New Meals Tax on the Fluvanna Menu
By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer
The Fluvanna County voters will decide if the county adds a meals tax in 2019.
The supervisors unanimously voted to send the issue to the people. Staff and the county attorney will ask the circuit judge to include the measure on the November ballot.
“This is [a tax] opportunity we can take advantage of,” said county Director of Community and Economic Development Jason Smith.
Fluvanna currently only taxes residents by assessing personal property and real property. But non-residents don’t pay any taxes beyond the county’s portion of the state sales tax.
“Every time we go to all the towns, cities, counties [that charge meals tax] we help pay their taxes,” said Board of Supervisors Chairman Mike Sheridan (Columbia District).
There are currently 47 of the 95 counties in Virginia with a meals tax, including neighboring Louisa. Counties have the requirement of a referendum to enact the tax. Also, counties limited to charge a maximum of 4 percent. Only one county that has a meals tax does not charge the maximum.
Towns and cities are not required to have a referendum to enact the tax. There are 110 towns with the tax and all 38 cities have it.
If the referendum fails, the county supervisors can not bring it back to the voters for three years. County residents can petition to include a meals tax vote every year. Staff relayed it took Louisa three tries over nine years to get the measure passed.
“[The meals tax] helps us keep from having one of the highest [real property] tax rates in the area,” said Supervisor Tony O’Brien (Rivanna District).
The meals tax would be applied to any business that prepares food that is meant to be consumed immediately. This would include a grocery store that sells prepared food to restaurants to caterers operating in the county when the food is served. Caterers that prepare food in Fluvanna to be sold in another locality would pay taxes to the locality where the product is sold.
Businesses would be required to submit tax forms every month to the Commissioner of Revenue.
Staff projects based on the county size and the estimated 21 impacted businesses in operation, Fluvanna will bring in $300,000 to $600,000 a year.
If approved by the circuit judge, the item will be on the November 6 ballot. Staff has mapped out an education campaign to help get the item passed on the first try. Ideas include town halls and marketing.
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: https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/
Greene Supervisors Don’t Budge on Request to Lower Proffers
By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer
On Tuesday(7/24), in a largely predictable move, the Greene County Board of Supervisors chose to retain the original cash proffer amounts on a proposed development located slightly Northwest of the intersection of 607 and US29 (Sheetz). in Ruckersville.
Virginia’s Department of Housing and Community Development defines a Cash Proffer as:
A cash proffer is (a)any money voluntarily proffered in a writing signed by the owner of property subject to rezoning, submitted as part of a rezoning application and accepted by a locality pursuant to the authority granted by Va. Code Ann. Section 15.2-2303 or Section 15.2-2298, or (b) any payment of money made pursuant to a development agreement entered into under authority granted by Va. Code Ann. Section 15.2-2303.1.
The Free Enterprise Forum has been a steadfast opponent of the cash proffer system. 
At the May, 2018 meeting the Greene Planning Commission agreed to lower the proffer for a 2008 Planned Unit Development from $9,000 to $1,200. Of course, the Planning Commission only makes a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
At the July 24th Board of Supervisors meeting the Board heard the request from the Kinvara Properties, LLC to reduce the amount of proffers for the 50 units proposed for the property. This calculates to a reduction in proffers of $390,000.
The new zoning administrator, Jim Frydl, outlined the public hearing which is about the property between the Food Lion development and Deer Lake Estates. And specifically, the public hearing was to deal with the request to amend the amount of proffers.
Butch Davies represented Kinvara Properties and explained that the company his client is negotiating with doesn’t believe they can pass on the cost of the $9,000 proffer in their price to the customer. In addition he explained that the economy has changed since the proffer was originally agreed to. He also believes that Greene County needs affordable housing for the workforce.
The meeting next shifted to comments from the public which all that addressed the board felt that the county should not change the proffer agreement that was originally made. Many felt that the county shouldn’t lower the proffers as it would set a precedent that would encourage other developers to request lower proffers also. One speaker from the public also shared that his work age children are just starting out in the workforce but their incomes are too high and they would not be eligible for the units in this project. So, in fact, the units are not “affordable housing for the workforce”.
The irony of the concern of setting a precedent by lowering the proffer is that the state has developed new proffer guidelines which are designed to more accurately capture new government costs that are specifically generated by the development. Therefore future proffers will likely be significantly reduced for new projects. So, in fact, the lowering of the proffer amount for this request would not set a precedent for future considerations (but might for the limited number of other unbuilt projects with existing proffers).
The consensus of the Board was that the original proffer agreement needs to be honored since it was freely agreed to by both parties. In fact the feeling is that the economy has improved recently. However, the concern that Kinvara Properties expressed at the Planning Commission meeting was that property wasn’t marketable with the full $9,000 proffer.
Based on this economic reality, the property will probably remain undeveloped with the current proffer burden until the market reaches a point where the project can sustain such costs or the parcel is again rezoned (with lower proffers). In either case the community’s vision as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan for affordable residential development in the Ruckersville development area is a dream deferred.
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 http://www.freeenterpriseforum.org
Fluvanna Chasing VDOT Smart Scale Funding
By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer
Fluvanna County has one traffic light. And according to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) estimates, it should stay that way.
Fluvanna will have four “Smart Scale” applications to the Commonwealth Transportation Board to be considered this cycle and two include adding two more roundabouts instead of traffic lights.
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 House Bill 1887
The intersection of Route 53 and Turkey Sag Trail rated the highest priority in the county. VDOT’s engineers recommended a roundabout. The proposal includes a multiuse path alongside Route 53 and connect to shopping centers on Turkey Sag.
“This works much more effective than a typical intersection,” said Chuck Proctor from VDOT.
If selected by the Smart Scale process and approved by the CTB, this would be the fourth roundabout on Route 53. There are two complete; one at South Boston Road and another at Route 15. There is one in preparation at Lake Monticello Road.
VDOT is recommending another roundabout on Route 250 at 
the intersection with Troy Road. The supervisors requested this intersection to be studied especially for economic development reasons (a part of the Smart Scale scoring system). Zion Station and Zion Crossroads Industrial Park are both near the intersection.
The other two applications are intersections on Route 15 that the supervisors are sending applications to improve safety concerns.
The first is Bybee’s Church Road where VDOT proposes adding turn lanes to help reduce rear end collisions, the primary cause of accidents at the intersection.
The other was heavily used Troy Road and Route 15 where a curve, dip and traffic have caused issues. VDOT found a way to add turn lanes, lower the road and straighten the curve to improve sight distance.
All will be sent to the CTB for review. The review cycle is ~16 months:
It is not anticipated all four projects will receive Smart Scale funding. Those that do not get funding will be eligible for other revenue sources available to the area VDOT office.
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 Credits: VDOT
Delta Response Team Rescue Headed to Fluvanna
By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer
Fluvanna County will start with a new contract ambulance service this upcoming year.
Delta Response Team (DRT), headquartered in Appomattox, 
was selected after a Request for Proposal (RFP) process was completed by the county. It will cost the county $438,000 for 24-hour services. The county budget $600,000 for FY19.
“We are not here to make a career service,” said Susan Walton, president of DRT.
DRT started in Appomattox as a way to compliment a dwindling volunteer force that county had. Over time and with DRT’s help, Appomattox has increased volunteers to help hold the line on adding additional career services.
Fluvanna is currently paying for one career service ambulance 24 hours a day to run out of the Palmyra Rescue Squad Station through a contract with UVA. Volunteers will continue to run out of the other stations.
The county has the option of adding additional services to the
DRT contract on an as needed basis including additional crew, use of a DRT ambulance, billing review and consulting services.
DRT will help the county with volunteer efforts including allowing volunteers to train with DRT staff.
“We would love the volunteers to get on the truck to run with us,” said Walton who continues to volunteer in Appomattox.
“The more [volunteers] train and run with us, the better for the community,” Walton said.
The staff DRT will run for 24 hours with a 48-hour off period following. Fluvanna can request an additional crew with as little as 12-hour notice. This could be helpful in times of large events.
While DRT will operate under the Fluvanna Rescue license including using the FRS vehicle, DRT can provide an ambulance if something happens to the Fluvanna vehicle. That vehicle will be under the DRT license.
The Buckingham County Volunteer Rescue Squad (BCVRS) president sent a letter of recommendation. DRT started providing similar service to Buckingham for over 18 months. BCVRS found dropped calls decreased with DRT.
Three other companies submitted to the RFP including Emergency Services Solutions, American Medical Response and incumbent UVA.
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 Credits: DRT Facebook Page
Egotistical Entrance Corridor Expansion Effort
By. Neil Williamson, President
Perhaps unsurprisingly, there are times when local public policy fails to follow logic.
When we learned in January the 1/3 Albemarle’s Entrance 
Corridors (EC) are Illegal, the Free Enterprise Forum was convinced Albemarle County supervisors would do the right thing to correct this code by reducing the number of roads designated as “Entrance Corridors”. Imagine our shock to learn that this week, the Supervisors have a Resolution of Intent (on the consent agenda) to ADD a twenty-second road to the bloated EC list.
Please let me explain.
Late last year, according to a member of county staff, during a routine preapplication meeting, a question came up regarding the posted speed limit on the entrance corridor. Staff researched the issue and determined both the speed limit and that the roadway was not an “arterial street”.
Virginia Code §15.2-2306 enables localities to establish entrance corridor districts encompassing parcels contiguous to arterial streets and highways found to be significant routes of tourist access to the county and to designated historic landmarks, structures, or districts within the county
This revelation, led staff to research each of the current twenty-one entrance corridor designated roadways and found eight did not meet the state “arterial” requirement.
To their credit, staff prepared a resolution of intent for the Board of Supervisors to consider in their February 7th meeting. The purpose of this resolution is to revise the Entrance Corridor Ordinance removing those roadways that do not qualify as arterials.
In the first action of the February 7th meeting, Board Chair Ann Mallek asked that the Resolution of Intent be removed from the consent agenda:
so some technical items can be worked out before it is brought back for further discussion.
Despite multiple requests of staff and supervisors, we have not received any update regarding these “technical issues”.
As of last month, the staff indicates they are not enforcing entrance corridor regulations on those roads that do not meet the state definition of “arterial” roads. This is not a fix, it is a band aid.
Meanwhile in February, the Planning Commission was flummoxed by its inability to mandate architectural review on proposed changes to City Church on West Rio Road. Therefore they passed a resolution of Intent to bring West Rio Road/John Warner Parkway as the twenty second road on the bloated list of “Entrance Corridors”. This is the true origin of the Resolution of Intent the Supervisors have on their consent agenda this week.
The Free Enterprise Forum believes any changes to the Entrance Corridors MUST FIRST fix the illegal Entrance Corridors – If not, we are left to ask
How long will Albemarle choose to ignore the law?
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: vancouver.mediacoop.ca
Fluvanna Increases Taxes, Reduces Capital Spending and Pulls From Fund Balance to Make FY19 Budget
By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer
Last month, the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors passed a FY19 budget that included a real estate tax rate of $0.939, an increase of three cents.
Part of the reason for that increase was health insurance was slated to increase $435,000. After some renegotiation, staff got a final figure of an increase of $228,000. However, the budget was already built with the larger figure.
Supervisors have decided to keep the budget as is and at the completion of the year will return that money to the fund balance, the county’s savings.
The budget included $127,000 operational cut, including $14,000 from nonprofits. Supervisors were presented with options to restore some of the cuts or at least make the nonprofits whole. Instead, the majority of the board decided to proceed with the cuts and if the departments needed to, the department head can come to the board to ask for additional money.
“Your (department) budgets are tight already. It is detrimental,” said Steve Nichols, county administrator. He noted the budgets were already very lean.
Nonprofits won’t get that opportunity because the county will send in pledges and some of those nonprofits will be part of the $14,000 cut. These cuts are reducing the amount the county will pledge to the individual nonprofits.
At the May 16 meeting, the supervisors will finalize which nonprofits will be cut.
The FY19 budget does include pulling $403,000 from the fund balance to balance the budget. The supervisors also took another $1.3 million for the capital improvement plan.
Steve Nichols
“Frankly, if we can save some money, it would be great to put it back into the fund balance,” said Nichols.
The projected FY20 budget needs about $2.3 million, or 7.7 real estate tax cents, to balance.
The tax rate will get some relief next year because the county is doing a reassessment and property values are increasing. Whenever that happens, the tax rate adjusts inversely. But still, the need for additional tax revenue will be there for next year.
The budget has two factors that are not decreasing: employees (salary and benefits) and debt service. Debt service will stay level but employee salary and benefits will continue to rise.
While the county is aggressively trying to attract new businesses to help alleviate the tax burden on rooftops, any business coming will not have immediate impact.
The next meeting is May 16 at 7 p.m. with a proceeding 6 p.m. session.
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.
The Need for an Albemarle Rain Tax Vote
An open letter to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
By. Neil Williamson, President, Free Enterprise Forum
Dear Supervisors,
After significant public discussion, tomorrow the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will be discussing the future of the proposed Stormwater Utility Fee (AKA Rain Tax).
Your staff has done an exemplary job bringing this option this far. This was time well spent and needed for the community to understand the stormwater needs and costs. The Free Enterprise Forum applauds staff’s accessibility and clarity in their public interactions and documentation.
With all due respect, the Free Enterprise Forum calls on the supervisors to do two simple things as a part of that discussion:
- Make a recorded vote up or down
- Vote NO on the Rain Tax.
As you know, The Free Enterprise Forum has been opposed to the Rain Tax concept since it was first discussed. We are asking you to put your vote on the record to counter the vote of September 2016 when your body endorsed a one vote majority committee position to move forward with the Rain Tax.
Vote No on the Rain Tax because you have heard the hundreds of citizens who have attended town halls, telephoned or e-mailed their very real concerns with the inequity in the proposal.
Vote No on the Rain Tax because the community has expressed support for the important stormwater projects but not for this top-heavy funding mechanism.
Vote No on the Rain Tax because as proposed $1.2 million dollars annually would go toward “enforcement/regulation and administration”. These funds could be better spent on significant community needs, including stormwater infrastructure improvements.
Vote No on the Rain Tax because GIS mapping is structurally flawed as it is based on the hand drawn tax maps rather than recorded plats. The results include buildings being placed on the wrong parcels. One local surveyor estimated 25% of all GIS mapping has some errors (many undercounting buildings).
Vote No on the Rain Tax because projects developed in the last decade include significant stormwater mitigation, resulting in better stormwater quality (and velocity) than the predevelopment condition. These mitigation practices are expensive, to then asses a fee to these property owners would be effective double taxation.
Vote No on the Rain Tax because 95% of Albemarle is rural and many of these tax payers will see no “utility” from the proposed Rain Tax
Vote No on the Rain Tax because of the “over 20 localities” who have enacted such a measure only 3 are counties, none of which has the same demographic or geographic considerations as Albemarle.
Vote No on the Rain Tax because stormwater is a community good not a utility. It rains on everyone and the environmental stewardship is everyone’s responsibility. Just as you would not consider a user fee for Public Safety or Schools, the community is better funding stormwater through the general fund.
Vote No on the Rain Tax because you can. Albemarle County is not mandated to enact a Stormwater Utility Fee. While staff has suggested regulators may prefer a fee funding formula, that is NOT a mandate.
Finally, Vote NO on the Rain Tax because it is the right thing to do. Let’s use this positive community energy surrounding this issue to improve stormwater via the general fund.
As always, thank you for your service to our community.
Respectfully,
Neil Williamson, President
Greene Examines Needed Emergency Communications Upgrade Options
By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer
The Greene County Board of Supervisors asked engineering consultants from engineering consultants Black and Veatch attend their March 27th meeting to present three alternatives to improve the communication systems between Sheriff, Fire and Rescue throughout Greene County.
Don Bowman, Consulting Manager of Black and Veatch, provided the Supervisors an update on the coverage that currently exists with the system which are extremely concerning. The Sheriff can communicate about 80% outside of a building and that drops to 15-60% inside depending on the type of building they are in. Fire and Rescue range from 35-55% depending on where in the county they are located (outside of a building) and it drops down to 5-25% (inside a building). In addition, the equipment is over a decade old.
Based on the consultant assessment, Greene County needs to upgrade their system; Black and Veatch presented three options to accomplish that goal. The options varied on whether Greene County would go alone in developing a system, the second option was to partner with Madison County and the third option was to join forces with Madison, Louisa and Fluvanna Counties and utilizing Fluvanna’s existing system.
All three options show significant improvement vs. the current situation – the in building connectivity ranges from 50-90%. But the costs go down from the first option of creating a standalone system in Greene County to the two options to partner with other counties. The cost impact of the three alternatives is telling:
Greene County alone $6,167,000
Greene and Madison $5,616,000
Greene, Madison, Louisa and Fluvanna $5,291,000
(these are estimated onetime costs for Greene County with estimated annual operating costs of $220K)
Chairperson Michelle Flynn (Ruckersville) added that not only is the cost less to partner with other counties but it logically makes sense to be able to communicate with nearby counties as has been demonstrated in the past. Supervisor Bill Martin (Stanardsville) asked if there was any improvement in coverage with option 2 or option 3. Bowman indicated that option 2 would provide some overlap benefit to both Greene and Madison Counties.
Supervisor David Cox (Monroe) expressed concerns with the life of the solutions. Bowman had representatives from Motorola present at the meeting and they assured that the system would be functional until 2040. Martin asked where Madison County is in their communication assessment/acquisition process and was assured that Madison is very interested in partnering with Greene County.
The Board of Supervisors is to be commended for pursuing this upgrade for the safety of the citizens of Greene County. The ability to have the Sheriff, Fire and Safety effectively communicate can mean the difference of life and death. These are the type of issues that need to be recognized and prioritized in the Capital Improvement Plan for the future of Greene County.
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 http://www.freeenterpriseforum.org
Fluvanna Budget Discussion Includes New Business
By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer
It takes three to tango during budget season and the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors is working its way to a final budget number. During the latest work session the supervisors left with four nods on stopping at a real estate tax rate of $0.929 per $100 assessed. The current rate is $0.907.
The supervisors got a boost by additional tax values and increasing fees for items like trailers.
But to get to $0.929 and fund the schools its full request of $600,000, the supervisors will pull money from the county’s savings, the fund balance. It is a practice that is highly discouraged because the fund balance is typically used for one time expenses. But school staff is confident the school system will return a few hundred thousand to the fund balance when the current fiscal year is complete.
At the end of the March 28 work session, only Don Weaver (Cunningham District) didn’t give a nod to the budget but he said he would think about it.
Supervisors will have a public hearing on the budget on April 4 at 7 p.m.
Also on March 28 the supervisors held two public hearings on industrial sites in the Zion Crossroads area.
The first hearing was for the old Cosner Brothers location. M&M Salvage owns the property and trying to rezone the front part to I-1 and the back portion to I-2.
The property currently has a zoning violation issued against it for non-conforming use. The property is being used by contractors for the Colonial Gas Pipeline, per the owner. County staff has ruled it is being used as a contractor’s yard, which is a by-right use for an industrially zone property but the property is currently zoned A-1.
“I think you are able to consider this [a violation],” said Fred Payne, county attorney, to the supervisors.
Next to the property is a small cluster subdivision, Fox Glen. Residents continually complain to staff of work consistent with a contractor’s yard.
“People are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their property and it is being interrupted,” said Charles Hess, who lives in the subdivision.
Residents have complained of the loud noises and lights used to work early in the morning and evenings. One complaint listed a 1 a.m. start time.
“This I-1 and I-2 use next to the residential is less than ideal,” said Tony O’Brien (Rivanna District).
Supervisors denied the rezoning 5-0. The owner filed an appeal of the non-conforming use to the Board of Zoning Appeals. BZA will hear the case on May 15.
LKQ is coming to town thanks to approval of its special use permit, 5-0. The supervisors added provisions to increase buffer areas near residents and restrictions on hours of operation.
The property was previously rezoned, at the direction of the Board of Supervisors, in December. The property is located behind the Cosner Brothers property and was once the back half of Cosner. It is 90 acres.
Residents of Fox Glen aren’t exactly touching it but the subdivision is about 200-300 feet from the property line. LKQ offered to increase its buffer from 50 feet from property line to 75 feet. The company will build an eight-foot fence and plant trees.
LKQ is a salvage yard company that recycles parts mostly from totaled cars. The company buys cars wholesale then goes through the cars to sell parts to repair cars.
The company will fill the property with stripped cars and once it needs more space, it crushes cars. Supervisors put restrictions on hours the company can work in yard to pull parts. Restrictions were also placed on crushing cars to six days a week. Work inside the building have no restrictions.
“This is a very clean facility,” said resident William Hensley, who toured a similar LKQ facility.
LKQ is expected to pay $200,000 to $300,000 in taxes. A penny of real estate taxes is less than $300,000.
“I would love to keep Fluvanna green,” said resident Tom Payne. “But we are going to have to keep Fluvanna with another green (money).”
Some neighbors still were not pleased of the salvage yard coming to town.
“Would you like your daughter or son or grandkids to live there?” said Jeff Wagner.
Katie Ward, said she purchased the neighboring property months after Fluvanna started negotiations with LKQ, “We were robbed to have our voices heard.”
Ward distributed flyers before the meeting of a FOIA request she had that showed the county in discussions with LKQ as far back as February 2017.
The Fluvanna Board of Supervisors will meet on April 4 for a regular session at 4 p.m. followed by a 7 p.m. public hearing session on the budget.
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 Credits: Fluvanna County
Albemarle Mission Creeping Planning Commission
FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL
By. Neil Williamson, President
After a January 2018 determination found that 1/3 of Albemarle’s Entrance Corridors are illegal, the Board of Supervisors has yet to act on a resolution of intent to fix this issue.
In this vacuum, Albemarle County’s Planning Commission decided they don’t need no stinking Architectural Review Board – they can mission creep far beyond their state mandated advisory role and institute architectural demands on projects regardless of their location.
Please let me explain.
First it is important to note, the Free Enterprise Forum does not take positions on specific projects. The examples below are used to show a broken process, we do not have an opinion regarding the applications’ individual merit.
Example #1
During the Architectural Review Board review of a project (SP-2017-00016) in the Scottsville District on Avon Street Extended, it was determined that Avon Street Extended is not an arterial roadway (a requirement for an Entrance Corridor designation). The applicant went through the initial review without this knowledge and after the determination was made, the planning commission was briefed. Based on the applicant’s testimony at the Planning Commission, it was clear they were never told that they were not under the ARB regulations. Only late in the public hearing did the Deputy County Attorney mention that the applicant would not need to go back to the ARB for a final review.
Instead, the mission creeping Planning Commission seeking to achieve ARB-type control created a new class of conditions to codify the architecture as a part of a special use permit for a body shop.
b. Additional fenestration or architectural features shall be added along the “02 Left Elevation (South)” façade to provide a pedestrian orientation to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning or his/her designee. Priority should be given to providing additional fenestration or a combination of wall plantings, architectural features and fenestration along this particular elevation. [emphasis in original – nw]
Conditions in a Special Use Permit generally mitigate negative impacts on adjoining property owners, taking this to mean architectural elements is a LARGE LEAP beyond normal review.
Example #2
The following week, the Planning Commission considered a Special Use Permit application for a new church on Rio Road East (SP201700010). Rio Road East has never been established as an entrance corridor; it is mentioned as a corridor for possible entrance corridor consideration in the Comprehensive Plan (Page 5.20).
Strategy 8f: Consider additional EC designations as appropriate, or as road classifications change, for roads such as the John Warner Parkway, Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road), Route 692/712 (Plank Road), and Route 810 (Brown’s Gap Turnpike).
It is important to note there has been no resolution of intent or any other forward motion on making the John Warner Parkway an Entrance Corridor beyond the notation above in the 2015 guiding planning document.
That mere mention is enough for this activist Planning Commission to mission creep into mandating architectural features as a function of the Special Use Permit process. In this case now they have precedent, based on the SUP they railroaded the week before (Example #1). Honestly, the applicant never knew what hit him.
The Free Enterprise Forum is very concerned that the mission creeping Planning Commission is unchecked in its power grab beyond state code. As an advisory body, nothing becomes final until accepted by the Board of Supervisors.
When the Board of Supervisors considers these applications later this year, will any Supervisor (or County Counsel) raise the red flag regarding these architectural demands absent a significant community benefit OR a strong legal nexus?
I know which way I am betting.
Stay Tuned,
Neil Williamson, President
Photo Credit: Bartblog.bartcop.com
