Tag Archives: Comprehensive Plan

Thankful, Hopeful & Skeptical in Charlottesville

By. Neil Williamson, President

In this time of Thanksgiving, I have so much to be thankful for; unexpectedly, the Charlottesville Planning Commission is now on that list.

Please let me explain.

Late in last night’s Planning Commission work session, after hearing the Free Enterprise Forum concerns with the proposed comprehensive plan and the land use map, as it existed prior to Saturday’s meeting, Chair Lisa Green asked that the map and narrative they created be shared with the 4 members of the public in attendance.  Each of us took photographs of the map and narrative with the understanding these are just drafts.

https://freeenterpriseforum.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/image2.png?w=208&h=310

Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan Map Draft Before Saturday (11/17) Planning Commission Matinee Meeting

comp plan photo 2

Revisions to Charlottesville Draft Comprehensive Plan Map from Post Planning Commission Saturday Matinee Meeting (11/17)

Comparing the two images, I see hope for increased intensity, AKA density, in many nodes.

Green expressed a desire for folks to read the narrative- something I refer to as the “Intensity Spectrum”.  Staff attempted to type in new language on the fly during Saturday’s meeting – that is the image below – it will undoubtedly change but we like the direction it is headed.

We again see hope in the draft language that was captured includes the verbiage “Missing Middle Housing”.  The previous version went from high to low with very little room for middle housing.

Comp Plan Photo 4

It is our understanding that the Planning Commission will see staff’s rendition of the changes at their regular December 11th meeting but the documents will have already been submitted for the December 17th City Council meeting.  The Planning Commission will deliver an incomplete update of the Comprehensive Plan, the Community Engagement chapter is not yet drafted and the Land Use chapter is not yet complete.

Council will provide their comments on the draft and it will return to the Planning Commission for further meetings and refinements (and completion of the two unfinished chapters).

While I remain a healthy skeptic waiting to see the devil in the details, I sincerely appreciate the direction and conversations about making the CITY of Charlottesville a “Welcoming urban environment for all people”.

So I am thankful for the Charlottesville Planning Commission for listening to the public AND sharing the draft output from their Saturday matinee session.

Happy Thanksgiving!

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

Advertisements

Fluvanna Seeks to Direct ZXR Commercial Growth Via Water/Sewer Fees

By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer

The Fluvanna County  Board of Supervisors have a blank canvas when it comes to Zion Crossroads, but it doesn’t own the land.

The vast majority of the land the new Zion Crossroads (ZXR) water system will service is currently zoned A-1 so it will require rezoning to allow commercial activity. The fear is the land currently isn’t expensive with a new water system, there could be an economic incentive to developing single family homes by right. This would be contrary to the economic development rationale used to justify the water system as the county spent the money to attract businesses, not more residential.water-bib_thumb.jpg

One way to discourage housing is finding a sweet spot with connection fees of the ZXR water system. Supervisors had a work session on November 7th to discuss strategies for the system.

The idea is connection charges would be higher than most localities but not the highest. Connection charges for a single family house would typically be absorbed in the cost of the house. But if the total connection is at minimum $16,000, that would be too large a percentage of an average home price in Fluvanna.

A large business wouldn’t bat an eye to the same cost. “That’s pennies or peanuts compared to their overall market studies,” said Wayne Stephens, ZXR water project manager.

Other options the county has is changing the comprehensive plan in regards to the community planning area.

“(The comprehensive plan) already talks about encouraging high density but we need to emphasize discouraging low density,” said Jason Stewart, planning and zoning administrator.

Also, county staff is working on minimizing the rezoning process including trying to make the

Nichols2014

Steve Nichols

county ordinance easier to navigate. The county attorney, Fred Payne, said some of that might make it easier for the average person but it might not stand up in court.

“Find a way to make it easy,” said Steve Nichols, County Administrator.

Fluvanna County will start using Municode, a program that makes the county code searchable. Currently the code is available on the county website via downloadable PDFs by chapter.

Supervisors are attempting to use all the tools at their disposal to make the Zion Crossroads area desirable to business and less attractive to residential.  The Free Enterprise Forum is not convinced making water and sewer hook ups more expensive is the right direction.  Generally speaking, we oppose using water as a growth control tool within designated development areas.

We do applaud the concept of  streamlining the rezoning process to make Fluvanna more business friendly and we sincerely appreciate the County Administrator’s clear direction, “Find a way to make it easy”.  We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

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

What Is the Most Important Question in the C-ville Survey?

By. Neil Williamson, PresidentSee the source image

The Charlottesville Planning Commission is, once again, seeking public engagement regarding their drafting of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan.  This time the engagement methodology is an  online survey instrument.

While many folks will focus on the specific questions that are asked in the survey.  The most important question in any such survey is who will take the time (5-8 minutes) to complete the survey.

Will you?

You see when a respondent has to perform an action, such as visit a website or call in to answer, this is known as a self selection survey.

The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) cautions that results of surveys based on respondents who self-select may not be reliable. The characteristics of people who choose to participate in this type of survey may be different than those who do not in ways that bias the final results. These polls may sometimes be accurate, but it is very hard to evaluate whether they are accurate simply because of good luck or because they were able to capture good information about the population they were trying to represent. AAPOR has not yet made a final judgment about the reliability of opt-in samples, but warns that this type of sample is not based on the full target population.

Based on prior experience with self selection surveys, we anticipate the sample set will be over represented by a subset of the entire Charlottesville population who are more engaged with the planning process.  It is not that the survey seeks to exclude those currently unengaged, it simply is not built to achieve this goal.  With the Planning Commission looking to wrap their work by November, this is one of the last (but not the last) opportunities to weigh in on the proposed plan.

In the end, this survey document is one of many efforts the Charlottesville Planning Commission has made to engage the public.  The Free Enterprise Forum hopes the results will be used in their proper context and strongly encourages participation in this survey.The information collected will be considered when finalizing the Comprehensive Plan.

If you care about Charlottesville’s future, please encourage complete the survey by Thurs., Oct. 4th.

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 http://deskofbrian.com

A New Charlottesville Parking Chapter?

By. Neil Williamson, President

Back in January, we spoke out regarding the long term parking problem the City of Charlottesville is choosing to ignore.

Currently, the existing garages are effectively full, with greater than 350 potential parkers on waiting lists for the opportunity to buy a monthly parking pass.

Commercial development activity continues in downtown with four prominent parking demanding projects currently in the pipeline. Conservative estimates place the new parking deficit [parking demand less parking provided] created by these developments to be 844 spaces [(386) Charlottesville Technology Center, (213) West 2nd Street, (160) Dewberry Hotel, (85) Vault Virginia].

Then this past week, Charlottesville cut a settlement with Charlottesville Parking Center owner Mark Brown to operate both downtown garages for 16 years.  The Daily Progress Editorial this morning (7/31) suggests “Parking Deal Buys Relief at Least for Now

As a matter of public policy — that is, providing parking for those who visit or work in Charlottesville and ending the uncertainty over whether parking would be reasonably available — the settlement has merit.

So the question is parking “a matter of public policy” and does the City have a responsibility to provide parking for those who work or live downtown?

Charlottesville enacted a parking action plan (January 2017-January 2020) that may remain as current policy but has been largely ignored by City Council.

image

Currently, the Charlottesville Planning Commission is considering their long term (20 year) comprehensive plan for the development of the City.  Other than the inclusion of the Parking Action Plan internal to the 2016 Economic Development report, the draft comprehensive plan is silent about parking. 

A portion of the Bonus Height/Affordable Housing Financial Analysis prepared by the Form Based Codes Institute and Partners for Economic Solutions was presented to City Council earlier this summer and included specific parking construction costs.

Parking is a major cost factor, averaging $5,000 per surface space, $20,000 per space in an above-ground parking structure and $32,000 per space in a below-ground structure. Surface parking is the least expensive option, by far, but it consumes a great deal of land

If we accept that there is not land space available for an 844 space surface parking lot in Charlottesville, the we can project the cost for “solving” the projected parking shortfall will be between $16.8 million and $27 million dollars.

imageThe long term parking shortfall, and Charlottesville’s ostrich like response to it, creates at least two likely outcomes:

1.  The City does nothing and the parking shortfall results in development projects (or existing businesses) failing due to lack of parking for employees or customers.

2.  The City recognizes the need for significant parking investment and dedicates significant resources to it.  How they might pay for such an expenditure is unclear.

One thing is clear, ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

An idea that has been discussed is to require by code that any business with more than 25 employees has to submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan annually.  This is a written plan on how the business would mitigate their effect on parking and traffic congestion.  It might include employee incentives to use transit, carpool or bike to work.

Planning for the future parking needs, the Planning Commission is uniquely positioned to aid in this endeavor as it seeks to revise the City’s Comprehensive Plan.  The Free Enterprise Forum calls on the Planning Commission to draft a new chapter on Parking ad clearly state if the city is accepting the responsibility for providing parking or not.  This document is the clearest place to state this critical public policy.

Or they can choose to remain silent on the issue – either way it is a choice.

Stay tuned.

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: City of Charlottesville, Community. curiosity.com

Does ‘Social Justice’ Fit in Charlottesville’s Comprehensive Plan?

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson, President

See the source imageLast Tuesday (6/26), the Charlottesville Planning Commission heard from a large number of citizens calling for their Comprehensive Plan process to have more public engagement, to be informed by the recently released housing needs assessment, to directly address racial inequity and to include ‘Social Justice’ throughout the document.

From my Twitter (https://twitter.com/NeilSWilliamson ) notes:

Andrea Massie tells #Charlottesville Planning Commission she supports additional community engagement asks for the comprehensive plan to focus on race. “The planning maps were drawn in the 1950s to segregate our community. There must be an intentional effort to undo this”

Annie Stump tells #Charlottesville Planning Commission of her support for additional Comprehensive Plan Community Engagement. Housing Needs Assessment is a great first step. Calls out racial inequity in housing. We should be judged by how we serve our most marginalized.

Brendon Hassler #Albemarle resident tells #Charlottesville Planning Commission of marginalized, historically oppressed communities that have a severe lack of trust with the government regarding Comprehensive plan outreach

Lena Seville asks for housing policy to address a long history of discrimination in the #Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan

Anna from #Albemarle bemoans the lack of organization. Suggests that the Comprehensive Plan is designed to be difficult for normal folks to read so developers can push mixed use instead of #AffordableHousing

Virginia code § 15.2-2223 clearly delineates that each locality’s Planning Commission shall draft a comprehensive plan:

making a comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing conditions and trends of growth, and of the probable future requirements of its territory and inhabitants. The comprehensive plan shall be made with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants, including the elderly and persons with disabilities.

The code provides a non exclusive list of plan elements including:

D. The comprehensive plan shall include the designation of areas and implementation of measures for the construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of affordable housing, which is sufficient to meet the current and future needs of residents of all levels of income in the locality while considering the current and future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated.

‘Social Justice” is not a required element, but does it belong in the plan?

Perhaps it depends on your definition of Social Justice.

  • The equitable distribution of advantages and disadvantages in society?
  • The proportional distribution of advantages and disadvantages as it relates to effort?
  • The redistribution of resources from those who “unjustly” gained them?
  • The equal distribution of opportunity?
  • A virtue?

The Pachamama Alliance provides a concise background on Social Justice:

Social Justice as a concept arose in the early 19th century during the Industrial Revolution and subsequent civil revolutions throughout Europe, which aimed to create more egalitarian societies and remedy capitalistic exploitation of human labor. Because of the stark stratifications between wealthy and the poor during this time, early social justice advocates focused primarily on capital, property, and the distribution of wealth.

By the mid-20th century, social justice had expanded from being primarily concerned with economics to include other spheres of social life to include the environment, race, gender, and other causes and manifestations of inequality. Concurrently, the measure of social justice expanded from being measured and enacted only by the nation-state (or government) to include a universal human dimension. For example, governments (still today) measure income inequality among people who share citizenship in common.

In 2015, Ashland Virginia’s Senior Planner Garet Prior penned a thoughtful post “Planning’s Role in Social Justice” calling for the industry reconsider their role and recognize their ethical responsibility to advocate for social justice.

Prior highlighted how activist planning philosophy impacted 1970s planning:

History teaches us the necessity of taking intentional steps to define our role in public service, or else we allow the entrenched powers to direct our purpose, thus making us a tool in continuing the status quo.

During the feverous pitch of the last Civil Rights Movement, in 1965, planning professor Paul Davidoff — who coined the term “advocacy planning” — instructed that “Planning action cannot be prescribed from a position of value neutrality.” Norman Krumholtz illustrated this concept as planning director for Cleveland in 1975 when he set the department’s overriding goal as “providing a wide range of choices for those Cleveland residents who have few, if any, choices.”

The Free Enterprise Forum applauds the concept of developing a wide range of choices as long as those choices continue to respect property owner rights.  Prior’s argument goes further to suggest planning departments should be philosophically charged with advocating for specific outcomes rather than “opportunities”.

In his argument, Prior used the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) code of ethics for direction:

“We shall seek social justice by working to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of the disadvantaged and to promote racial and economic integration. We shall urge the alteration of policies, institutions, and decisions that oppose such needs” (emphasis added).

If we are in a true pursuit of equitable outcomes for racially and economically disadvantaged groups, then history informs us that advocacy — more than an urge — will be required.

To fulfill this ethical call to advocacy, we need to better understand how change occurs. We should begin with a process of self-identification to be aware of our values, beliefs, and biases. In working with others, we need to understand that trust is necessary and will only be acquired through time. We need to get out of the office and form intentional relationships with underserved populations. . .

. . .As tensions around social inequities mount, now more than ever planners need to fulfill our ethical values by taking intentional action to advocate for equitable justice solutions. Inaction will only aid in continuing these broken systems because, as Martin Luther King Jr. stated, “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.”

This is a significantly higher level of advocacy than we see as appropriate from staff – the Free Enterprise Forum believes that the elected and appointed positions should be moving their planning philosophy forward and the professional staff should be following their lead.

We completely agree there is a responsibility on the part of planning commissioners and elected officials to actively seek out the opinions of those who are often under represented/underheard in our community.  This information, combined with all the other data that has been collected, should be considered.

Considering all of the above and the state mandated goals of the Comprehensive Plan document, The Free Enterprise Forum believes that while ‘Social Justice’ is an important element to our community conversation but should not be a separate chapter in Charlottesville’s Comprehensive Plan.

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

‘Snob Zoning’ Crozet Master Plan in the Works?

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson, President

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.  Please let me explain.

C-ville writer Samantha Baars found in the last six years significant taxpayer money has poured into Crozet:

“But Kyle Redinger, the developer of Adelaide, a proposed 80-unit neighborhood adjacent to the Cory Farm subdivision on Route 250, disagrees. He notes that Albemarle has invested 40 percent of its capital improvement money, or at least $29 million since 2010, in Crozet, but only 5 percent of the county’s population lives there.”

Despite such investment, some vocal members of the Crozet community continue to believe the growth that is currently contemplated by the comprehensive plan is too dense and too intense.

Former Planning Commissioner Tom Loach suggested at a recent Albemarle County Board of Supervisors meeting that the unelected Crozet Citizen Advisory Council (CCAC) plans to rewrite their master plan on their own. The Free Enterprise Forum is concerned that this “independent citizen activity” may become an illegally constructed defacto Master Plan that all future projects are measured against.

For those unaware, Master Plans are a part of the legally mandated Comprehensive Plan and are generally prepared by professional planners through a deliberate, transparent, public process that includes all stakeholders (i.e. neighbors, businesses, environmental activists, etc.).

It is not surprising that Loach, a longtime CCAC advocate, would be supportive of ignoring the established public process in favor of “snob zoning”.  As a commissioner Loach famously stated that he could not ever see a circumstance where he would vote in favor of a project that the CCAC did not support.  While I recall Loach voting in favor of every Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that included many Crozet items, I cannot recall a single Crozet development project that he supported during his years on the Planning Commission.  Such blind allegiance to an unelected neighborhood association precludes the planning commission process and perpetuates a Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) or Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone (BANANA) planning philosophy.

It goes far beyond master planning.  Long ago the CCAC (more than any other Citizen Council) unilaterally expanded their charge from being an advisory body to a mandated hurdle for any and all Crozet development proposals.  As this change was strongly supported by the subsequent votes of elected and appointed positions, the body grown further embolden to the point of reinventing elementary school math.

Recently the CCAC opposed a development project (the above mentioned Adelaide) based on its non-conformity to the Comprehensive Plan density.  A review of the Mater Plan showed the area as 3-6 units per acre and the Adelaide proposal called for 5.5 units an acre.  I am not sure how the CCAC can find that 5.5 is not between 3 and 6.  To be clear the Free Enterprise Forum has no position on this particular project but we do wonder in what universe 5.5 is not between three and six.

In an Adelaide meeting earlier this year, one planning commissioner stated that Crozet neighbors had voiced concerns about their children playing with those children from attached housing.  If this is starting to sound like class warfare (or discrimination), it should.

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.

snob-zones-640-for-web-194x300.jpgIn her seminal book “Snob Zoning”, Liza Prevost, exposed what happens when NIMBY zealots are able to change plans and regulations. Prevost reports such NIMBYism clearly fueled the density discussion in Ossipee New Hampshire where the town enacted regulation that was so restrictive the Zoning chairman Mark McConkey said:

“‘I believe the spirit of this ordinance was to deny the opportunity for multifamily housing to go forward in this town.  I believe it is the intent of the ordinance whether it is right or wrong.’

In his book review, John Ross writes on Reason.com:

Prevost sees little hope of changing entrenched attitudes about multi-family housing developments. “This is a world where facts are irrelevant,” says a demographer she spoke to. “I’ve explained over and over again that workforce housing is not Section 8 housing with welfare recipients packed in there.”

Snobs dominate local politics and are unlikely to embrace relaxed zoning codes any time soon. Change may yet come, though, as the demand for single-family homes subsides. The next generation simply isn’t as enamored of low-density living as baby boomers were. [emphasis added-nw]

The question then becomes if Crozet wants to preserve its small town charm and restrict population growth – when (and how) will they pay Albemarle County back for the $29 million taxpayer dollars expended over the last six years to make it a desirable development area?

Or might they embrace the change that has been vetted by the community and work to make the anticipated population growth work well with the existing community?

Or perhaps Albemarle will rollover to the vocal NIMBY mentality and choose to recognize an illegally developed Master Plan that fails to balance the many competing priorities of the community vetted Comprehensive Plan.

As usual we are left with more questions than answers.

Only time (and politics) will tell.

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Neil Williamson, President

———————————————————————-

20070731williamson 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

 

Greene PC Approves Comprehensive Plan

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

The Greene County Planning Commission held a final review of the revised Comprehensive Plan at their July 20th meeting. The Planning Commission has held public hearings to have their input into the revised document.

Per Virginia State Code Comprehensive Plans are to be updated every 5 years.

§ 15.2-2223. Comprehensive plan to be prepared and adopted; scope and purpose.

A. The local planning commission shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the territory within its jurisdiction and every governing body shall adopt a comprehensive plan for the territory under its jurisdiction.

In the preparation of a comprehensive plan, the commission shall make careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing conditions and trends of growth, and of the probable future requirements of its territory and inhabitants. The comprehensive plan shall be made with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants, including the elderly and persons with disabilities.

The comprehensive plan shall be general in nature, in that it shall designate the general or approximate location, character, and extent of each feature, including any road improvement and any transportation improvement, shown on the plan and shall indicate where existing lands or facilities are proposed to be extended, widened, removed, relocated, vacated, narrowed, abandoned, or changed in use as the case may be.

Chairman Jay Willer asked the Commission if they had any revisions to add to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Frank Morris would have like to have seen more language to slow down housing growth in the county. But he indicated that he was happy with the draft as it was presented.

Commissioner Morris asked Planning Director Bart Svoboda if the revised Comprehensive Plan was available on the county website.

clip_image001

Stephanie Golon

Svoboda said that due to the size of the document that it was not yet on the website. Planner Stephanie Golon did indicate that it is currently online with the red line changes under the agenda.

When it is recommended for approval by the Planning Commission it will be added to the county website.

Willer had the only suggested change to the draft – he asked that the last sentence on page 8 which states there were no farms in the property that became the Shenandoah National Park be eliminated since there were in fact farms on that property. With that being the only change, the revised Comprehensive Plan was unanimously approved.

Willer explained that the Board of Supervisors will have at least one public hearing related the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, Willer presented two additional documents to also be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. One was a formal resolution to forward the Comprehensive Plan to the Board of Supervisors and the second one was a transmittal letter with suggestions of how to change/enhance the process the next time the Comprehensive Plan is revised. Below are the six items being suggested to the Board of Supervisors:

· Better documentation, schedules and controls for the county’s fiscal management, both for anticipating revenue streams and accommodating future service growth and capital funding needs;

· Attention to the rigorous planning being enacted by the Board of Education and by the county’s emergency services functions to adequately incorporate future county needs, including funding possibilities and locational decisions;

· Assessment of county infrastructure and policies necessary for supporting continued growth and job creation in the designated growth areas, with funding strategies to support those needs;

· Strengthen the county’s health infrastructure, including both medical and emotional needs, particularly in light of steady increases in the number of aging residents;

· Review of the county’s needs for broadband communication, both for county services and for individual homes and businesses, evaluating county ordinances and emerging technologies that might leverage better access for all county residents; and

· Strategies for more consistent enforcement and oversight of county ordinances.

Both of these were approved 5-0.

The Comprehensive Plan will now be forwarded to the Greene County Board of Supervisors for their review and approval.

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 County PC Studies Future Land Use

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

Greene County is nearing the end of work sessions regarding their state mandated Comprehensive Plan revision. As regular readers know, localities must update their comprehensive plans every five years.  The Planning Commission is charged with the development of the plan while the Board of Supervisors votes on the final document.

At the October 21st workshop the Greene County’s Planning Commission reviewed the future land use of the county including the current vision, density and population, Virginia Code requirements and an overview of the current land use map. In order to enhance the quality of life and its rural character the county plans on…..

1. Conserving farmland

2. Planning diverse housing needs

3. Modes of travel

4. Support existing businesses

5. Attract low impact, environmentally friendly industry

6. Tourism

7. Create jobs

8. Quality school and recreation areas

9. Preserve natural resources and cultural and historical heritage

It wants to encourage development in the designated growth areas and have businesses in mixed use villages and town centers. Greene County had its largest growth between 1990 and 2000 – 48% up to 15,244. At 2010 the population was 18,403 or 21% and it is projected to be at 24,000 by 2020 or a growth of 30%.

In the past five years there have been 302 multi-family dwellings built in Greene – Terrace Greene  and Lily Ridge Apartments. Urban development areas have targets of 4 single family dwellings per acre, 6 townhouses per acre and 12 apartments per acre. In addition, the following designs are encouraged – pedestrian friendly roads, interconnection of new local streets with existing streets, preservation of natural areas, reduction of front and side setbacks and reduction of street width and radii.

Greene County has three Urban Development Areas – Corner Store, Ruckersville and Stanardsville.

image

Stanardsville Streetscapes Project West Business 33

image

Stanardsville Streetscapes Project Ford Avenue

 

image

Ruckersville US 33 and US 29

image

Ruckersville Elementary School

In addition, there are six categories of growth areas…….

Mixed Use Village Center – centers, short set-backs, open space, office/commercial/residential

Mixed Use Town Centers – commercial and residential, short set-backs, open space

Mixed Use Residential – retail, civic and restaurants, green space

Suburban Residential – private, vehicular access, open space

Industrial – transportation access, vegetative buffer, environmentally sensitive

Senior Residential – age-restricted, close to services/activities, variety of housing

image

Currently Greene County has nearly 60,000 acres of A-1 Agricultural – the largest category of zoning by a factor of 3 over C-1 Conservation and a factor of 4 over the Shenandoah National Park. A proposal for C-1 is to increase the density of lot size from 8 acres down to 5 acres. There are 905 C-1 parcels in Greene and there are 162 parcels of 16 acres or more and there are 222 parcels of 10 acres or more.

The meeting concluded with a discussion on a future meeting with Rapidan Service Authority  to review needs and ability to provide water to county residents – a top priority to the county. RSA has 2 members on their board from Greene, Supervisor Jim Frydl and Matthew Woodson, but RSA have not been responsive in the past. “Since water is a huge issue” to Greene County, Chairman Jay Willer asked that Bart Svoboda request RSA to attend a work session of the Greene Planning Commission for the review of the Comprehensive Plan.

Once all work sessions have been completed then at least one public hearing will be held where citizens will have their chance to input to the Planning Commission related to the revised Comprehensive Plan.  The plan will then be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their input and enactment.

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 Sets Comprehensive Plan

By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer

Fluvanna County has finished its five year update to its Comprehensive Plan.  Notable changes include goals and possible future implementations. It all circles around where the county wants development.

The major focus for the next five years is development of Zion Crossroads and keeping rural areas outside of that area undeveloped.
The Palmyra Community Planning Area (CPA) shrunk with a focus to keep Palmyra village-like. The Zion Crossroads CPA expanded to include all of Route 250 from the Albemarle border and less east of the Route 250 and Route 15 intersection.

Previously Fluvanna implemented a newer zoning type, planned unit development (PUD), but still does not have an approved PUD. A PUD is mixed use and is its own zoning for the land in question. The land could have commercial next to residential with varying densities.

The 2015 update to the Comprenhensive Plan tasks the planning department to eliminate PUDs outside of the newly expanded Zion Crossroads CPA by 2016.

In 2014, Walker’s Ridge was a proposed PUD that was defeated. Two reasons it faced heavy opposition was because its location, just north of Palmyra village, and it lacked water infrastructure. It was to use community wells and mass drain fields. Its second iteration, Poplar Ridge, was approved as a zoning amendment to its R-3 zoning.
Water is on its way to Zion Crossroads, at least plans for it are on their way. County Administration staff is currently negotiating a final design and construction contract to build a water and sewer system for the CPA.  It is expected that contract will be presented to the Board of Supervisors in closed session in early October with a recommendation in public session on October 21. That would be the earliest for the supervisors to vote on it. Funding will have to be discussed.

Iif final design and approval are completed by spring 2016, construction all 2017, a functioning water system could be ready by mid-2018. That is a best case, fast tracked scenario. There are a lot of dominoes that would have to fall perfectly in place, on time for that to occur.

Once water is in, the county anticipates development to come next. With that, the county might implement more zoning options including floating zoning and hybrid zoning.

Floating zoning is overlaid on current zoning but is not attached to the land. If an applicant wants that zoning, an application and approval then brings that zoning ‘down to earth’. It still sets standards for the land but needs to be still be approved before the land is officially zoned.

Hybrid zoning allows land to be zoned two types, simultaneously. Something zoned C/I (commercial and industrial) has all the rights of B-1 and I-1 — any of those uses are permitted.  This is helpful in area with high traffic and needing to be very flexible. A warehouse could have its industrial uses but also set up a showroom for customers without needing more permits.

Also at the September 16 meeting the supervisors authorized purchased of a new ladder truck. It replaces a truck Lake Monticello Fire Department uses that was aged before the county started using it. The cost the county is covering, up to $50,000, is the same estimated amount the old truck needed in repairs to be better functioning and safe.

Supervisors also approved another landscaping business in the Zion Crossroads CPA. This type of business is low water usage and the supervisors have now approved a few in the past 18 months.

The county will pay two employees who provide surveying during regular business hours. Using the employees and paying them above their regular pay is much cheaper than contracting an outside surveying company.

Fluvanna Supervisors next meet on October 7 at 4 p.m.

————————————————————-

bryan-rothamel.jpgThe 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

Albemarle’s Comprehensive Disappointment

By. Neil Williamson, President Free Enterprise Forum

Adapted from comments made at the June 10th Public Hearing on Albemarle County’s Comprehensive Plan

happy New Year HatMy new year’s resolution was to be more positive. The current draft of Albemarle County’s  Comprehensive Plan has made this mission difficult.

There are good things in this 4 years long gestating plan including recognition of rural area farming conflicts with development and the right to farm, an enhanced chapter on economic development, as well as a plan condensing and reorganization that makes the formerly unwieldy tome slightly more user friendly.

But the Free Enterprise Forum must stand opposed to the current draft. We believe this plan should be vetoed.

Ultimately, we fear that the restrictive growth tenor and regulatory direction of this comp plan will be harmful to Albemarle’s advancement and will significantly jeopardize the ability of our children and grandchildren to afford to live and find work in this great community.

While we believe the vast majority of the citizens may not be in favor of this plan, but I can count noses and I believe the majority of the Board of Supervisors is prepared to move forward.

This opposition is based on (but not limited to):

  • providing Monticello veto power over development in its so called viewshed
  • apologizing rather than fully embracing economic development
  • increasing the cost and complexity of providing housingVETO-stamp
  • mandating residential densities the citizens and market does not want
  • seeking to move people out of cars rather than moving cars
  • falsely declaring Natural Resource protection the County’s number one priority
  • makes false promises about infrastructure investments while threatening to restrict property rights based on your failure
  • removing specific rural area recreational uses without considering others.

The Free Enterprise Forum has been an active participant in this process for the last four years, we are disappointed that the final document speaks to more government expansion, reduced property rights and less flexibility.

While we can not support this plan, the Free Enterprise Forum is disappointed but not disheartened.

If you choose to pass this plan, we look forward to working with you and continuing our fight for increased flexibility, economic advancement, reduced regulation and increased respect for property rights as you and staff attempt to move forward to implementation.

I really wish I could be more positive, at least I made it to June – thank you for the opportunity to comment.  Thank you to staff for their hard work on this project.  I know at times I have been a burr in their side.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

———————————————————————-

20070731williamson 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