Tag Archives: Planning Commission

Unintended Consequence–Albemarle’s AirBnB Black Market

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson, President

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

Please let me explain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is gained by this charade?

More from Wrabel’s article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

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

Advertisements

Greene Planning Commission Hears Request for Cell Tower

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Albemarle Can Learn From Amazon’s HQ2 Search

By. Neil Williamson, President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Is Albemarle ready to energetically embrace economic development?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

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

Preddy Gables Seek Proffer Amendment from GC PC

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

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

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

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

clip_image001

Terrace Greene Apartments- Phase II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charlottesville Resolution: Ignore Public Comments

By. Neil Williamson, President

Woody-Allen Photo Credit Evening Standard.Getty ImagesWoody Allen once said “Eighty Percent of Success is showing up”  Charlottesville Chief Deputy City Attorney Lisa Robertson is taking it one step further to 100 percent and on time or your voice does not matter.

Please let me explain.

On tomorrow night’s (9/12/17) Charlottesville Planning Commission Consent Agenda is a resolution to amend the zoning code [Page 145 of 266 page agenda download]. 

This resolution contains the most anti engagement language I have ever seen in my thirteen years of public policy work; the resolution directs staff to ignore public comments received after the middle of June:

Amendments set forth within the “Legal Audit” draft dated February 28, 2017 (other than those referenced in (1)-(6), above) as to which no objections were received from the public as of 5/24/2017; for these text amendments, the proposed ordinance shall incorporate items noted in the “Questions and Corrections” document updated through 6/13/2017

In the last three Planning Commission work sessions on this issue, there have been less that ten citizens in attendance.  The Free Enterprise Forum has provided input after the May 24th date.  Why should our comments on July 25th or anyone else’s be ignored by staff?  Was that meeting not a work session on the zoning code amendment?

Equally troubling is the roundabout manner in which the staff seems to want the discussion of building height to go away.  Even as the City’s own PLACE Design Task Force is scheduled to discuss and possibly vote on a preferred solution this Thursday.  This resolution, if passed on Tuesday, would likely circumvent some of the discussion by proactively eliminating code language:

Deletion of the following words from the definition of “building height” set forth within sec. 34-1200 of Article X (Definitions): “This distance is calculated by measuring separately the average height of each building wall, then averaging them together.” Also: delete the diagram included in 34-1200 as part of the definition of “building height.”

The charge of the PLACE Design Task Force:

To guide the community in making decisions about place making, livability, and community engagement.  Act as an advisory body to the Planning Commission and City Council in matters pertaining to urban design and place making.

Yet Charlottesville’s legal staff feels empowered to push forward this amendment before the design professionals have an opportunity to formally weigh in on its impacts.

Make no mistake, staff is embolden to keep this moving forward on their terms but the Planning Commission does not have to accept the language in the proposed resolution. 

A courageous Planning Commissioner could, and SHOULD, step up and suggest that the item be removed from the consent agenda and the language be revised by the commission.

But will anyone step up?

Respectfully submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

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

Photo Credit: Evening Standard/Getty images

Greene PC Recommends Approval of US29 Rezoning

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

US29 North (Subject Parcel to the right)

US 29 North (Subject parcel to the right)

One of the larger Ruckersville tracts (16.404 acres) is seeking a rezone from A-1, Agriculture to B-3, Business. The potential buyers of the parcel that lies between two B-3 parcels on the east side of Route 29 just north of the parcel that has several businesses including Early & Powell law firm came to the August Greene County Planning Commission meeting to request the rezoning to expand the potential uses of the property.

Potential purchasers, Darrell & Brandon Payne, along with George Tennyson (the current owner) are looking to rezone the property to allow more business options.

County Planning Director Bart Svoboda reviewed the request with the commission explaining that the parcel has B-3 zoning on either side of the parcel and it sits opposite of Blue Ridge Café and the former Wayne Homes business. The rezoning would make the parcel more marketable as a commercial property and with the stream going down the middle of the property it probably isn’t as suitable for residential development.

Svoboda continued stating that the rezoning is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and that the proposed uses would have no impact on the school system. The applicant representative, engineer Justin Stimp, agreed that the stream going down the middle of the property presents design challenges but he feels that there can be commercial development along Route 29 west of the stream and then possibly storage units to the east of the stream with a roadway following the stream.

Stimp addressed the access to the parcel and felt that a right in / right out heading northbound would be acceptable at the beginning of the project since there is no current crossover. The possibility also exists to tie into Deane Road south of the parcel to have a crossover available to head southbound.

The hearing then was open to the public with one speaker, Matthew Woodson, addressing the commission.  Woodson has several interests in the parcel – he is part owner of the parcel to the south – Piedmont Commons – and he represents the seller of the property seeking rezoning. He definitely supports the rezoning and hopes that having more B-3, business property, will help development along the Route 29 corridor leading into Ruckersville. Commissioner Frank Morris asked about connecting the property requesting rezoning through his property (to connect to Deane Road) and Woodson was agreeable to the interconnectivity.

Planning Commission Chairman Jay Willer asked Svoboda if there would be a need for water connectivity (the line runs on the west side of Route 29, the opposite side of the rezoning). Svoboda indicated that if an office with a restroom was constructed with the storage units (what this plan shows as the first development) then a hook up would be required.

The rezone request was approved 3-0 with Commissioners John McCloskey and Steven Kruskamp absent.  Willer explained to the applicant that the approval of the Planning Commission was a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and the Supervisors would review the request in the next few months.

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

Photo Credit: Google Street View

Changing Charlottesville Philosophy to YIMBY

Adapted from testimony to The City of Charlottesville Planning Commission, July 25, 2017

By. Neil Williamson, President

As you conduct the “legal” review of Charlottesville’s Zoning Ordinance, the Free Enterprise Forum is concerned that you may be actually, perhaps unintentionally, working against some of the comprehensive plan goals.  Decreasing heights, densities and intensity of development may seem to be reflecting the opinions of some vocal opponents to economic expansion but how does it impact the City’s goals for a vibrant community with affordable housing and economic opportunities for all.

This is not a development problem, it is a political problem, and it exists nationwide.

Image result for yimby I recently reviewed the YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) San Francisco platform and I believe there are many parallels to Charlottesville.  If you insert Charlottesville instead of San Francisco to their preamble, I believe it could be endorsed across the political spectrum:

We believe that San Francisco has always been, and should continue to be, an innovative and forward-looking city of immigrants from around the U.S. and the world. San Francisco is not full, and the Bay Area is definitely not full. Ours is an inclusive vision of welcoming all new and potential residents. Anyone who wants to should be able to afford housing in the Bay Area.

Quartz Media’s Dan Kopf recently wrote an article about the YIMBY movement:

[Sonja] Trauss and fellow San Francisco YIMBY Party members, a group that now includes more than 500 people, believe that the only way to solve San Francisco’s housing problem is by building a hell of a lot more houses. To advocate for this, YIMBYs, many of whom are millennials tired of skyrocketing rents, have aligned themselves with private developers and against long-settled locals who see new housing as an intrusion on their lifestyle and, more importantly, a threat to the value of their homes. YIMBY groups have also emerged in New York, Seattle, and Boston, among other places, challenging the much more prevalent NIMBYs (“not in my back yarders”) who favor keeping things as they are.

The YIMBY solution is different than many others advocating for affordable housing.  Rather than seeking government mandates for subsidized housing or funds to be placed into a “housing affordability trust fund”, YIMBY platform seeks to impact the supply/demand curve by increasing the supply:

We strongly support building new housing. We have a severe housing shortage. Increasing supply will lower prices for all and expand the number of people who can live in the Bay Area.

We should build more housing in every neighborhood — especially high-income neighborhoods.

High density housing goes with high-quality public transit and walkability. However, housing can be built before or in anticipation of the construction of future transit improvements.

The people most hurt by a housing shortage are those with the least means.

So many of the conversations at the Planning Commission and City Council are focused on the topic of density.  In 1982, when Charlottesville and Albemarle reached their revenue sharing agreement, the City’s borders were set, no growth via annexation.  Somewhere in the late 1990s and early 2000s, population densification become a negative rallying cry of those opposed to increased development of the city.  Perhaps as a tip of the hat to these concerns, the SF-YIMBY platform boldly declares “Density is good”:

We are unapologetic urbanists who believe in the virtues of cities. More people living in close proximity to each other can improve their lives and the lives of those far beyond city limits.

  1. Density is sustainability: it reduces urban sprawl, reduces water usage, uses energy more efficiently, and creates a smaller carbon footprint.
  2. Density is accessibility: it encourages walking and biking, makes transit more efficient, reduces social isolation, and increases residents’ access to diverse cultural products and to each other.
  3. Density is opportunity: it increases access to jobs, supports diverse businesses, promotes innovation, and enables people to be more productive.
  4. The Bay Area is a particularly efficient place to build housing because of its moderate climate.
  5. People should be free to choose to live in places that are urban, compact and walkable, low-density and car-centric, or rural. Not everyone wants to live in a dense city. However, current policies restrict the supply of urban housing, leaving suburban life as the only affordable option for many.

Kopf’s article included an interview with Sonja Trauss regarding her definition of a YIMBY:

What exactly does it mean to be a YIMBY?

It means you are an advocate for housing. It means you believe that not having enough housing to accommodate newcomers is terrible public policy that leads to displacement.

YIMBYs want there to be neighborhoods of all varying levels of affordability close to job centers, so people can participate in the city’s economy. What ever your your situation is, we think you should be able to live in the city center if you want to.

The thing about housing is that, in many places, decisions about it are made in a distributed way. In California, no city can just decide to build 10,000 houses, though sometimes mayors will say that. The reality is that the decision is made almost building by building.

If you are in a growing metro area, like San Francisco, there will be times when housing development is proposed in your neighborhood. Being a YIMBY means piping up and supporting that development at neighborhood meetings, or by emails to the government.

No platform is complete without policy recommendations and while we in Virginia can not speak to the need for California Environmental Quality Act reform ,we can endorse the majority of the SF-YIMBY policy prescriptions.  It is interesting how many of these topics have been raised in Charlottesville over the last few years.

We believe in long-term planning. Once a citywide or neighborhood plan is made, the process for building should be streamlined, well-defined and predictable. It should not impose significant delays on or add significant costs to a project, nor should individual property owners or neighborhood associations have the power to hijack it.

  1. As-of-Right building: development plans approved at the departmental level if the project is within existing zoning.
  2. Mandate or incentivize cities to follow regional master plans and statewide housing policies or mandates.
  3. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reform.
  4. Raise height limits.
  5. Form-based zoning.
  6. Mixed-use zoning.
  7. Complete streets.

The Free Enterprise Forum strongly requests that you look at all the consequences (perhaps unintended) in your so called legal review.  Consider how these changes balance against the YIMBY platform.  We believe the impacts of many of the changes currently proposed are far beyond a simple legal review, and worse, are counter to the community goals for housing supply, economic vitality, and quality of life.

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Neil Williamson, President

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

Photo Credit: Yimby Toronto

Ruckersville’s Zoning Evolution

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

In the not so distant past, the Ruckersville corner (US 29 intersection with Route 33) of Greene County was best known for a cluster of small antique shops, restaurants, and a couple of gas stations.  The 2010 opening of The Gateway Center, the success of several mom and pop businesses, and infrastructure investment in water and sewer have fundamentally changed the potential economic opportunity of the area.

Many of the existing zoning designations reflect the intersection’s former self.  This zoning disconnect was the issue before the July Planning Commission meeting.

Applicant John Silke, who owns several Ruckersville properties, requested to rezone (RZ#17-002clip_image002) a 1.59 acre parcel on Route 29 South, north of Route 33 – roughly midway between Wal-mart and Lowes. The parcel (60-(A)-20A) was zoned from A-1 to B-2 with some proffers nearly 20 years ago when water and sewer was not available. With those services now available, there is no need to exclude those items via proffers.

Cattails Creek  was the most recent commercial tenant for the property. That business has now vacated the property and Silke is looking to rezone to B-3 to allow for more tenant business options.

Planning Director Bart Svoboda reviewed the request pointing out that all the surrounding parcels, including those on the northbound US 29, are zoned B-3. There is currently an intersection of US 29 and Enterprise Drive with only a right hand turn in and out. There is a crossover to Route 29 northbound at Stoneridge Drive, just south of Silke’s property.

Svoboda also pointed out that the county’s Comprehensive Plan supports economic development in this section of the county.

Staff recommended approval of the rezone but he pointed out that the proffers currently in effect would no longer be in effect with the rezone to B-3.

Chairman Jay Willer asked Svoboda about roadways near the property. Svoboda said “Interconnectivity to the parcel located to the north will be required during the site development plan review. Staff will work with the applicant, the adjacent property owner, and project engineers to ensure the interconnectivity access is planned to provide the optimal ingress/egress for all individuals.”

Commissioner Bill Saunders asked about the proffers back in 1999. Svoboda indicated that in 1999 the property was solely used as a private residence and, therefore, some of the proffers restricted uses that a private residence wouldn’t need. But now this property has a rental unit upstairs and the lower level has had other commercial entities and the B-3 classification is logical.

Commissioner John McCloskey encouraged Silke to find a new business for the first floor. The commission unanimously recommended approval of the SUP request and will forward this request 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 www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Albemarle May Cut Rural Regulatory Red Tape

By. Neil Williamson, President

“Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals, and happiness.”- Thomas Jefferson

Considering Albemarle County is 95% rural areas, it is perhaps appropriate that the Comprehensive Plan’s Rural Area Chapter has as Objective 1 “Support a strong agricultural and forestal economy”.

It seems completely counter intuitive the hoops farmers must go through to sell their agricultural products in Albemarle.  In 2010, the Board of Supervisors made Farmer’s Markets a Special Use Permit (SUP) AND required a site plan.  This is a most involved process.

On Tuesday (7/11) evening the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to discuss what, if any, regulatory reforms they wish to recommend to the Board of Supervisors.

For those unfamiliar with the SUP process it is as bureaucratic as it sounds.

From the staff report:

Currently, the applicant must submit a site plan. This plan may propose to contain less detailed information then required by the site plan chapter.  When the plan is submitted it is referred to the Site Review Committee. The members of the Committee may request additional information or they may recommend approval. The plan is then processed along with the special use permit and presented to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors must then act on the site plan to authorize the reduced level of detail. . .

. . . the current ordinance requires the plan to be distributed to the full site plan committee. This means that the Albemarle County Service Authority and Architectural Review Board receive the plan even if their review is not required. The Health Department also receives the plan twice, once during the plan review and again prior to clearance. This double review is not necessary as the Health Department’s only comment during the plan review is that it will need to review the site plan prior to issuance of a clearance.

Virgina had 90 farmers markets in 2005, has 250 in 2017Is it any wonder that there have only been four applications for farmer’s markets since 2010.  This is in direct opposition to the statewide trend.

Staff is right in recommending a so called ‘Sketch Plan’ be sufficient for this use.  The Free Enterprise Forum was surprised when the North Garden Farmer’s market came before the Board of Supervisors, an engineer had volunteered to assist with the application.  Absent that professional support, it is not clear the application would have reached the Board.

While the Free Enterprise Forum applauds the lower regulatory hurdle of the ‘sketch’ plan over the site plan – the larger question is shouldn’t this be a “By Right” use.

For over thirty years, Albemarle’s comprehensive plan has discussed supporting agricultural enterprises – are these just words?  From the Comprehensive Plan:

Strategy 1d: Continue to assist Rural Area property owners to diversify agricultural activities, including helping to connect local farms with local consumers

We respectfully request Farmer’s Markets become a by right use that requires a zoning clearance (>$100) that can be processed administratively.

Only then will Albemarle be living up to their Comprehensive Plan goal:

Objective 1: Support a strong agricultural and forestal economy.

Please join me in asking the Albemarle County Planning Commission to cut the red tape and make Farmers’ Markets a by right use in the rural areas.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

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

Photo Credit: Virginia Farm Bureau

Greene Defers Doggone Zoning Changes

By.Brent Wilson, Field Officer

While attempting to follow the direction of the Greene County Board of Supervisors to review the zoning code, the Planning Commission determined they needed additional information, public engagement and increased transparency before moving forward.

Last fall (August 23, 2016) the Greene County Board of Supervisors asked the Planning Commission to review several zoning ordinances in 2017. The memo states that they are to be “reviewed for purposes of correction, modification and elaboration”. At the May 17th meeting of the Planning Commission reviewed how Commercial Kennels, Animal Shelters and Animal Kennels are regulated.

beagle-puppiesCounty Zoning Administrator Bart Svoboda outlined the proposed revisions such as reducing the number of dogs in a commercial kennel from a maximum of 10 down to a maximum of 5 and animal kennels would be limited to less than 5. This would not apply to personal pets. Staff did not provide a justification offered as to why the reduction was being sought.

The Planning Commission discussed the proposed revisions to the ordinances – Commissioner Frank Morris asked Svoboda if breeding puppies would be covered by this change as a business. Svoboda indicated that doing so as a hobby would not be included under the zoning ordinances being discussed. He also suggested that there may be a need for a public work session on the proposed changes. (it should be noted that only three of the five commissioners were in attendance – Chairman Jay Willer, Morris, and William Saunders – a quorum of three).

The session then moved to comments from the public of which there were seven speakers. Several speakers were concerned about restricting property rights by reducing number of dogs allowed. Several other speakers were concerned that this change might place restrictions on hunting dogs. Another speaker expressed concern that he only learned about the proposed ordinance revision the night before the Planning Commission meeting.

Willer explained that notices of the Planning Commission meetings are published in the Greene County Record and also appear on the county’s website. Saunders expressed his appreciation to the turnout on the issue.

Morris suggested that a public workshop to gather information before deciding on revisions to the zoning ordinances. He asked Svoboda how much a Special Use Permit cost and was told each permit cost $500.

Svoboda suggested that the revisions be indefinitely deferred until the Planning staff can further research on how other counties such as Rockingham County handle this issue. He estimated that it would take until the end of the summer to research and gather facts to be ready for a work session. The Planning Commission voted to unanimously to defer the ordinance revisions, to hold one or two public work sessions and then make decisions on how to change the proposed ordinance, if at all.

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

Photo Credit: doglib.com