Greene County Planning Commission Lowers Proffers
By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer
The Greene County Planning Commission heard a rezoning request at their May meeting to remove or reduce the cash proffer required for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) originally granted in 2008. For the last ten years, Kinvara Properties, LLC has tried to develop approximately 33 acres fronting Route 29 southbound just north of the Food Lion plaza.
A cash proffer is a “voluntary” financial contribution the applicant makes per unit designed to offset a project’s fiscal impacts to the locality. The Free Enterprise Forum has written extensively about proffers including the 2013 white paper “Contradictory Consequences“.
In 2016, Virginia’s General Assembly passed significant proffer reform. The legislation required that any proffer provided must be answering a specific demand created by the project. Most localities (including Greene) have not rewritten their zoning code to reflect these changes.
Lily Ridge Apartments
A recent Greene County project, Lily Ridge Apartments, did pay the $9,000 per unit cash proffer for those units developed above the by right number of units (prior to the rezoning).
However, Kinvara Properties, represented by Attorney Butch Davies from Madison County, argued that their PUD will be more dense and have only 2 bedroom units therefore creating less demand on the school system – one of the major drivers of the cash proffer policy.
Butch Davies
Davies explained that Kinvara has had several clients interested in the property but they have said that the size of the proffer makes the project economically unfeasible. In addition, the developer has already made expenditures for water and sewer hookups and road improvements. Chairman Jay Willer pointed out that these items, while having value to the county, are not part of the proffer calculation.
Davies offered $1,200 per unit in cash proffers with the logic being that the change in the law starting in July, 2018 will require proffers to be specific in the items related to the project. Davies referred to several other projects where proffers in the $1,200 range had been accepted by Greene County.
The hearing shifted to comments from the public, which there were none. Planner Stephanie Golon pointed out that the rezoning would allow 50 residential units to be built and she estimated that the number of students would range between Lily Ridge, 27 students or .58 students per unit and Terrace Greene, 30 students or .11 students per unit.
If the Lily Ridge ratio is used then the development would have approximately 29 students but Weldon Cooper Center for Public Policy data would only project 16 students. Commissioner Ron Williams pointed out that given the current proffer and that schools are the main contributor to the costs involved then the amount should be approximately $4,500 vs. the $1,200 offered by the developer. Williams asked how the $1,200 was calculated and Davies answered that it is based on the smaller number of students.
Willer brought up the fact that Kinvara Properties accepted the original proffer agreement and he had a difficult time lowering the proffer. Davies again stated that potential sales to developers have fallen through with the current proffer and he believes a reduction will allow the sale to be completed and the development to go forward.
Williams stated that he thinks the development is a good fit for the area and he isn’t sure when the $9,000 proffer would become affordable. Inversely, the $1,200 proposed proffer lacks supporting detail as how it was calculated. But the county needs commercial development and he believes more residents in Greene County will attract more businesses.
While Willer agreed that more people attract businesses, he has a difficult time in revising an agreement that the two parties made and the lowering of the proffer would cost Greene County $390,000 in proffers when the development is completed.
Williams made a motion to recommend approval of a revised cash proffer of $1,200 per unit and it was approved 3-1, with Willer voting against it and one commissioner absent. The rezoning application now goes to the Board of Supervisors for their decision with the recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission.
The reduction of the proffer in this specific case continues to set a precedent for a lower proffer. The original proffer amount was set over 10 years and should be updated with current cost and the impact of the 2016 proffer law. Another option would be to have separate proffers for individual homes, townhomes, condos, etc. and possibly down to the number of bedrooms in each unit. These are the issues that have been discussed in past meetings.
Definitely future requests from developers will point to the $1,200 amount, if approved by the Board of Supervisors, as a basis to set (or lower) their cash proffer.
An argument could be made that since lower proffers attract more developers wouldn’t doing away with proffers altogether attract the most developers?
Is 0% of the current proffer more valuable than 100% of $1,200?
Or is more residential development worth the upside of more driving potential commercial development and increased tax revenue?
It will be interesting to see how the Greene County Board of Supervisors deal with this application and if they ever get around to adjusting their cash proffer policy to be congruent with state code.
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
No Increase for Greene County Real Estate Tax Rates
By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer
In the next to final step in their FY2019 budget process, The Greene County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to maintain the same real estate tax rate for
the coming fiscal year – $.775/$100 of the assessed value.
County Administrator John Barkley presented an overview of the budget process that started last July, 2017 and will conclude with at the May 8, 2018 Supervisor meeting when the budget is voted upon. The process included three workshops, advertising the rates, tonight’s presentation and the May 8th vote on the final budget.
Barkley highlighted that the county is investing in training of county personnel but, other than the school system, there are no increases in headcount. In addition, the county is focused on improved technology for improved services. The budget has 16 departments that are reflecting reductions in spending.
John Barkley
Barkley then showed that Greene County’s Real Estate Tax Rate ($.775/$100) is in the middle of the surrounding counties – higher than Madison ($.680/$100) , but lower than Albemarle ($.839/$100) and Orange ($.804/$100).
The proposed budget does have an increase from $61,281K to $63,592K, an increase of over $2 million. The rate is able to stay the same since there is a significant increase in the number of houses in Greene County which is the primary contributor to increased local funding of over $1.5 million from real estate taxes.
Two other reductions that stand out is a 12% reduction in Greene County’s share of the funding of the Central Virginia Regional jail. The other significant reduction is over $400,000 reduction in debt service as borrowings are being fully paid off. The budget for capital expenditures is approximately $750,000 ($550,000 for all departments except the school system and $200,000 for the schools) even though there are significant projects in the near future – such as interconnectivity of the Sheriff, Rescue Squad and Fire Departments, the water impoundment project and the school renovation project.
The meeting shifted to comments from the public with four citizens speaking. Keith Bourne again brought up the elimination of 2 additional officers from the Sheriff’s budget. He suggested, as he has in past meetings, that the source for funding these positions could be by eliminating the $250,000 deficit incurred by the Solid Waste Facility by raising the tipping fees.
Current Tipping Fees for Greene County Landfill
| 30 Gallon Single (household garbage) | $1.00 |
| 50 Gallon Single (household garbage) | $2.00 |
| 90 Gallon Single (household garbage) | $3.00 |
Tammy Durrer continued this discussion stating that the citizens of Greene County should not be required to subsidize the Solid Waste Facility. Her research came up with a fact that is unique to Greene County vs. neighboring counties. Greene County allows citizens from other counties to dispose their trash with no premium being charged. Albemarle County for example charges an additional $10 for people outside their county.
Mallory Lamb presented information related to how understaffed Greene County is in the Sheriff’s Department. She presented data from Page County (14,000 citizens) and Patrick County (18,000) vs. Greene County’s population of 19,000 (counties that have similar population to Greene County). Here is how the number of reports, total deputies and deputies funded by the county compare (as presented by Lamb).
Steve Smith
According to these figures, Greene County generates more reports with significantly fewer deputies. Lamb also suggested that eliminating the subsidizing of the Solid Waste Facility by raising rates and charging a premium for citizens from outside Greene County would fund two additional positions – the budget that Sheriff Smith presented. Per the chart above, the number of citizens per deputy in Greene County is more than twice that of Page and Patrick County’s.
The final adoption of the Fiscal Year 2019 budget is scheduled for May 8, 2018.
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
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
Greene Planning Commission Considers Expanding Tourism
By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer
Greene County’s Board of Supervisors asked the Planning Commission to look at including Tourist Lodging in the Residential (R-1) zoning district. Planner Stephanie Golon outlined the proposed revision to the zoning ordinance explaining that several citizens have requested this change to have Travel Lodging as a by right use.
Golon explained that Transit Occupational Tax (TOT) has increased the past three years from $174,000 to last year hitting $226,000. Tourist Lodging is defined as having no more than 5 guest rooms in each structure and no more than 4 events can be held per year. Most of the R-1 areas are Ruckersville, Stanardsville, Dyke, Lydia and subdivisions such as Greene Mountain Lake.
Some negative aspects of this use is that it takes away from commercial lodging and the transient nature of the dwelling takes away from the nature of a residential neighborhood. Golon also clarified that a development’s HOA (homeowners association) may have more stringent rules than the county which might bar tourism lodging in their neighborhood.
Chairman Jay Willer clarified that most of the funds go to support tourism rather than come to the county as tax revenue. Ms. Golon added that the Commissioner of Revenue works with owners of the properties to collect the proper taxes. Also, each property must be in compliance and pay the proper taxes to have their property advertised by the EDA.
Willer’s main concern was the granting of four (4) events per year in a residential neighborhood and he would prefer that a Special Use Permit (SUP) be required in order to hold an event in R-1. Planning Director Bart Svoboda explained that there is a 100 foot set back requirement but Willer still had a concern that noise isn’t limited to 100 feet.
Willer agreed that some properties may be large enough to allow the event with minimal noise problems, but others in dense neighborhoods would have the noise carry to many properties. If the revision is allowed then there is no control while a SUP will provide flexibility in deciding to allow the event or not. After discussion with the Commission, Svoboda and Golon it was unanimously agreed to defer action until next month and the staff would add the SUP requirement for the R-1 zone.
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
Greene Supervisors Decline US 29 Residential Rezone
By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer
Significant public policy issues including affordable housing, economic development and commercial capacity were all part of Tuesday night’s Greene County Board of Supervisors’ rezoning public hearing. A standing room only crowd as well as several media outlets were on hand to hear an unsuccessful rezoning request and, then if rezoing were approved, a request for a Special Use Permit.
Back in December the Greene County Planning Commission voted 4-1 (Morris opposed) to recommend approval of the Mark-Dana Corporation request to rezone of a tract of 8 acres in Ruckersville from B-2, Business to R-2 , Residential. The current owners of the property are John and Wanda Melone of the Melone Family Trust who plan on selling the property to the Mark-Dana Corporation to be developed.
Greene County Planner Stephanie Golon presented the rezoning application identifying the property as just south of the Blue Ridge Café and the Ruckersville Antiques Gallery on Route 29 South. The 8 acres requesting to be rezoned sits to the west of 7 acres (farther away from Route 29), both parcels owned by the Melone Family Trust.
Golon mentioned that the parcel is located at the south end of the area identified as mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan. The feedback from the departments in Greene County did not have any concerns other than the school system – Schools Superintendent Andrea Whitmarsh responded that the Ruckersville Elementary School was at capacity already and the addition of 105 apartments would add to the overcrowding.
Andrea Whitmarsh
Projected residential growth of the county is expected and is part of the schools justification for expanding the school system. However, the development could generate up to $1.2 million in tap fees to access the public water system.
David Koogler
Next David Koogler, chairman of the Mark-Dana Corporation, gave the Supervisors some background of his company. His mother, father and Sister – Dana – operate the company that was started in the 1980’s when President Reagan signed low income housing into law. They have done similar projects in Virginia and Texas and they live in Grottoes, VA.
Jack Melone, one of the owners of the property, then addressed the Board. He explained that the parcel was originally zoned Agricultural, the front part then was rezoned to B-2 and later the county changed all of the zoning to B-2. Melone stated that this rezone to B-2 has brought about a significant tax increase for him and his family.
The hearing then was open to the public with 12 people commenting and all but two asked that the Supervisors decline the rezoning with the major reason being that it would be take away from business property along Route 29. However, Simon Fiscus Director of Skyline CAP spoke in favor of the project as a way to provide more low income housing for the county.
Several of those opposed to the project agreed that low income housing in Greene County is needed, but not in this location – a prime business location. Others opposed the rezone since the county has already signed up for large expenditures for a water supply and school expansion. The consensus was that adding more people would aggravate both of these issues.
The other issue made by Bill Gentry a realtor with Jefferson Land & Realty in Madison in favor of the rezone was that commercial development looks at rooftops to determine if there is enough demand to support their business. He cited the Lamb property that has set vacant for decades and other parcels that have similar situations. The rezone and the proposed development would help attract more development.
Bill Gentry
The meeting then shifted to a discussion amongst the Board members. Supervisor Bill Martin asked Golon if the access to the parcel being considered would be through the frontage rather than by some connector in the rear. Golon indicated it is planned to access through the front of the property. Martin further stated that he supports affordable housing and Greene County needs it. However, this property is better suited as B-2, Business.
Supervisor Dale Herring agreed that the property should stay B-2 and that in the long run – 20 to 30 years – the property will better serve the county as currently zoned. Greene needs affordable house, but somewhere else.
Supervisor David Cox brought up another issue that he is not in favor of split zoning and that this would go against developing a business district. The Supervisors unanimously agreed to not approve the zoning request.
At this point Chairperson Michelle Flynn asked Koogler if he wanted to pursue the Special Use Permit. Koogler said no but he asked to address the Board. He stated that this is the third parcel he has brought before the Supervisors in Greene and all have been disapproved. He stated that his company’s projects do attract businesses. His final request was – would the county please point him to a parcel that would meet the approval of the Supervisors so that his company can bring affordable housing to Greene County
Alan Yost
Hopefully Greene County can have Economic Development Director Alan Yost and the EDA help identify a viable parcel for this development. As for the specific parcel of Melone, he has previously stated that the tax burden of the property is not sustainable for him. While the county may want commercial development on the parcel – Melone he has tried for years to develop it with business developers, unsuccessfully – he may have to find another way to dispose of the property.
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
Greene PC Recommends Rezoning To Fix Split Zoning
By Brent Wilson, Field Officer
A “Split Zone” sounds like a complex defensive pass coverage for one of the upcoming NFL playoff games but in zoning parlance split zoning is when a single parcel has two different zoning designations.
Thomas Morris owns such a parcel that is currently split 5.14 acres R-1, residential, 3.47 acres A-1 Agricultural. Morris came to the January 17, 2018 meeting of the Greene County Planning Commission requesting all of his parcel be rezoned to A-1, agriculture. This change would allow subdivision of the parcel and permit mobile homes.
The parcel requesting the rezone is in the western end of Greene County on Snow Hill Road off of Bacon Hollow Road (Tax Map 46-(A)-43B). The reason for the request is to be able to rent two additional mobile homes in addition to the current two units onto the 8 acre parcel. Mobile homes are not a permitted dwelling unit in the current R-1 zoning. Although, Morris plans on only adding one additional mobile home at this point he wants to have the ability to rent two.
Stephanie Golon
Planner Stephanie Golon presented the request to the Planning Commission explaining that the rezone will allow Morris to place one mobile per two acres and that the A-1 zoning in this location is in synch with the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner John McCloskey commented that the property was originally zoned R-1 many years ago but there has been no development and therefore rezoning to A-1 doesn’t reduce the density of the parcel.
Chairman Jay Willer commented that the zoning can be changed in the future if needed. At that point the motion to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors was passed 4-0, since Commissioner William Sounder was absent from the meeting. The January meeting was also Commissioner Ron Willams first Planning Commission meeting.
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
Who Answers Greene County 911?
By. Brent Wilson Field Officer
Greene County’s first 2018 Board of Supervisors “organizational” meeting included mundane, but important items such as a review of the calendar, committee assignments, review of bylaws etc. — until the Matters from the Public agenda item cam up.
Two speakers addressed the Supervisors about the reassignment of the E911 system from the Sheriff’s Office to County control. The first person to speak was Greene County Sheriff Steve Smith who provided his version of events that occurred in December to take the operation of the E911 system away from his department.
![clip_image002[4]](https://freeenterpriseforum.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/clip_image0024.jpg "clip_image002[4]")
Sheriff Steve Smith
This action prompted an agreement be signed on Wednesday, December 20th be given to allow dispatchers (who no longer report to the Sheriff) to work in the Sheriff’s office. After this approval was attained, Smith contacted Barkley to ask who had approved this change and he was told that the Board of Supervisors initiated the change. Smith then contacted a supervisor and was told that this was initiated by Barkley. Up until this time Smith said he had been told by the Board of Supervisors that the E911 function wouldn’t be separated from the Sheriff’s duties.
Smith concluded by requesting E911 responsibility be returned to the Sheriff’s control.
The second speaker from the public, Bob Young, also addressed the E911 function. His concern was related to the change is assignment being done in closed session of the Board. He indicated that he felt that the public deserves to know why the change was made and asked that each supervisor indicate their comments and decision in public session.
As a practice, the Greene County Board of Supervisors only receives matters from the public at each meeting and does not make any comment related to those comments at the same meeting.
In a related item later in the meeting under “Information issues”, the Supervisors heard from County Attorney Ray Clarke who reviewed the scope of what can and cannot be discussed in executive session.
For now, the Supervisors have shifted the responsibility from the Sheriff to the Emergency Services department for handling E911 calls and determining what department should respond to the call – Sheriff, fire, or rescue.
Most citizens of Greene County want to be safe, have a responsive fire department and a rescue squad that gets them to the hospital in an emergency and that the E911 system is run efficiently and at a reasonable cost. And they probably don’t care who supervises that process, just make it happen.
The current Emergency Operations Plan posted on the county website on page 169 lists first the Director of Emergency Services. http://www.greenecountyva.gov/forms/documents/emergency-services/1205-public-copy-county-of-greene-eop-all-hazards-2/file
This is just the latest of conflicts between the elected Sheriff and the elected Board of Supervisors; some ending up in court. Much like the School Board, the Sheriff’s office is designed to operate outside of the Board of Supervisors. The relationship, and the relationship with all constitutional officers, is one that needs to be managed well by all involved.
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
Greene Planning Commission Approves 105 Apartments
By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer
A proposed affordable housing apartment project on US 29 in Ruckersville took a step forward Wednesday night.
The Mark-Dana Corporation came before Greene County’s Planning Commission on December 20th seeking a two-step approval – 1) rezone a tract of 8 acres in Ruckersville from B-2, Business to R-2 , Residential and 2) a Special Use Permit (SUP) to increase the density to allow 105 apartments to be built on the 8 acres. The current owners of the property are John and Wanda Melone of the Melone Family Trust. If the rezoning and SUP of the property are approved, the Melones plan on selling the property to the Mark-Dana Corporation to be developed.
Greene County Planner Stephanie Golon presented the rezoning application identifying the property as just south of the Blue Ridge Café and the Ruckersville Gallery antique store on Route 29 South. The 8 acres requesting to be rezoned sits to the west of 7 acres, both parcels owned by Melone Family Trust.
Golon mentioned that the parcel is located at the south end of the area identified as mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan. The feedback from the departments in Greene County did not have any concerns other than the school system – Superintendent Andrea Whitmarsh responded that the Ruckersville Elementary School was at capacity already and the addition of 105 apartments would add to the overcrowding. This is part of the school’s justification for expanding the school system.
The other main issue of the presentation is the Mark-Dana Corporation will be applying for financing through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Progam which will help provide affordable housing in Greene County. Under this financing program, units constructed must remain affordable for forty years past the date of occupancy.
David Koogler
David Koogler, chairman of the Mark-Dana Corporation, reviewed the project for the commission stating that the units will have a brick frontage, they will be three stories in height and there will be one, two and three bedroom apartments. Koogler explained that his parents started the business and they now have 23 properties with 15 of them in Virginia and the balance in Texas.
The hearing then moved to comments from the public which brought up several concerns – the project is barely cash positive with only 30 students estimated, another 2 students would cause the project to be cash negative. The other issue brought up was the demand on the water supply. The White Run project won’t be completed for five years after the apartment project is completed (2019 vs. 2024). However, Simon Fiscus Director of Skyline CAP spoke in favor of the project as a way to provide more low income housing for the county.
Commissioner Frank Morris brought up the question of how many housing units this parcel would allow by right. Planning Director Bart Svoboda answered that based on 8 acres it would accommodate 48 units. Commissioner William Saunders asked if the possible lack of water can be a reason to reject the rezoning request. Svoboda answered no, since there are EDU’s available.
Chairman Jay Willer brought up the fact that if this rezone to R-2 is approved it would be the first residential rezoning in the growth area of Ruckersville. The vote was then taken and was approved 4-1 with Commissioner Morris voting against the rezone.
With the rezoning approved, the commission turned to the Special Use Permit request to allow 105 apartment units on the eight acres, up from the 48 units allowed by right in R-2. Koogler added to Golon’s presentation about the number of new residents in the apartments. Koogler stated that historically some of the apartments are rented by residents already living within the county the apartments are constructed. Therefore the net increase which generates a need for additional resources from the county is less than the total number moving into the apartments.
In the SUP public hearing, again, the input from the pubic focused on the pressure on the school system. Inversely, Fiscus again stated the need for more affordable rental units. Morris brought up his concern about setting a precedent of going above the “by right” number of units per acre. McCloskey asked Svoboda if a condition of the SUP could be that it restricted the property to affordable housing. Svoboda answered that no, under state code, that type of restriction could not be applied to the property.
Willer asked Mr. Koogler one last question – how long does the restriction of the property last?. Koogler answered that the restriction lasts 40 years and stays even if the property is sold.
At that point the commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit to the Board of Supervisors.
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
Greene County Revises Water/Sewer Connection Payment Timing
By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer
In 2008, Greene County developed a policy to sell Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU’s) for water and sewer connections. At the time, concerns were raised regarding the allowance of the speculative purchase of EDU’s, prior to the actual need. As the cost of EDU’s increased (currently $10,000 for water and $10,000 for sewer) the timing of the EDU’s purchase has become an issue, especially for smaller builders.
At the only December meeting for the Greene Supervisors, Planning Director, Bart Svoboda, explained, numerous conversations with builders that have highlighted the cash flow problem this policy creates. So an alternative policy of charging for the EDU’s as a requirement for issuing a Certificate of Occupancy was proposed for Board consideration. However, the contractor runs the risk of EDU’s not being available if he waits until the project is ready to be occupied.
Chairperson Michelle Flynn (Ruckersville) asked if a builder could opt to buy the EDU’s the way they have up until now? Svoboda answered that yes, the contractor effectively would have the option as to when to buy the EDU. He could buy the EDU like the current policy provides and, therefore, he is sure he has the water and sewer connection before the project is started. Or he could wait until the project is ready for occupancy and then purchase the EDU with no guaranty that water and sewer will be available.
Jim Frydl
Supervisor Jim Frydl (Midway) commented that the risk of water and sewer not being available is small.
The argument for delaying payment is that paying for the EDU closer to when the property can be occupied allows for the revenue stream of the business/residence to begin and provide the funds to pay for the EDU connections.
Some other Virginia localities do not allow the purchase of EDU’s until the building permit is issued for a specific parcel. Such a policy significantly impacts the ability to “speculatively” purchase EDU’s at a a lower rate than the cost of such EDU’s at redemption. This potential reform was not discussed on Tuesday.
At this point County Administrator, John Barkley, clarified that any changes to the EDU policy must first be approved by Greene’s Supervisors and then it can be approved by RSA.
Supervisor Bill Martin commented that the current reservoir project will relieve the limitation of water in Greene County. At that point Chairperson Michelle Flynn proposed that the option to pay when connected be approved and that motion was unanimously approved.
Marie Durrer
Frydl Farewell
The last action taken at the final 2017 meeting was to thank Frydl who completed his second term. Frydl was defeated in his bid for a third term by Marie Durrer, former Clerk of the Circuit Court in Greene County. Durrer will be sworn in in January.
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
Last 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.
What 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
