Tag Archives: greene

Greene Supervisors Approve Ruckersville Rezoning

By Brent Wilson, Field Officer

Ruckersville, especially near the intersection of US 29 and Route 33, is one of Greene County’simage designated development areas.  The northwest corner of Ruckersville has developed with Walmart and Lowes. The newly redeveloped Market by Tiger Fuel opened its doors late last year on the Southeast corner. Last night (12/11) the Greene County Board of Supervisors heard a rezoning request  that could eventually add residential uses and lead to a solution to efficient access to the northeast corner of Ruckersville.

For over a decade, Frank Eways has tried to develop a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on his property on Moore Road off Route 33 East with no success. So he has now partnered with Denstock, LLC from Charlottesville to develop an apartment complex on the property.

Planning Director Jim Frydl presented the rezoning request.  The Rapidan Service Authority (RSA) would provide water and sewer to the site.  The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic impact study for the apartment project indicated the traffic created by the apartment use is close to the traffic predicted by the existing PUD.

The school impact data indicated these apartments would have less impact than other development types. The average number of students per Single Family Home is .56 students/house, a Multi-Family Unit – townhouse/condo – normally is .32 students/unit. However, Terrace Greene apartments in Greene County near the Albemarle County line have produced .14 students/unit. In addition, Terrace Greene low vacancy rate indicates a strong demand for high end apartments.

Denise LaCour from Denstock, LLC has significant local development experience. She was the head of the Kessler Group that developed Forest Lakes and in 2013 she started Denstock. Currently Denstock has developed 965 high end apartments in central Virginia with another 224 units in process

image

Stone Creek Village near Monticello High School – Developed by Denstock, LLC

Denstock’s plan is to develop the Eways property and hopes that the county will approve a connector road to US 29 at the intersection where the road from Lowes intersects US 29. The connector road is not part of the rezoning application however it is on the agenda for the Planning Commission next week as a Special Use Permit.

LaCour addressed the markets the project is trying to serve – millennials and baby boomers – both with disposable income and without families. In broad strokes she described millennials as mobile and not wanting to be tied down to owning a property. She also indicated Baby boomers don’t want the maintenance that comes with ownership. They want to be able to travel for weeks at a time without worrying about mowing the yard.

In the public hearing portion of the meeting three citizens spoke about Moore Road being a rural road.

Supervisors Chair Michelle Flynn pointed out that the area being considered is not zoned agricultural but is being considered to rezone from PUD to R-2, Residential with basically the same density. She also highlighted that the demand for this project is confirmed by Terrace Greene being full.

Supervisor Bill Martin indicated this property is in an area that is planned to grow but that the existing PUD zoning has not been successful. The presentation clearly demonstrates there is a demand which is supported by Terrace Greene’s success. He also appreciated the explanation of the connection to US 29 – although it was not part of the rezoning being requested – it demonstrates a long term solution to getting traffic onto US 29.

Supervisor Marie Durrer clearly stated that she was against the rezoning request prior to the meeting but, now understanding that the plan is to eventually connect to US 29 where the Lowes intersection is located, has changed her mind. Supervisor David Cox also agreed that the connector road was a major factor in his supporting the rezone request.

Although the connector road will be addressed as a Special Use Permit and is not part of the rezoning application, the applicant clearly stated that the connector road is a critical piece to the success of this development. With that, the Supervisors unanimously approved the rezoning request.

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

Advertisements

The Countdown — Time to Think About 2019

By. Neil Williamson, President

Recognizing today is the ‘Morning After’ Election Day 2018, it may seem premature to start talking about 2019.  It’s not.

The Free Enterprise Forum believes the vast majority of the candidates for the 2019 races will make their decisions in the next 60 days.

That’s right, by the time you watch the ball drop on New Year’s Eve, who will be on the ballot in November (and the primaries) will likely already be determined.

Wait, we just had an election.

Yes, this is Virginia, we love elections so much we vote EVERY year.  What are we voting for in 2019?  So glad you asked — from Virginia’s Board of Elections:image

Some might look at that list (on the left) and believe this is not that important an election, we think otherwise.

While the Federal and statewide offices get a significant amount of publicity (and paid advertising), it is the local races that bring government home.  These are the elected officials you run into at the grocery store AND who control your property taxes, school spending as well as the majority of your land use decisions.

Who is up?

In addition to the House of Delegates, Virginia Senate, School Boards and Constitutional officers, here is the list for Board of Supervisors and City Council –

Albemarle County: Board of Supervisors Ann Mallek, White Hall; Rick Randolph, Scottsville; Norman Dill, Rivanna

Charlottesville:  Wes Bellamy, Kathy Galvin, Mike Signer [important note Primary Date is June 11th]

Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors Mozell Booker, Fork Union; Patricia Eager, Palmyra

Greene County Board of Supervisors David Cox, Monroe;  Michelle Flynn, Ruckersville; Dale Herring, At Large

Louisa County Board of Supervisors Willie Gentry, Cuckoo; Troy Wade, Louisa; Toni Williams, Jackson;

Nelson County Board of Supervisors  Thomas Bruguiere, Jr, West; Larry Saunders, South

Without question local (and state) government impacts your life.

The question is who will step up to fill these important leadership positions.

  • Will the current incumbents run again?
  • Will they have any opposition?
  • Who will step up?
  • Will there be a primary challenge?
  • Do you know someone who should run?
  • Should you run for office?

Once again we have more questions than answers but this much we do know – the candidates (and their families) will likely decide by NYE 2019.

The Free Enterprise Forum maintains an open door policy to talk with anyone regarding running for local office and what is required to serve.

As a non-partisan organization, we do not endorse candidates but we do support contested elections.  We believe uncontested elections make untested officials.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.

Greene County Recommends Water Fee Change

By. Brent Wilson Field Officer

The short story is monthly water bills are increasing in Greene County.

The longer story requires understanding the political workings and billing rationale of the  Rapidan Service Authority (RSA).

Statutorily, the RSA Board, not the Board of Supervisors, set the rates for water and sewer.  Politically, the members of the RSA Board include two members from each locality (Greene, Madison, Orange) who are appointed by their respective Board of Supervisors for four year terms.   Thus, the RSA Board generally does whatever the locality asks.

Currently, RSA charges a Facility Fee of $20 per month for each water hook up. This results in a single family residence paying the same as a larger commercial establishment (Restaurant, Retail, Hotel, etc.) – regardless how much water each consumes.

image

Brenda Garton

When an account establishes new RSA water service, a determination is made regarding the anticipated water use of the account and the “hook up fee” is calculated based upon the anticipated use/dwelling unit use.  In most cases, commercial users pay a multiple of the Dwelling Unit (EDU) dependent on use.  A restaurant may require 5 EDUs, while a chiropractor’s office is only 2 EDUs.  Each year, annual water consumption is audited to determine if the proper EDUs have been collected.

At the September 28th Greene County Board of Supervisors meeting Interim County Administrator Brenda Garton, proposed having the commercial users be charged facility fees based on how many EDUs are purchased for each location in order to make the facility charge more equitable to consumption.

Further, Garton recommended that the Greene Supervisors request RSA to increase the Facility Fee to $30 effective July 1, 2019. Chairperson Michelle Flynn (Ruckersville) agreed that both issues should be acted upon and forwarded to RSA so that RSA can act upon them at the same time.

image

Michelle Flynn

Flynn asked Garton how quickly RSA would be able to make both changes. Garton estimated 2-3 months as the soonest but felt they would be accomplished by January/February, 2019 at the latest.

Flynn wanted to be sure to have ample time to publish the increase to give the public plenty of notice of the increased fees even though this issue has been discussed for months. Supervisor Bill Martin (Stanardsville) credited Garton with getting this project back on track and that the increased revenue will go to paying for existing and future debt of the water project.

Garton stated that RSA will have to have a public hearing to approve the two rate changes proposed.

Supervisor Dale Herring had a final question – the revised fees only apply to water – not sewer?  Garton confirmed that this was the case. The board unanimously approved that a resolution be sent to RSA.

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 

Photo Credit: Greene County

VDOT Briefs Greene Supervisors

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

image

Joel Denunzio

Earlier this month, Joel Denunzio, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)  Resident Administrator for Greene County, gave the Greene County Board of Supervisors supervisors his quarterly update

DeNunzio started by explaining that the resurfacing/repaving schedule has been purposely delayed in Greene County due to all of the rain in the past several months. However, he assured the supervisors that the work will be done starting late summer and continuing into fall. The main projects will be Mathew Mills Road and Preddy Creek Road.

In terms of the status of roadways from all the rain/flooding, DeNunzio stated that as of August 14th, approximately 55% of the damage has been corrected. To quantify the work that has been done, he explained that 25,000 tons of stone have been on the roads in Greene County. Of that amount, 12,000 tons were used on Bull Yearling Road. Over the last few months an average of 25 trucks per day have been used to distribute the rock throughout the county.

image

Route 33 West Greene County

DeNunzio updated the process on some specific projects. The Haneytown Road bridge project is now scheduled for February, 2019. Route 33 West has some failures and the preliminary plan is to place wire mesh around a boulder close to the roadway and then secure it by drilling into the ground by September this year.

The Route 29/33 project has approved the Moore Road intersection and the dual right turn lanes at the 29/33 intersection have been approved.

The Supervisors complimented VDOT for their progress to date. Chairperson Michelle Flynn (Ruckersville)  did request that VDOT communicate to the public the change in their schedule due to the weather. Mainly she wanted to ensure the public that the work was being rescheduled.

DeNunzio indicated he would update the VDOT website with the new schedule but also he mentioned that VirginiaRoads.org has a detailed schedule that is available for the public to access.

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 Has Work Session on Animal Kennels

By. Brent Wilson Field Officer

At the May, 2018 Greene County Planning Commission meeting a public hearing was held related to animal kennels and several issues were to be researched as how other counties handle some issues and these were to be discussed at the June, 2018 meeting

clip_image002

Stephanie Golon

County Planner Stephanie Golon  reviewed the issues for the three members of the Planning Commission (two members were absent from this meeting). Currently animal shelters are by right when there are 10 or more dogs are on sight. Personal dogs that are not for breeding were not included in the discussion. From May’s meeting the question was – should the level be lowered to five dogs down from ten dogs.

The issue then shifted to the age of the dog – when is a puppy no longer a puppy? Then what constitutes a breeder was discussed – does he raise dogs for sale and does he advertise in the paper and on the internet?

While the May meeting brought out a number of citizens, there was no one signed up to speak at the public hearing.  Golon stressed that a specific number needs to be identified to determine what a kennel is vs. raising dogs for a family.

Chairman Jay Willer wondered if a decision should be delayed since two commissioners were absent. Golon indicated that there are no public hearings scheduled for the July, 2018 meeting at this point. Willer proposed that the Planning Commission delay their decision until the August, 2018 meeting and, therefore, allowing the two absent commissioners time to review the information from tonight’s meeting and hold a public hearing in August.

Golon said that she would reach out to the two absent commissioners and provide the information discussed tonight and answer any questions that they may have in advance of the August meeting. With that decision, it was moved that there would be no Planning Commission meeting held in July.

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 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. See the source image

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

 

Citizens Ask Sheriff’s Budget Request Be Fully Funded

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

“Matters from the Public” provides citizens the opportunity to address elected officials on any issue that is not on the governing bodies agenda for a public hearing.  On April 10th, the Greene County Board of Supervisors heard from two citizens regarding restoration Sheriff Department FY19 funding.

The Board previously held budget review meetings and made recommendations that will be formally considered on April 24th at 6:30 pm. One of the Board directed changes to the departmental requests was to reduce the Sheriff’s Department requested increase of nearly $400,000 to $157,236 – which was the value of 2 new deputy positions.

Under “Matters from the Public”, Keith Bourne offered an offset to the increase requested by Sheriff Smith that was reduced by the Supervisors – $241,966. His suggestion was to eliminate the subsidy for the land fill/recycling center and have their tipping fees raised to have all costs paid for and, therefore, not require taxpayer funds to support the center. His logic was that this would encourage citizens to do more recycling to minimize the cost to dispose of trash. Those funds could then be used to fully fund the budget request of Sheriff Steve Smith.

clip_image002

Sheriff Steve Smith

Some though think that raising the tipping fees would cause people to stop bringing their trash to the landfill and disposing of it themselves.  In addition to the potential increase in illegal dumping, an increase in cost could decrease use, which could lessen the tipping fees received and increase the need for more of a subsidy.

In speaking with Supervisor Dale Herring (At-Large) about the reduction in Smith’s budget request, he indicated that the supervisors eliminated all headcount increases in the departmental requested budgets.  Herring clarified that the School Board receives a total dollar amount from the Supervisors and they, not the supervisors, determine whether to spend funds on increased headcount and the supervisors would have no say in that matter.

The other citizen, Mallory Lamb, brought up the issue that the school system has been able to keep unspent funds this past year of $700,000 and have accumulated over $3.5 million to date. This is the only department that is allowed to keep any unspent funds and is allowed to use those funds for capital expenditures. This means that these funds could be used for equipment or buildings but not for people or supplies.

This citizen asked that the Board of Supervisors fully fund Smith’s budget request  and explained that the Sheriff’s Department has underspent their budget by approximately $250,000 the past four years. And that looking at these sources of revenue – increased tipping fees or the accumulated unspent funds the past four years be used to fund Smith’s requested budget.

Possibly the policy allowing the school system to “bank” unspent budgets should be reviewed for all county departments. It is important to note schools is not a county department but a separate entity with its own elected Board to oversee spending decisions.  In addition, while other department have limited outside state and federal funding, the significance of variable, attendance based, state and federal funding create an additional level of complexity in school funding.

While most departments have needs for operating expenses vs. the schools having a large need for building and equipment the policy might be offered for expense items. The commitment to recurring operating expenses, such as personnel, would have to be managed so that it can be afforded ongoing. Reviewing spending patterns that show a consistent unspent balance to support a new expenditure could be put in place. However, this begs the question, why is a department consistently favorable to the budget that is submitted.

If the Sheriff’s Department is spending $250,000 less than budgeted for four straight years – why is the request for the prior year’s budget amount plus an additional $400,000 more for next year? Shouldn’t it only be for an additional $150,000 ($400,000 gross increase less $250,000 unspent)?

The final approval of the budget for all departments in the county rests with the Board of Supervisors. If a department is consistently spending $250,000 below budget for four straight years, why would the next year’s budget continue to be the prior year’s budget plus new items? It seems that the Board of Supervisors should look at the historical actual spending of a department, not just the prior year budget.

So if every department’s budget was calculated by using the most recent actual full year spending and a current year to date actual spending, maybe there would be funds available to fund some of the manpower requests, especially for the sheriff’s department which protects the citizens of Greene County.

Inversely, if any department is overspending their budget compared to previous year, it would prompt the question as to why and look for some corrective action.

It is unfortunate is that the different funding source complexities and governance structure results in the school system to march to a different budget beat than the other county departments.

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 Board Takes Action on Blighted Properties

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer 

Like Mr. Bs Ruckersvillemany localities, there are several properties in Greene County that either have been left vacant for decades and deteriorating or have had a fire without being repaired.  Two specific properties have attracted significant attention over the last few years and last week, Greene County’s Board of Supervisors took the first step to seeking force the owners to repair the structures or declaring them as ‘blighted’.

In the Supervisors March 13th meeting, Greene County Zoning Administrator, Bart Svoboda, reviewed the status of the two subject properties. The first property is the old Mr. B’s store on the northeast corner of Route 29 and Route 33 in Ruckersville.

Virginia State Code section regarding blight requires  that a letter be mailed to the owner of the property and give them 30 days to reply on how they are going to correct the property.

B. The chief executive or designee of the locality or authority shall make a preliminary determination that a property is blighted in accordance with this chapter. It shall send notice to the owner or owners of record determined in accordance with subsection B of § 36-27, specifying the reasons why the property is blighted. The owner or owners of record shall have 30 days from the date the notice is sent in which to respond in writing with a spot blight abatement plan to address the blight within a reasonable time.

Mr. B’s property just had the letter sent out giving the owner until April 12th to reply. The second property discussed by the Supervisors is the house on Route 230 near the Stanardsville Baptist Church that was destroyed by a fire in 2016.

clip_image003This situation is slightly complicated by being within the Town of Stanardsville and the county will have to coordinate with the town council for this process.

Svoboda stated that he has secured telephone numbers for both owners and they are communicating with the county. If the owner doesn’t respond after 30 days then the property can be declared blighted.

C. If the owner or owners of record fail to respond within the 30-day period with a written spot blight abatement plan that is acceptable to the chief executive of the agency, authority or locality, the agency, authority or locality may request the locality to declare the property as blighted, which declaration shall be by ordinance adopted by the governing body.

Svoboda stated that the goal of the county is to get the all “possibly blighted” properties into compliance with these two as the first properties to be addressed.

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

Photo Credit: Google Maps (accessed 3/22/2018) and Greene County Record

Albemarle Restrictions Benefit Greene Cell Coverage

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brent Wilson is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.  The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Greene County Supervisors Revise R-2 Zoning Height

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clip_image007

Supervisor Jim Frydl (Midway District)

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

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

Brent Wilson is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.  The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at www.freeenterpriseforum.org