garnered higher scores by the committee and these were funded rather than less urgent projects.
The new “Neighborhood Funding Initiative” would siphon off $1.4 million of the annual CIP budget and allocate it geographically and by population. The staff has proposed a formula to accomplish this task:
Staff has simply developed this Board driven concept. In fact, the staff report hints at a better manner to utilize citizen involvement along with the elected officials within the current CIP process.
staff has conducted best practices research which is summarized as Attachment A that revealed that the majority of these types of community focused improvement funding programs fall into three basic categories: neighborhood matching grants; formal citizen involvement in capital planning; and citizen-driven Capital Improvement Programs. After hearing the Board’s discussion, staff thinks that the third category may most clearly align with the Board’s preferences, so the program has been designed along those lines. If the Board would like this program to be more closely incorporated in the already existing CIP review, evaluation and ranking process that would be another viable approach.
The Free Enterprise Forum has long been a critic of the unelected CACs.
In 2009 we wrote:
The Free Enterprise Forum believes citizen groups (including us) should have the ability to be active participants in the workings of local government. That being said, we are increasingly concerned that the leadership function of some Boards and Commissions may be inappropriately delegating to community organizations.
With the proposed policy change, beyond effective regulatory veto power over development projects that would advance the community vetted comprehensive plan, Albemarle now seems poised to give these unelected “mission creeping” Citizen Advisory Councils the county purse strings as well.
As the Supervisors continue to delegate, I wonder what will be left for them to do … besides run for reelection.
As we said in 2009:
In the end, elected leaders must lead, not delegate, if citizens don’t like the direction they should replace the leaders.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Stay tuned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neil Williamson
———————————————————————-
Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna and Nelson County. For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org
2016 – A Year of Exits (Executive and Grade Separated)
By. Neil Williamson, President
At this time each year, I take time to look in the rearview and see what issues we have covered that have garnered the most attention. As usual, I am amazed, and thankful, for the large number of people who read and financially support our work.
Here are the Free Enterprise Forum Top Ten 2016 Shaking My Head (SMH) Moments
#10 Is Charlottesville the $17.86 Million Court Jester?
Imagine you are a mayor or a City Manager, if a major employer and economic driver in your city was poised to leave, how would you respond?
Perhaps its just me, but I would likely fight like heck to keep them in the city. It is much easier to retain a major employer than to attract one.
But what if the employer is actually an arm of a neighboring government, should that matter? …
If Albemarle decides to bring $17.86 million of ‘County’ economic activity back to Albemarle, Charlottesville may end up looking as wise as the Court Jester this Halloween.
#9 Bananas and Albemarle’s Outdated Economic Opportunity Map
Imagine being in the banana business — and you have no way to obtain fruit.
That is Albemarle County’s current economic development sales position: “Yes, we have no bananas.”
“If a manufacturer calls interested in locating near a highway, we tell them, ‘We have nothing for you,’. Prospect businesses are looking to move within three to six months if they are not looking to build. We tell them, ‘We have no product ready to go today.’” – Faith McClintic, Albemarle County’s economic development director
#8 Greene Supervisors Approve Overspending FY17 Budget
By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer
In just the second month of the new budget cycle, the Greene County Board of Supervisors discussed
two issues last night (8/23) that would allow the county to spend nearly $33,000 over the approved FY17 budget.
The first issue that County Administrator John Barkley explained was that several positions are needed to be brought up to market value. He further explained that supplemental funds are being requested to fund the $27,250 for the reclassification of positions. Surplus funds from the FY16 budget will allow the county to be able to fund this request.
#7 C’ville’s Hydraulic Houdini
What would you call it when Charlottesville works to make a primary pillar of an integrated
transportation program disappear?
The Hydraulic Houdini.
Please let me explain.
Those with even decent short term memory can remember the argument over the now defunct Western Bypass and the Route 29 “Solutions”. Rather than building a limited access bypass around Charlottesville’s congestion (The Free Enterprise Forum supported), Bypass opponents proposed a series of integrated “solutions” would increase the existing roadway capacity.
My friend Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) even had a nifty PowerPoint Presentation regarding the congestion
#6 Albemarle’s Executive Exodus x 2
Albemarle Executive Foley Finds Greener Pastures
With rumors flying around Albemarle County (and Social Media) all day, a 4 pm Stafford County announcement made it official; County Executive Tom Foley is leaving Albemarle County to take up the same post in Stafford County. In the announcement Stafford highlighted Foley’s service and temperament as key qualities they were looking for in their new administrator:
Albemarle is Losing Faith
As anticipated as the sun rising in the east, it is with absolutely no surprise that Albemarle County’s first Economic Development Director, Faith McClintic, will be leaving her position later this year. In her short 18 month tenure, McClintic often found herself at odds with Planning Commissioners, some members of the public, this writer, and some elected officials. In addition, she found herself without product as she said in August of this year:
“If a manufacturer calls interested in locating near a highway, we tell them, ‘We have nothing for you,’. Prospect businesses are looking to move within three to six months if they are not looking to build. We tell them, ‘We have no product ready to go today.’” – Faith McClintic, Albemarle County’s economic development director
#5 Albemarle and VDOT Create US29+Rio Lemonade
While the Free Enterprise Forum lost the battle against the US29/Rio Grade Separated Interchange (GSI), we have found Albemarle County (and Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)) to be working exceedingly well together and significantly positively impacting the challenging business environment due to the roadway construction.
In the most recent Route 29 Solutions Project Delivery Advisory Panel meeting, former VDOT Commissioner and PDAP facilitator Philip Shucet indicated the next phase of the Rio GSI project, where the intersection will close for up to 103 days, “Isn’t going to be a birthday party”. This might be the understatement of the year.
#4 SOMEONE’s Shameful Sensationalism
Over the last dozen years, I have read literally hundreds of Albemarle County staff reports. I tend to find the reports to be professional, concise, factually correct and devoid of generalizations or editorial commentary – until last week when I determined that SOMEONE improperly and sensationally used a tragedy to further an advocacy position in what was presented as an impartial staff analysis.
In an attempt to sensationalize the need for closing of Earlysville Road to truck traffic, SOMEONE has stooped so low as to cite a terrible teenage 2002 drunk driving accident as justification to overrule the technical analysis of professional traffic engineers.
#3 ‘Snob Zoning’ Crozet Master Plan in the Works?
Recently, C-ville magazine cover story posed the question, “Can Crozet maintain its small town charm
as its population increases?”
Perhaps the question should be “After millions of dollars of planning and infrastructure spending, should Crozet residents be allowed to stifle population and economic growth by hijacking the master planning process?”
We’ve recently learned such a plan is in the works. And it is a bad idea….
The reality is the CCAC is opposed to density in the development area that is critical to achieve the philosophical goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The community vetted plan calls for densely populated development areas filled with amenities and services surrounded by less populated rural areas that are supportive of agriculture, forestry and open space.
In her seminal book “Snob Zoning”, Liza Prevost, exposed what happens when NIMBY zealots are able to change plans and regulations
#2 Fluvanna Land Use Fireworks
By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer
“I’m a little surprised board members are so happy to push this under the rug,” said Supervisor Tony O’Brien. . .
O’Brien said there were supervisors who should recuse themselves from the vote because they should know they aren’t compliant with the program.
Eager asked O’Brien to name who he thinks is not compliant as she has done everything to be compliant. He replied he never thought she wasn’t but questioned if Supervisor Don Weaver and chairperson Mike Sheridan (Columbia District) were compliant. He also thought Supervisor Mozell Booker might not be compliant but she was in a different arm of the program.
Sheridan said he asked a cooperative agent if he was in compliance and was told his practices were.
Fred Payne, county attorney, gave a legal opinion that supervisors do not have to recuse themselves just because they participate in the program.
O’Brien also suggested Mike Sheridan should recuse himself because Mel Sheridan is his brother.
Payne’s said Mike Sheridan had no need legally reason to recuse himself. He continued supervisors can always recuse themselves if they feel it is necessary but there was no legal reason to do so.
Weaver, who was quiet for the discussion, called for a vote which ended the discussion.
O’Brien said under his breath after the vote, “Embarrassing.”
#1 $52.5 Million Dollar Indecent Proposal – Albemarle Backs Off Threat to Wedding Industry
Last Tuesday evening, a rare joint meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors heard a great deal from both wedding venues and the vendors that support them. Albemarle staff had prepared a proposed ordinance that, am
ong other things, would limit the ability of wineries, breweries and distilleries to 24 events a year. In the end the supervisors backed away from the most restrictive portion of the ‘indecent proposal’.
The testimony Tuesday was insightful and passionate. Wedding Photographer Jen Fariello asked pointedly “Why are weddings being attacked?” Wedding planner Adam Donovan-Groves [name correction 9:01 6/20 nw] told of one recent wedding whose local fiscal impact exceeded $250,000 musicians, gift packs, invitations, transportation, jewelry, photographer, etc.
Yes, 2016 has been a year of executive exits, speedy construction and threats of overregulation. Through it all the Free Enterprise Forum continues to blog, tweet (@neilswilliamson) and Facebook about local issues of significant importance.
The year ahead is filled with promise: the promise of a national search for a new Albemarle County Executive, the promise of so called “Solutions” 29 being completed earlier than scheduled (looks like June), the promise of new form based code development in Charlottesville, as well as the promise of elections across all localities.
2016 will also bring us the opportunity and privilege of attending and participating in many more government meetings where important policy decisions are made and #SeatsAvailable.
Thank you for your support!
Happy New Year
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.
Accelerating Albemarle’s Anemic Economic Development
FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL
By. Neil Williamson, President
Wednesday night (12/21), Albemarle County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will hold a joint public hearing regarding a rezoning in Crozet for Perrone Robotics. According to Albemarle staff, the intention is to have both government bodies vote on the application that evening.
Josh Mandell of Charlottesville Tomorrow reported on the Crozet Citizens Advisory Committee (CCAC) endorsement of the proposal last week:
Advisory committee member Leslie Burns said she was excited that Perrone Robotics could bring dozens of high-paying jobs to downtown Crozet. “This is not just a new gift store,” she said.
Crozet resident Brian Day said he also would welcome Perrone Robotics’ move to the Barnes Lumber property.
“It’s exactly what we need to ground the future of our downtown,” he said. “The old industry that was there, you could hear it two and a half miles away. We are talking about something that is quiet, safe and high-tech.”
While the Free Enterprise Forum does not take positions on specific projects we do applaud the speed in which the County has moved forward this economic development opportunity.
But we have to ask, why is this news?
Why couldn’t Albemarle move all of their applications forward faster?
I am sure this question is on the mind of the folks at The Clifton Inn.
In September 2015, the County received an application for a zoning text amendment (ZTA) related to historic buildings and sites from the owners of Clifton Inn.
This prompted the county to reexamine its zoning code for historic inns and taverns in rural areas.
The application for this historic property has already languished in the byzantine bureaucracy for well over a year – why?
Just because it has been successful and now seeks to EXPAND its existing business and add JOBS in the rural area (95% of Albemarle is Rural Areas).
A major milestone was reached earlier this month when ordinance changes were approved – but that only allows the Clifton project to apply for consideration under the new ordinance – It is likely the applicant will have to wait well over two years before being permitted to EXPAND their existing business and add JOBS.
Albemarle can do better.
Beyond simply holding Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors joint public hearings which would speed up the process slightly, the true answer for economic development is proactive rezoning. Earlier this year in the Daily Progress we quoted then Economic Development Director Faith McClintic in our editorial about Bananas and Albemarle’s Outdated Economic Opportunity Map.
“If a manufacturer calls interested in locating near a highway, we tell them, ‘We have nothing for you,’. Prospect businesses are looking to move within three to six months if they are not looking to build. We tell them, ‘We have no product ready to go today.’” – Faith McClintic, Albemarle County’s economic development director
What if the uses defined in the community vetted comprehensive plan actually agreed with the zoning that controls the land?
Today if a business wants to come in where the Comprehensive Plan suggests but the zoning does not agree, there is a year-long Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) process before a site plan can be submitted.
Imagine if a prospective business could identify a property already zoned and shovel ready, would that make Albemarle more attractive for economic development arena.
If (and this is am important if) Albemarle wants to grow jobs in the new year, reducing regulatory barriers via proactive rezoning would be a great New Year’s resolution.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neil Williamson, President
———————————————————————
Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson County. For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org
Photo Credits: Trip Advisor
Albemarle Backdoor Downzoning Proposed
By. Neil Williamson, President
Imagine you woke up one morning and you learned, through no fault of your own, your property was worth 50% less than when you went to bed the night before.
What if you also found housing was less available, less diverse and more expensive?
And what if your neighbors were behind the change?
All of this is possible under a resolution under consideration (but not yet endorsed) by Albemarle County’s Crozet Community Advisory Committee (CCAC).
Thee fundamental question at hand is seeking to redefine the land use calculation from gross density to net density.
In an oversimplification, this moving of the goalposts reduces the density possible on most parcels.
The New Designs for Growth Guidebook correctly identifies the impact of the different planning paradigms:
Density Calculations
The method communities use to calculate density can dramatically impact development patterns. For instance, while densely arranged homes on one portion of a large parcel would have the same gross density as the same number of homes spread out evenly over the parcel, the two developments have substantially different net densities. Hence lot size and building arrangement can result in very different residential densities.When revising ordinances, local jurisdictions should take into consideration the implications inherent with the different methods of calculating density. Net density produces a more visually recognizable density for the developed portion of the site, while gross density allows for more flexibility in developing sites (e.g., cluster developments, PUDs) as well as projects evaluated in the context of average density of adjacent developments (i.e., a development fitting within a density continuum).
Gross density = Total residential units / total development land area
Net density = Total residential units / total residential land area (excludes roads, open spaces, and other uses)
While accurate, the definition above fails to address the clear concern of property owners the numerator in the calculation. Currently under the gross density concept if you have 10 acres in R-2 zoning in the development areas, you have the by right ability to build 20 homes on the 10 acres. Under net density, the applicant must discount any land deemed “unbuildable by regulation”.
What would be included as “unbuildable by regulation”? The City of St. Helena in Oregon has the following considerations:
- All sensitive land areas:
- Land within the 100-year floodplain;
- Land or slopes exceeding 25 percent;
- Drainageways;
- Wetlands;
- Fish and wildlife habitats;
- Archaeological sites;
- Federal or state protected areas for listed threatened or endangered species; and
- Designated open space and open space-design review areas;
- All land dedicated to the public for park purposes;
- All land dedicated for public right-of-way:
- Single-dwelling units: allocate 20 percent of gross acres for public facilities; and
- Multiple-dwelling units: allocate 15 percent of gross acres for public facilities;
- All land proposed for private streets;
Considering the topography of the Piedmont, one can easily see the aforementioned 10 acres losing significant portion of its by right density.
But the demand for housing will not go away.
Albemarle County’s Comprehensive Plan highlights the anticipated need for new units:
As seen in the residential Capacity Analysis discussed in the Development Areas Chapter, projections suggest that by the year 2030, approximately 15,000 additional dwelling units will be needed to accommodate the County’s future population. According to the Development Area Master Plans, the Development Areas can accommodate a range of approximately 13,800 to 29,000 new dwelling units.
Under current zoning, approximately 13,400 to 19,900 new dwelling units can be built.
If Crozet is able to move the goal posts by changing the density calculation, this would result in a less dense community, more expensive delivery of government services and a loss of property value to development area land owners.
Further as fewer homes will be able to be constructed in each development the cost of the infrastructure required for those homes would be spread across fewer units increasing cost to the end user.
As development area lots become more expensive, rural area development will become more economically attractive encouraging sprawl. When coupled with the dearth of available new units to meet the forecast demand, cost of all housing (rural and development areas) will increase.
But it will reduce the population density allowed in Crozet – could this be the overarching goal?
Regardless of cost?
As usual more questions than answers, stay tuned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neil Williamson, President
Neil Williamson is president of the Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded non-profit public policy organization focused on local governments in Central Virginia. For more information visit www.freeenterpriseforum.org.
Albemarle Executive Foley Finds Greener Pastures
By. Neil Williamson, President
With rumors flying around Albemarle County (and Social Media) all day, a 4 pm Stafford County announcement made it official; County Executive Tom Foley is leaving Albemarle County to take up the same post in Stafford County. In the announcement Stafford highlighted Foley’s service and temperament as key qualities they were looking for in their new administrator:
Stafford County proudly announces the appointment of Thomas C. Foley to the position of County Administrator. Thomas Foley comes to Stafford from Albemarle County where he has served as County Executive. He will take over the reins from Interim County Administrator C. Douglas Barnes on February 1, 2017.
“Stafford County is moving in a fantastic direction on so many fronts – strong economic development, more diverse and innovative educational opportunities, enhanced and better-equipped public safety, forward-thinking improvements to our infrastructure, combining school and government functions to be more efficient and fully utilizing the awesome potential of our employees,” said Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Bob Thomas, George Washington District. “We think Tom Foley is the perfect fit for moving forward with the Board’s vision during this very dynamic time in Stafford County. We are confident that his budgeting acumen, his emphasis on developing employees and his ability to implement strategic plans are strengths that will fully optimize Stafford’s full potential.”
According to the Albemarle County Website:
Thomas C. Foley (Tom) received a Business Administration degree from Marshall University in 1985 and his Masters in Public Administration in 1993 from Virginia Commonwealth University. Tom began his local government career with the Virginia Association of Counties and, in May of 1991, he was named Cumberland County’s first Chief Administrative Officer. In 1994, he was appointed the County Administrator of Caroline County. From 1999 through the end of 2010, Tom served as the Assistant County Executive for Albemarle County and, in January 2011, he was appointed County Executive by the Board of Supervisors.
Tom is a graduate of Virginia Tech’s Institute for Economic Development (1993) and the Certified Planning Commissioners’ Program also from Virginia Tech (1992). In addition to membership in ICMA, he is a member of the Virginia Local Government Manager’s Association (VLGMA).
Tom serves on the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Authority, the Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development, and the Planning and Coordination Council (in conjunction with Charlottesville and University of Virginia Officials).
Where does Foley’s departure leave Albemarle?
Many of the ongoing projects have been lead by Foley but he has a very competent staff to try and keep this process moving forward.
Unfortunately, the Free Enterprise Forum believes the high level strategic work with the Board of Supervisors will grind slowly to a halt and perhaps most importantly, the loss of the man who said “It’s a new day in Albemarle” related to economic development puts the county’s commitment to economic vitality into question. In addition, Albemarle’s high number of high level executive departures is a cause for concern.
Further, the search for a new County Executive will demand a great deal of Supervisors time and will likely postpone significant advancement of their strategic goals. To be clear, while we are sorry to see Tom leave our community, we have worked with him on a number of projects and found him to be a most agile thinker and strategist, we wish him the best in his future endeavors.
Respectfully Submitted
Neil Williamson, President
Photo Credit Albemarle County
Is The Jury Still Out on Albemarle Courts Relocation?
By. Neil Williamson, President
Tonight (10/24) the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will take “public input” regarding the 
possible relocation of their courts system. Of the five options on the table, all but one keeps the courts in the City of Charlottesville. While the Free Enterprise Forum would like to have a favored option, we do not believe the case has been made for any option — considering how far along the process is, we are astonished at the basic questions that remain unanswered.
To review here are the five options:
OPTION 1: DOWNTOWN/LEVY EXPANSIONOPTION 2: RELOCATE COUNTY & CITY GENERAL DISTRICT COURTS TO COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING MCINTIREOPTION 3: RELOCATE COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT COURTS TO COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING MCINTIRE
OPTION 4: RELOCATE COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT COURTS & CIRCUIT COURTS TO COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING MCINTIRE
OPTION 5: RELOCATE COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT & CIRCUIT COURTS TO COUNTY SITE
As we examine the decision matrix provided by the county, we have many more questions than answers.
Here are our top ten inquiries:
- Has the city offered any economic incentives to support any of the City based options? (see last week’s blog post)
- Why does option 1 (stay downtown) cost $12,500,000 more than building in option 5?
- Why does it cost $18,000,000 to put the General District Court at the County office building when it appears that most of the infrastructure is already there?
- If you build a new county admin facility, where will it be located and, how much does it cost? Where is that cost shown?
- Do options 2-5 factor in the lost property tax revenue for whatever parcel is acquired?
- The matrix seems to indicate that options 2-5 strongly support the County’s strategic redevelopment/urban place making priorities. Doesn’t that really depend on where the County offices are built and how? It could eat up a bunch of property in the urban area and create little long term value.
- Will option 5 allow a mix of uses on their site? What of creating affordable housing over top of the new county offices?
- It seems that you are assuming any new construction by the County in the County has high economic development value. Why? What assumptions have been made to draw that conclusion?
- Is taking urban county property off the tax rolls good for economic development? Will the development area be expanded to replace this lost land?
- Why is the construction risk higher for option 1 than any of the other options?
The public input offered can only be as good as the information provided to them to base that input. We forwarded these questions to Albemarle County early last week and they indicated they hoped to have answers in their presentation tonight. If that is the case, the public will have limited time to process the information before the public input session closes.
Regardless, these questions need answers before anyone should make a decision on the future location of the court.
The jury is not “still out” — the full argument has yet to be presented.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neil Williamson, President
_____________
Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson County. For more information visit the website http://www.freeenterpriseforum.org
Photo Credits: Albemarle County
