Category Archives: land use

Albemarle Restrictions Benefit Greene Cell Coverage

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

In an interesting twist of regulatory roulette,Greene County citizens will gain significant wireless coverage area as a result of existing cell tower restrictions in neighboring Albemarle County. See the source image

TowerCom, LLC represented by Valerie Long, Esq. approached the Greene County Board of Supervisors at their November 14th meeting, asking for a Special Use Permit for a cell tower in southwest Greene County near the Albemarle County line along Simmons Gap RoadT-Mobile is the cellular carrier that is interested in locating on the TowerCom tower.

During the October Planning Commission public hearing, one Greene County resident questioned the location of the proposed tower, suggesting that if the tower were to be located further into Greene County, it would serve more Greene County residents.

So that raised the question, why did TowerCom choose the location they chose?  Long addressed this issue directly explaining that they looked at several locations in northwest Albemarle County. However, as Albemarle County significantly restricts the height of cell towers – shorter than the 199 feet in Greene County. So, the potential number of customers (and therefore the potential revenue) is smaller from a shorter cell tower constructed in Albemarle County. And fewer residents in Greene County would receive cell service from a tower in Albemarle County than in Greene County.

clip_image003Inversely, a cell tower constructed in Greene County is permitted to go up to 199 feet and therefore reach more customers, both in Greene County and Albemarle County. The answer to the question as to why not locate the tower further north in Greene County comes down to which location generates the most revenue.

Due to population densities, moving the tower further north into Greene County contacts fewer total customers, although more residents of Greene County would be connected. The bottom line is that the money from an Albemarle County customer is worth the same at the money paid by a customer in Greene County. And therefore, T-Mobile wants to maximize their revenue and that happens where they positioned the tower in Greene County where they can reach the most customers.

T-Mobile is attracted to Greene County because it can install a taller tower and get more customers than in Albemarle County. But without the potential customers in Albemarle County it is questionable  that T-Mobile or any cell carrier would install a tower to only service the southwest portion of Greene County. Thankfully cell service doesn’t know county line barriers!

The special use permit was unanimously approved with provisions about color and materials and that the tower must begin construction within one year of the permit being approved. This has been an issue in the past where SUP’s have been approved but no tower has been constructed.

The one hurdle to the project outside the control of the Supervisors is that the property needed to provide access to the tower location is owned by Lance Petty and while he has granted a right of way to Ron and Janet Parham, he argues that the right of way doesn’t convey the ability to grant permission to another party. This issue will need to be resolved before construction can begin.

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

Advertisements

Fluvanna Water Project Out To Bid

By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer

turn on waterThey said the day would never come.

On November 1st, 2017, Fluvanna County put the Zion Crossroads water and sewer project out to bid.

Decades of discussion have culminated in the supervisors advertising for bid the $11.9 million project.

The request for bid will be done in three parts. The pipes, the mechanical and the water tower are all in separate requests in hops of getting better bids by companies that would otherwise have to subcontract.

After the supervisors completed a series of motions, the room applauded as the long chapter of Fluvanna politics is nearing a close. The project is expected to take 18 months to construct.

Economic Development?  Supervisors also initiated a rezoning process for an undisclosed business trying to relocate in the Zion Crossroads area. The project would be an investment of $8 to $10 million and bring about 40 jobs to the county. The business would be disclosed once the public hearings occur.

The property is currently zoned agricultural and is seeking an industrial zoning. The county is also working with the business to get a hookup to the aforementioned water project once water is flowing.

In other water news, after a closed meeting, the supervisors pledged $5,000 to Caroline County for proposed legal advice on fighting Aqua America’s proposed rate increases. Lake Monticello is served by Aqua. Caroline County has several subdivisions also served by Aqua, estimated at 30 percent of its population.

Caroline reached out to other home owners associations and locality governments for assistance in teaming together to fight against Aqua’s request. Caroline estimated the cost of legal advice and State Corporation Commission expert help at over $75,000.

Other presentations during the November 1st  meeting included one from an official from Fluvanna Girls Softball League (FGSL). FGSL wanted the county to loan $25,000 to the private organization to field improvements at the Carysbrook field. Work included leveling the infield and outfield as well as replacing the backstop and adding an outfield fence.

The proposed loan was $25,000 paid over five years with 2 percent interest. Unfortunately, supervisors were briefed by the county attorney they have no legal authority to loan money to FGSL, a private organization. Because Carysbrook is county property, the county could construct the requested work and FGSL can voluntarily contribute to the county’s coffers.

Chris Fairchild, FGSL official, said even if the supervisors said they didn’t want to be paid back, FGSL wants to pay for the improvements. Supervisors and the parks and recreation department will work with FGSL to get work scheduled as previously planned.

Over the course of the last 15 years, FGSL has invested $168,000 in field improvements including construction of dugouts and concession stand.

Supervisors were briefed on preliminary budget projections of the Fluvanna County Public Schools system. Chuck Winkler, superintendent, is projecting a request of $2.2 million over last year’s budget.

That estimate included standards of quality changes that are partially funded by the state. He included the entire figure but noted if the state implemented, it would have a huge state budget implication. He said the likelihood of being passed was slim, but included it as a precaution.

Also in Winkler’s increase were pay raises and increase in health care costs. He also had additional money for technology improvements. He noted that if technology was funded again by Capital Improvement funds, it lowers the county’s per pupil spending.

The supervisors will next meet on November 15 at 7 p.m.

————————————————————-

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

Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum

Unintended Consequence–Albemarle’s AirBnB Black Market

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson, President

When a new business concept is successful the first thing the government attempts to do is tax it.  What is the second thing? – regulate it.  In an interesting ‘Short Term Rental’ twist of fate, Albemarle has completed the first thing ensuringBlack Market photo credit news.softpedia but is about to put those revenue sources (and others) in jeopardy by driving much of this thriving new industry out of the open and into a Black Market.

Please let me explain.

Back in June 2017, Albemarle joined many Virginia localities in updating its tax code to capture ‘transient lodging’

TAX CODE
At its June 14, 2017 Board meeting, the Board of Supervisors amended the County Code §15-900 and §15-901 to enable the County to impose taxes on residential transient lodging, previously not included in this regulation. They also amended County Code §8-616 to explicitly list short-term rentals on the list of businesses subject to the business,professions, and occupations licensing (BPOL) tax requirements.

Albemarle County has been engaged in a “community conversation” regarding the regulation of short term rentals (AirBnB, HomeStay Charlottesville, etc.).  Rather than dealing specifically with the impacts of such rentals, with ordinances already on the books, Albemarle is seeking to restrict the number of rentals any property might be able to book in any given calendar year. This is a mistake.

According to Allison Wrabel’s article in Monday’s (10/30) Daily Progress, our good friend, Travis Pietila, of the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) spoke out last week’ Planning Commission meeting about this very issue:

“We need to make sure that the revenue to be gained from homestays does not lead to building new houses in the rural area that would not otherwise be built, and it’s critical that the limits put in place to keep that from happening are enforceable,” he said.

Pietila said that the 90-day limit proposed for whole house rental was too high and that a 30-day limit seemed much more appropriate.

“But a more fundamental concern is that the limits based on a number of days a property can be rented would prove unenforceable,” he said.

While we firmly disagree with SELC’s position that property owners should be restricted from building new homes on parcels that have that fundamental property right, we concur that limits based on a number of days would not only prove unenforceable – it not only starts a negative domino effect on transparency and taxation – it is an unfair restriction on property rights.

Negative Domino effect – if allowed to only permitted to rent my house on a short term basis for 30 days a year, that is exactly what some savvy property owner will claim.  If there is market demand for greater than 30 days a year (ie: weekend from April 15 to December 31 = 76 days), the incentive is to rent the space and not claim the rental on the TOT form, lower the BPOL payment, don’t report the rental revenue for 46 days of occupancy on state or federal income tax forms.

This scenario fits Investopedia’s definition of a Black Market:

Economic activity that takes place outside government-sanctioned channels. Black market transactions usually occur “under the table” to let participants avoid government price controls or taxes. The black market is also the venue where highly controlled substances or products such as drugs and firearms are illegally traded. Black markets can take a toll on an economy, since they are shadow markets where economic activity is not recorded and taxes are not paid. In the financial context, the biggest black market exists for currencies in nations with strict currency controls. While most consumers may shun the black market because they consider it sleazy, there may be rare occasions when they have no choice but to turn to this necessary evil.

What is gained by this charade?

More from Wrabel’s article:

Commissioner Pam Riley said she is concerned about the impact on local housing, especially as the county considers adding apartments and townhomes.

“The more you remove what could be housing units, really at any price range, from the long-term rental, you’re really exacerbating your affordability problem,” she said.

The Free Enterprise Forum finds itself again agreeing with SELC’s Pietila’s  economic analysis, if not his property rights restriction on that analysis:

Pietila said officials should consider limiting whole-house rentals in the rural area to existing houses.

“This would give existing homeowners the ability to earn some extra income and help defray housing costs, while reducing the risk of encouraging new house construction,” he said.

We have seen anecdotally, the short term rental income provides the revenue needed that makes the housing ‘affordable’.  If a unit (home, apartment, townhouse) has a monthly cost (mortgage/rent) of $900 a month and it is rented four weekend days at $150 a night, that generates $600 in revenue, this income helps offset housing cost.  Anecdotally, we have witnessed families visit their parents for football weekends and pay their entire monthly housing cost with the revenue.

Commissioner Daphne Spain is quoted in Wrabel’s article questioning the property owner rights regarding short term rentals:

…Spain said she noticed that many comments said that people should be able to do what they want with their homes to generate income.

“I don’t give much credence to that, because if they wanted to open a brewery or a speakeasy to earn money, or a brothel, that wouldn’t be allowed, so there are limits for the public good on what a person can do with their home and these are all residential areas,” she said.

Spain’s argument is really comparing apples and oranges. Unlike a brewery (or even brothel), the use of the property is still residential – it is just a question of the length of stay in residential.  How are the impacts different?

Which has more impact on me as a land owner, my neighbor renting out his house on weekends or a family with 5 teenagers moving in next door?

The reality we see from the Planning Commission is a clear anti short term rental bias.  Albemarle County would be wise to focus on mitigating any impacts of short term rentals [under existing ordinances] and skip any fatally flawed attempt to strangle this thriving new business with onerous regulations that are unlikely to be followed and will be impossible to enforce.

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.

Greene County Supervisors Revise R-2 Zoning Height

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

Last night, the Greene County Board of Supervisors amended its zoning ordinance and accepted amended applicant proffers, both actions will directly impact the proposed expansion of an existing residential community on the southern edge of the county.  Preddy Gables, LLC has a development of apartments on the northbound side of Route 29 south of Preddy Creek Road and they came to the October 24th Board of Supervisors meeting asking that the height restriction be increased in order to make changes to their design and amenities for Phase III of their project.

clip_image002The first step of the process was to request the board to change the ordinance height limitation from 40 to 50 feet. This is included in the R-2 District under Article 6 within the Residential District. County Planner, Stephanie Golon, presented the request which not only affects this property but all R-2 property in the county. She explained that most R-2 designation are in the growth area of Greene County and it is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.

Supervisor Jim Frydl (Midway) agreed with the change since R-2 is where the county is planning for increased density, investing in infrastructure and he made a motion to make the change to 50 feet. This motion was unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors.

clip_image004The second action item was from Preddy Gables, LLC which offered to amend the proffers they originally offered in July, 2004. The amended proffer to increase the number of residential units by 90.  Originally approved for 350 units, 260 have already been constructed.

The revised proffer, with the just passed 50 foot height allowance, would include structured parking (80 spaces) underneath the building, an additional swimming pool and an enclosed dog run. In addition, this phase would have elevators in the buildings rather than only offer stairs. The structured parking resulted in additional building height also factored into the demand for elevator.  The final and perhaps most important from a financial impact to Greene County is that the units will be reduced from three bedroom units to two bedroom units.

The impact of this change is logically that the families occupying the units will be smaller, i.e. fewer children. Fewer children will result in a reduced demand on the school system which is the main consumer of tax revenue in the county.

This was a public hearing yet that were no citizens speaking either for or against the revised proffers. Supervisor Bill Martin (Stanardsville) commented that this is a reasonable adjustment to Preddy Gables plan and they have listened to the market in making changes to their amenities that their client want to see in Phase III of the project.

Chairperson Michelle Flynn (Ruckersville) stated that while Preddy Creek is not specifically designed just for elderly citizens, like Four Seasons a 55 and better community on Route 33, buclip_image006t the inclusion of an elevator to reach the upper floors is a key component to this development.  She mentioned this product would be very beneficial for the aging population cohort.

clip_image007

Supervisor Jim Frydl (Midway District)

Frydl concluded that this was a market based solution and that amending the proffers, especially from three bedrooms down to two bedrooms, reduces the impact on schools. “There is obviously a market need for this type of housing”, Frydl said. The Board all agreed and approved the revised proffers by a vote of 5-0.

The addition of more residents in Ruckersville will hopefully create more demand and entice new commercial development in Ruckersville. So that even though the previously required commercial development has been removed from the proffers, in the long run, the same result may occur with additional commercial development being attracted by more “rooftops”.

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

Greene Planning Commission Hears Request for Cell Tower

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

clip_image002Last night, the Greene County Planning Commission had a lengthy public hearing regarding a proposed cell tower.  The wireless business continues to evolve and now the business includes “Tower Companies” that seek to gain the required approvals to complete cellular networks and eliminate areas without service; many of these companies also hold and maintain the towers for the life of the lease.

The applicant in Greene was one such “tower” company – TowerCom, LLC (acting on behalf of T-Mobile) – who was seeking approval for a special use permit for a 195 foot monopole with an additional 4 feet wireless telecommunications facility on Simmons Gap Road in southwest Greene County.

Ron and Janet Parham own 176 acres in southwest Greene County that borders on Simmons Gap Road and is identified on the County Tax Map as 46-(A)-20 and it has two zonings – 27 acres as A-1 and the balance as C-1. Planning Director Bart Svoboda went over the request and recommended approval with only some coloring requirements so that the tower would better blend in with the background environment.

Svoboda explained that the adjacent landowners were contacted and only one had any concerns with the tower. This landowner, Lance Petty, might have the ability to halt the project as he has a right of way through his property to the site that has been identified for required access to the cell tower. Petty attended the meeting and was the only person to speak during the public session.

Petty addressed the Planning Commission and explained his opposition. His primary argument was the distortion of the pristine view of the area of Greene County where the tower is proposed to be placed. He further questioned how many Greene County residents would benefit vs. Albemarle County residents. He explained that the process to get a cell tower in Albemarle County is more complicated than in Greene County and he assumed that is why the tower is being requested in Greene County, close to Albemarle County.

Petty asked that the Planning Commission study the proposal further and identify how many residents in Greene County would gain service vs. how many in Albemarle County.

Nicole Scro representing TowerCom, LLC explained that a balloon test was advertised and conducted with over a dozen local residents present and most were satisfied with the results. Commissioner John McCloskey questioned the benefit of the tower to Greene County residents vs. residents of Albemarle County. Chairman Jay Willer asked to see the slide that showed the location of all cell towers in Greene County and estimated that several of the existing towers would reach beyond Greene County’s borders.

Svoboda inversely said that cell towers in adjoining counties help with connectivity in Greene County and Greene County relies on those towers to transmit information to the Rescue Squad.

McCloskey then asked Svoboda if this was a preferred location and he answered no, but explained that more service is better for that area of Greene County. Scro explained that the cell tower would give T-Mobile connectivity, it would have access for emergency services and would also have three additional connections available for other cell providers. She also pointed out that while residents may not have T-Mobile due to not having service available, the addition of the tower may encourage some cell users to switch to T-Mobile to gain better service.

Morris then discussed again the desire to see what other locations TowerCom had considered and would they be willing to move to other locations that would project a signal into more of Greene County. Valerie Long, also representing TowerCom, explained that for a variety of reasons the location selected was the best for this project but she would be willing to share the other locations with the Planning Commission.

However, Long explained it was T-Mobile’s goal to get this tower project started by the end of the year.  She mentioned they have already filed a site plan.  McCoskey also expressed some concern about the SUP being open ended and spoke of a 6 or 12 month time limit if the SUP was approved.

Regarding the number of Greene/Albemarle County customers served, Svoboda stated:

We don’t ask that of a grocery store . . . We’re not going to make market decisions based on number of customers . . . [the recommendation] is about the use and the impact of that use.

Willer asked that the commission constrain their decision to the request for the SUP not to determine how many residents in Greene would be served or how profitable the tower would be for T-Mobile. The motion was made with the three color restrictions plus adding that the tower begin construction within one year of Board of Supervisors approval. The motion was approved on a 4-0 vote, with Morris abstaining.

clip_image004What wasn’t considered in the discussion was the fact that some residents in Greene County will benefit due to the fact that there are enough residents in Albemarle County to make the installation of this tower in Greene a profitable venture for T-Mobile. It can be theorized that absent Albemarle resident demand, T-Mobile may not have wanted to do this project and help provide connectivity to a distant part of southwest Greene County. A piece of the pie is better than no pie at all, especially to a citizen who needs the rescue squad!!

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

What Albemarle Can Learn From Amazon’s HQ2 Search

By. Neil Williamson, President

This afternoon, in an alphabet soup of a joint meeting Albemarle County’s Economic Development Authority (EDA), Planning Commission (PC), and Board of Supervisors (BOS) discussed Site Readiness from a Site Selectors Prospective in an effort to focus on growing business.

Timmons Group Joe Hines presentation “Are your sites and community prospect ready?” was eye opening to many in the room.  Hines suggested the locality should own or control parcels under consideration and that the locality needs to make infrastructure investment on the parcel to become most attractive in the site selection process.

Assistant County Executive Lee Catlin (in likely her last public presentation prior to retirement) used much of Hines Presentation talking points to present an overview of the Deschutes Brewing competition that Roanoke won.   The discussion was very good and highlighted the areas where Roanoke was better prepared for the opportunity.  (Check out  @Neilswilliamson Twitter feed for more details)

In a seemingly unrelated news event, Business Insider reports on Amazon’s search for a new 2nd North American Headquarters.

The company’s press release lays out a few details of what it’s looking for: metro areas with more than one million people; a “business-friendly” environment; a strong technical workforce; be “urban or suburban locations with the potential to attract and retain strong technical talent,” and “communities that think big and creatively when considering locations and real estate options.”

Ignoring the obvious million people hurdle, how do you think Albemarle, or Charlottesville for that matter stacks up regarding “communities that think big and creatively when considering locations and real estate options”.

Considering Catlin’s presentation,  one portion that was not mentioned was the “community” response to Deschutes.   Over two years ago, I wrote in Da Lessons from Deschutes.

4.  While the Supervisors recognize the economic reality, the public is notnimby1 yet sold on the concept of increased economic development.  This lack of public support is seen by outsiders as “unwelcoming” and is clearly a competitive disadvantage.   As Lisa Provence reported in C-ville regarding the Planning Commission denial of the CPA, some are not convinced that economic development (AKA Growth) is a good thing:

 

Watching the various states and localities compete for the Amazon 2nd Headquarters, I am amazed by the deftness of their marketing and efforts to show community support:

This challenge is actually an opportunity.  Notice Amazon did not say “governments” who think big and creatively.  They are looking for a community that will not only welcome them but allow them to become one with them.  The communities competing for HQ2 are attempting to present their community as complimentary to the creative class.  Don’t think this is only in big time economic development.  Roanoke’s “Hashtag” campaign was a big part of the Deschutes Decision.

Albemarle Supervisor Rick Randolph thought the presentation corrected a “myth” that Albemarle lost Deschutes – he said instead Roanoke won it.  Sounds like splitting hairs to me but I still have the core question.

Is Albemarle ready to energetically embrace economic development?

Randolph said he was supportive of “smart” economic development where jobs went to Albemarle citizens and no traffic was generated – sounds like a unicorn hunt to me.

Supervisors Liz Palmer and Brad Sheffield both expressed interest in redevelopment sites.

One positive suggestion came late in the meeting from Planning Commissioner Jennie More.  More thought that economic development should be a part of the community vetted Master Plan process.  This might be a first step in developing the kind of community buy in that can be more than “accepting” of economic development instead can cheer for it.

This meeting was a good first step, but I remain concerned that not everyone is equally energetic about economic development and the community is clearly not yet fully engaged.

If everyone understands the net benefits of economic development and brings positive energy to support the effort, perhaps then Albemarle can be in a position to “Win”.

If not, we may want to ask if Albemarle should be (or is) in the game at all.

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.

Greene Supervisors Hears Five Year Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

It makes good common sense to hope for the best but plan for the worst.  For Virginia localities it is more than common sense, it is mandated by state law.clip_image002

In response to this requirement, Billie Campbell, Senior Program Manager, and Wood Hudson, Planning Manager, of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission  addressed the Greene County Board of Supervisors at their first meeting of October (10/10). They presented a draft of the 2017 Update of the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan . The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 set out requirements for State and local governments to update their plans every five (5) years.

clip_image005The purpose of plan is prepare for natural disasters before they occur and it covers all jurisdictions in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District – Albemarle County,  the City of Charlottesville, Greene County, Louisa CountyFluvanna County, Nelson County, and the towns of Scottsville, Stanardsville, Louisa and Mineral. The first plan was approved in 2006, then in 2012 and it is now due to be updated by December 17, 2017.

In August a draft of Regional HMP was submitted to the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) who will then forward it to FEMA for their review and comments and once they have approved it, each jurisdiction must adopt the plan.

According to the draft plan:

Natural hazards tend to be low-probability, high-impact events. One year could be mild with natural
events scarcely interrupting communities, while the next could be literally disastrous. The purpose of hazard mitigation is to make an effort to minimize the damage and loss of life caused by disasters when they do occur. Hazard mitigation is one component, along with emergency response and post-disaster recovery, to the larger strategy of dealing with the human impacts of natural hazard

With more people living in areas susceptible to natural hazards, the costs associated with such hazards have been steadily increasing over time. The localities of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District (the Counties of Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa, and Nelson, the City of Charlottesville, and the Towns of Scottsville, Columbia, Stanardsville, Louisa, and Mineral) are impacted by variety of different hazards. In order to lessen the growing cost of disaster recovery on the localities and minimize the disruption of business during a disaster, there is a growing need to mitigate the impact of known hazards. Through proper planning and the implementation of policies and projects identified in this Hazard Mitigation Plan, the region and the localities can reduce the likelihood that these events will result in costly disasters.

The Hazard Identification and Analysis section of the plan describes natural hazards which pose the greatest threat to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. Hazards are profiled in terms of prevalence, intensity, and geographical scope. The section includes a description of the hazard as well as analysis based upon historical and scientific data.

The specific areas of the plan are:

        1. flooding and dam failure
        2. winter weather
        3. wildfire
        4. temperature extremes, drought and landslides, and
        5. tornado and earthquakes.

The plan calculates a risk factor for each event within the TJPDC study area.

Hazard-Mitigation_full_doc

Within each category are specific actions recommended to be taken that include describing the hazard, potential mitigation, lead responsible entity, estimated cost, funding method and the time period of the issue.

clip_image006

Campbell asked that the Board consider making the resolution supporting the plan. All of the supervisors supported the plan but wanted to wait until the second board meeting of the month to allow time for them to review the proposal. The request was deferred until the October 24, 2017 meeting and it is hoped that the Supervisors will approve the resolution at that time.

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

Fluvanna’s Proactive Economic Development Effort

By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer

Fluvanna County is preparing the way for development in the Zion Crossroads area. Water and sewer will start construction in the coming year, but Fluvanna County staff have an idea to make properties in development area ‘shovel ready.’

The proposed program, Fluvanna Shovel Ready Sites Program (FSRSP), will provide money to property owners to help them have land ready for development quicker.

Jason Smith, director of community and economic development, has vocal approval to develop the program. His idea is a play off of a similar state program, Virginia Business Ready Sites Program.

The statewide program has a minimum acreage of 100 acres. Fluvanna has two cooperating landowners who can combine to be eligible but most properties in Zion Crossroads area are smaller.

FSRSP would fill the gap for properties 2 to 99 acres.. Smith said several property owners he speaks to are willing to have their land developed, but they don’t fully know the process or what it entails.

“This is a program creates an avenue to have a conversation,” said Smith.

Virginia classifies property for development in five tiers. The higher the tier, the easier it is to develop. Most Fluvanna land is sitting in tier one.

“One of the core features of the Fluvanna Shovel Ready Site Program is rezoning. That takes two to three months. Developers don’t want to fiddle with that paperwork and two or three meetings,” said Smith.

Rezoning a property from Agricultural-1, which the vast majority of Fluvanna is zoned, to a business friendly zoning jumps property to tier three.

Along with zoning, the program would help landowners take care of various other due diligence programs like surveying or environmental studies. Smith said developers don’t want to hear there is an issue that needs to be mitigated because they’ll move to another location in another locality.

Smith said, “If we can do all the red tape, if we can take care of that, [developers] want to open up and make money. They don’t want to sit around for a year.”

He briefed the Board of Supervisors of the program during a work session in September. He will bring it back for final approval in November in hopes of rolling it out by January 1.

“We can’t wait. We can’t,” said an anxious Smith.

He said his office gets request for information every few months with questions that automatically disqualify any county property. Water infrastructure will help but moving properties to tier three or four will help speed things along.

Smith proposes moving $35,000 from a microloan program to FSRSP. The microloan money has been budgeted for several years with no businesses applying or using the money.

Just like the idea behind microloans, anyone interested in getting financial assistance through FSRSP would have to apply through the Economic Development Authority of Fluvanna. Once approved, landowners would work with county staff to complete the proposal.

“[The program will] provide a financial assistance opportunity to actually do something with the property, instead of just letting it sit and watch the property two miles up the street in Louisa county be developed,” said Smith.

Smith’s intention is to get final supervisor approval during the November 1 session. If approved, he would then have community meetings to publicize to landowners.


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

Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum

Photo Credit: Ryan Pace Communications Management, LLC

VDOT’s SmartScale Funding Deadline Accelerates Local Land Use Planning

By. Neil Williamson, President

“Nothing focuses the mind like a hanging.” – English Poet Samuel Johnson

Perhaps in the case of the Route29 Solutions Hydraulic Plan the last word in that phrase should be changed to ‘transportation funding’.  Both The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County are preparing to receive, hold public hearings and endorse the Hydraulic Small Area Plan, a forty to fifty year land use plan, over the course of 40 to 50 days.

Why? It’s all about the money.

Please let me explain.

SMART SCALE - Funding the Right Transportation ProjectsWhen the Commonwealth of Virginia changed over to the transportation funding program now known as Smart Scale it was touted as taking the politics out of transportation funding decisions [interestingly, Route29 Solutions was one of the last projects funded under the old system].

From their website:

Virginia’s SMART SCALE (§33.2-214.1) is about picking the right transportation projects for funding and ensuring the best use of limited tax dollars.  It is the method of scoring planned projects included in VTrans that are funded by HB 1887. Transportation projects are scored based on an objective, outcome-based process that is transparent to the public and allows decision-makers to be held accountable to taxpayers. Once projects are scored and prioritized, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) has the best information possible to select the right projects for funding.

An important part of the funding decision rests on the position of local government on the project and how the project relates to the municipality’s Comprehensive Plan.  In the case of Hydraulic, this involves two governments and two different Comprehensive Plans.

In determining the timing for the Hydraulic Small Area Plan, it was determined that the land use plan should inform the transportation plan, rather than the other way around (which was done at Rio/29).

Due to the number of projects submitted and the intensity of the objective review, VDOT  determined that the Smart Scale process will only open every other year and then only for about 90 days.  Here is where the timing issue arises.

Diagram 1

When, at the request of the Charlottesville Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), Virginia Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne advanced the funding for the panel to develop the land use plan AND the transportation plan, it was done to explicitly facilitate the Smart Scale intake dates.

From the January 2017 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) media release:

The study schedule anticipates having the small area land use plan complete and any recommendations for transportation improvements finalized in the summer of 2018. That timetable will allow the localities to prepare applications for the next round of Smart Scale project scoring in September 2018.

So here we are.  Charlottesville City Council and Planning Commission will hold 5 joint public hearings the evening of October 10th.  Which one is last?  You guessed it The Hydraulic Small Area Plan.

Conceptual Land Use Map Oct 2017 P71

Albemarle County will hold their Planning Commission Public Hearing on October 17th.

In an interesting piece of bicameral political theater, both the Planning Commissions [as well as City Council and Board of Supervisors] will be pushed to approve the Small Area Plan without making significant changes for fear the funding schedule will be lost.

It is hard to believe that many folks [perhaps even planning commissioners] will have taken the time to read the entire document.  But never fear, the decisions are not being made from the top.  Again from the January VDOT media release:

“It is important to emphasize,” Secretary Layne continued, “that Aubrey-Layne-photo-credit-VDOT.jpgthe land use decisions will be made by the city, county and the MPO. There are no preconceived solutions or presumptions here. We are kicking off a process at the MPO’s request; the outcome of that process remains to be seen.”

How involved with the Planning Commissions and elected officials get with this small area plan knowing VDOT is building the transportation plan based upon these assumptions?

Is 120 days a good measure for reviewing a 50 plan?

Is creating a sense of urgency a bad thing in these planning exercises?

Will the public be fully engaged?

Will the elected officials?

Once again we have more questions than answers.

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 Credit: Route29Solutions.com

Preddy Gables Seek Proffer Amendment from GC PC

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

Preddy Gables, LLC came before the Greene County Planning Commission at their September meeting (9/20/17) to file a rezoning application to amend the proffers approved on July 13, 2004 (RZ#04-152). The goal of the proffer amendment is to remove the proffer regarding tying the number of apartments to be developed to the development of retail space.

Currently the property located on Terrace Greene Drive / Seminole Trail, due to the ratio in the existing proffer, can only develop 276 units of which there currently are 260 units in existence. Under the new proffer, the total number of units would remain unchanged but the development of those units would no longer be tied to the construction of additional commercial space.  In addition, the proffer amendment increases the amenities and restricts the size of units in the last phase to be no larger than two bedroom. units.

This would be the last phase of the development and was displayed to develop the property that is lower in elevation and closer to Route 29.

clip_image001

Terrace Greene Apartments- Phase II

Zoning Administrator Bart Svoboda presented the project to the Planning Commission (less Chairman Jay Willer who was absent from the meeting). Svoboda indicated that there were no concerns from any of the agencies reporting and that all of the infrastructure was done originally to accommodate the full development.

Chris Gordon, a representative of the management firm working of the project, reviewed a conceptual rendering of the project. It showed the new section would be below the existing section and he also indicated that the existing structures are fully occupied.

Gordon continued on to explain that the new structure would have several different features – parking would be underneath the structure rather than surface parking, this would require elevators to be used rather than staircases. While not specifically built for older populations, it would be more convenient and easier to access the units in the new structure.

In addition a new pool, work out room and – something that existing renters have requested – a dog run to allow tenants to let their dogs “off-leash” to exercise are all part of the proposal. Gordon stated that the developer has not contacted adjoining landowners yet, as they wanted the feedback from the Planning Commission before taking their idea to the “neighbors”.

As a public hearing, the meeting was opened to the public and there was no one to comment.

In conjunction with this public hearing there was a second public hearing to address revising the height limit in Residential District (R-2) in Article 6 from 40 feet to 50 feet.

County Zoning Ordinance – Article 6, Residential District, R-2, 6-7 HEIGHT REGULATIONS Buildings may be erected up to forty (40) feet in height

This change would allow the new structure to raise up the 42 feet planned (2 feet in excess of the current height allowed).

The height discussion among the commissioners was mixed. While the feeling was that this particular project would use this higher limit to benefit a hillside, however other future projects may not have this topography and therefore it would actually rise 50 feet up from the sight line.

The Planning Commission approved the request to amend the proffers 5-0 and approved the change to the Residential District height by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Frank Morris voting against the change in height.

Based on the change in State law, the commissioners completely ignored the issue of the original proffer ratio of residential vs. commercial property. They did not ask the developer about any future plans for commercial development. The law, known as Senate Bill 549, was signed by Governor McAuliffe in March, 2016.  It restricts both the subject matter and manner in which localities may accept proffers in residential zoning actions.

Instead, the commissioners discussed the existing units being “sold out” and that this would bring more additional housing to Greene County. By itself that is good, but that opens the question of the increased  demand of infrastructure on the county, especially schools.

In their letter supporting the rezoning the applicant provided evidence of limited impact on schools:

The existing apartment units at Terrace Greene are home to school teachers, policemen and countless other residents who contribute to the local community. Terrace Greene’s 260 apartments currently have only twenty (20) children residing there, and developing the last 90 units within an elevator building having no three-bedroom units is less likely to appeal to families with small children than the existing 90-unit plan being amended–meaning that these amended proffers are likely to reduce school impacts.  Given that, the economic development and other benefits, this new concept for the final project phase will, like the existing units at Terrace Greene, have a net positive impact–fiscally and more generally –for Greene County.

Balancing the need for housing in Greene and the cost of providing government service to the new housing is an important consideration; as is protecting property rights.

Interestingly, many potential business expansions use the number of “rooftops” in determining the viability of new locations.  One need only look to the recently released Sales Tax data from the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce to see how the commercial landscape of  Greene County has changed.   In 2006, the total sales tax revenue was $867,433. In 2017 (January-June) the amount was $934,396 in just six months.

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

Photo Credit: http://terracegreene.com/photos.html