WELCOME

  • Charlottesville Tomorrow
    News Center

    The articles on this blog were published during 2005-2012. All of this content has been moved to our new website at www.cvilletomorrow.org
    © 2005-12 Charlottesville Tomorrow
    Our photos have some rights reserved.

Categories

« December 2006 | Main | February 2007 »

January 31, 2007

City staff recommend keeping Old Lynchburg Road open at County line

The agenda for the February 5, 2007 Charlottesville City Council meeting has been released and staff are recommending against the closure of Old Lynchburg Road at the City/County border.  City Council is having a public hearing on the issue Monday night.

Download this City Council agenda item

Biscuitrun3Many residents from the Fry's Spring neighborhood came before the City Council earlier this month asking that the road be closed.  The County's review of the Biscuit Run project South of Charlottesville (along with the Granger, Woodlands, and UVA-Fontaine projects) has also turned up the heat on City residents' concerns.  Biscuit Run is projected to add over 30,000 vehicle trips a day onto the area road network.

The staff report also indicates that the City does not think it would be appropriate to ask Biscuit Run's developers  to contribute cash proffers to the construction of the Fontaine/Sunset Avenue Connector.  This road is, according to the report, viewed as important because:

"it is projected to remove a great deal of the projected traffic growth on Old Lynchburg Road by providing a direct access to the University of Virginia from properties developed south of I-64. This road improvement has been suggested by some as a subject of proffers for the Biscuit Run Development. We do not believe that it is practical to link this project with the Biscuit Run development for a number of reasons....In this case, the developer has not expressed an interest in proffering this substantial road improvement which is estimated between $12 and $15 million and their traffic study shows no direct link to the Sunset Connector." [emphasis mine]

The reason the traffic impact analysis for Biscuit Run shows no direct link to the Fontaine/Sunset Avenue Connector is because that proposed road was excluded by the developer from the study against the recommendation of County staff.  At last night's Biscuit Run work session, County staff reported that the line had to be drawn somewhere on the scope of the transportation study, and that while they wanted this area included, it was not.  Everyone seems to agree that the connector road will help alleviate traffic on Old Lynchburg Road. 

But who should pay for it?  The County of Albemarle is banking on future proffers from the University of Virginia and Coran Capshaw (Granger property).  A key financial challenge is building an expensive bridge over the railroad tracks that divide the Fontaine Research Park from the Granger property. 

One of those people suggesting Biscuit Run proffers should be applied directly to the Fontaine/Sunset Avenue Connector is City Councilor Kevin Lynch.  In a recent City Transportation work session, Mr. Lynch stated:

"In the case of proffers for Biscuit Run. They've talked about $3 million in proffers the City could get.  My take on it is I'd rather not have your proffers.  I'd rather you build a road, take that $3 million and build a bridge over Moore's Creek so you can build the [Fontaine Ave/Sunset Connector].  Those are the kind of decisions I think we need to have."

In their agenda for City Council, staff conclude:

"Staff recommends that Old Lynchburg Road remain open to traffic, but that we proceed immediately with the road improvement design project and that we continue to push the County to move the Sunset/Fontaine connector forward. We also recommend that we continue to ask the County to condition Biscuit Run approval on the receipt of proffers for the road improvements on Old Lynchburg Road as previously submitted to them and to require phasing of Biscuit Run so that development occurs on the eastern half of the property first. While we recognize the issues associated with traffic on Old Lynchburg Road, we do not believe that it is appropriate to shift that traffic to other neighborhood streets and degrade that quality of life of other City residents in order to improve the quality of one neighborhood street."

Brian Wheeler

City considers limits on future building heights

How tall will future buildings be in Downtown Charlottesville?  Would 9-story buildings create a canyon removing sunlight from the pedestrian mall?  That was the topic of a joint meeting between the City Planning Commission and the Board of Architectural Review on January 25, 2007.

20070125pcbar

Charlottesville Tomorrow dropped in to hear City officials review feedback from a newly formed advisory committee developing recommendations for Charlottesville’s downtown building shapes and heights.

The committee’s goals are to ultimately make recommendations that:

  • Preserve the unique character of the Downtown Mall
  • Preserve existing historic buildings
  • Allow for reinvestment and redevelopment of Downtown Mall properties
  • And to preserve adequate sun light in certain areas downtown (click on image at below to view sun angle proposal)

20070125downtownmallFrom this link you can download the staff report and the sun angle diagram that informed the committee's preliminary recommendations as one file.

No decisions were made and City staff asked for time to review the evening’s feedback.  The advisory committee is expected to return later in the year with another round of recommendations.

This podcast represents a test of a new story approach for Charlottesville Tomorrow.  It is a 15 minute recap of some important points in the meeting. Please send me feedback if you like the condensed approach for long work sessions of this type.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20070125-CityPC-BAR.mp3

Brian Wheeler

January 23, 2007

Are we on the path to Austin, Aspen, or maybe Boulder?

On January 23, 2007, the Virginia Piedmont Technology Council (VPTC) held a town hall meeting entitled: “Pursuing Technology for a Robust Economy--Choosing our future: Austin or Aspen.”  The principal speakers were Gary Henry (longtime resident, technology leader and Chair of the VPTC Board) and Katie Bullard with AngelouEconomics in Austin, Texas.  Ms. Bullard was previously Budget Director for the City of Charlottesville.

[Charlottesville Podcasting has the audioVPTC's website has the presentations]

The Virginia Piedmont Technology Council wants to be a catalyst to spark a collaborative effort to create a larger technology-based economy in Charlottesville.  They are asking the question… Do we want to look more like Aspen, CO (i.e. completely unaffordable with no middle class) or Austin, TX (a highly rated community with a strong technology economy, more affordable cost of living, and a substantial middle class)?

VPTC sees this initiative as balancing the scale of our economy which is weighted today towards retirees and tourism.  I applaud their search for some of the ingredients in a common agenda that could help us achieve quality growth, growth that would benefit the community as a whole.  They have framed this as a desire to add balance to our economy and generate economic vitality.  Charlottesville Tomorrow shares those objectives.  We are going to grow, let’s make sure it is quality growth that enhances the community and doesn’t sacrifice our quality of life.

In their presentation, VPTC identified the need for a critical mass of new jobs and technology companies.  They want to build Charlottesville’s reputation so it becomes the #1 place to locate or incubate a small technology company.  This is ideally defined as home-grown technology businesses that employ 5-25 people.

VPTC’s three primary goals in this initiative are:

  1. Bring this conversation to the community
  2. Develop a center for technology incubation
  3. Drive workforce development to support this effort

To measure the community’s progress down a technology path, they will define a “Technology Index” by which our technology economy’s growth can be measured.

I found the discussion helpful, but I left with many questions.  Here are a few to get people thinking.

Katie Bullard said a key indicator for Charlottesville to watch is the number of 25-44 year olds in the population (currently 29.1%).  She said we need to be at 33% or better to get young people to stay here after college and find career ladder jobs in technology companies.  Gary Henry defines “critical mass” as being opportunities (i.e. jobs) so our talented young people do not feel like they have to leave Charlottesville.  With a critical mass of opportunities, they can switch companies more easily here at home.  How many new companies and new jobs would it take to create that critical mass? 

Many of the comparisons in Ms. Bullard’s presentation were to Austin and Raleigh-Durham.
Has any other City our size figured this out?  [When I asked that question from the audience, Ms. Bullard cited Boulder, Colorado as one town already on the path of having a strong technology-based economic sector (software development).  Are there others?  Is Boulder an attractive model?]

Ms. Bullard identified our technology wages as a major problem.  “Wages here are not keeping up with the cost of living.”  The average technology wage in Charlottesville is $61,894 vs. Austin at $87,988.  When pressed on this by an audience member, Ms. Bullard said we needed to find “a couple small companies willing to pay higher wages and jump start the market.”  Is it realistic to think technology companies will come here and substantially raise wages?

Gary Henry pointed out that the technology sector is attractive because “the infrastructure impact will be minimal.”  He indicated we already have office space into which many small 5-25 person companies can go and UVA research parks are ready to expand.  What other community infrastructure (roads, schools, housing, etc.) will be needed to support the growth required to reach critical mass? Is UVA not on track to grow our technology sector with their investments at Fontaine and North Fork research parks?  If the organic growth we are seeing today is not enough, what pace of growth do we need?

In response to a question from Neil Williamson about the role of local government, Ms. Bullard said that local government should play a supporting role.  “Economic development should not be subsidized by government.”  Ms. Bullard emphasized private investment and pointed out she had never seen a regional approach work too well.  She clarified these comments for me after the lunch by indicating token financial support from local government was fine, but really economic development needed to be funded and championed by the private sector and venture capital.  Do we have the right mix of public-private investment in economic development?  How would we measure the results thus far and what needs to be done differently to more strategically serve VPTC’s goals?

As you can see, I plainly don't have all the answers, but I appreciate VPTC stimulating the conversation.

Brian Wheeler

January 22, 2007

City holds transportation work session

City evaluates road priorities, options for calming traffic, and critiques the County's failure to construct connector roads and bypasses

Annexmonst_1


The Annexation Monster.  Source: Rey Barry's website in which he credits the illustration to local artist Charles Peale.

There was a time when Albemarle County feared Charlottesville’s increasing grasp over County land in the form of annexation.  That’s when this illustration of the Annexation Monster first appeared.  The City and County put an end to annexation in February 1982 with a revenue sharing agreement that has the County taxpayers perpetually making annual contributions to the City’s general fund (in FY 2008 that agreement is expected to send the City about $13.21 million). 

20070118city1
(L to R) Bill Lucy, Cheri Lewis, Dave Norris, and Jim Tolbert

Yet, observing the City Council and City Planning Commission in a joint work session on transportation last week, it sounds as if we now have a "Vehicular Commuter Monster" extending its tentacles and choking City streets.  County encroachment on City roads is among the top concerns of City leaders and residents.  For example, at the last City Council meeting the Fry’s Springs neighborhood demanded the closure of Old Lynchburg Road at the City line to cut one of those traffic tentacles.  City leaders in this work session gave these concerns serious consideration and added their own ideas about ways to send the County a message on traffic.

You can LISTEN to the audio podcast of this meeting by downloading it from Charlottesville Tomorrow's Publications Page.  It was too big to post on the blog.

I’ll admit it.  I am part of the problem.  I have not lived in the City since I was a student at UVA and I have been commuting into downtown Charlottesville every year since graduating in 1990 (my employers have always had offices in the City).  Yet had public transit been available from my past homes in Crozet or Ivy (West), Troy (East), 29 South, or 29 North, I would have gladly ditched my car. 

This meeting was intended to facilitate the City’s updating of transportation goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan.  Staff intended for this to be a “free flowing discussion,” and their expectations should have easily been met.  At the start of the meeting, Jim Tolbert, Director of the City’s Neighborhood Development Services, asked that the focus of this meeting be generally on roads in the City and not public transit and other modes of transportation, areas on which staff believe there is already broader support and consensus.  During this past year, as the County’s growth areas have seen major rezoning requests come forward (e.g. North Pointe, Biscuit Run, Old Trail), the City and County have been advancing a plan to form a regional transit authority (RTA).  Obviously, traffic congestion is a regional problem as commuters are also coming from localities beyond Albemarle where housing is cheaper and jobs are scarcer.

So back to the work session… Here are the major issues that received discussion:

  • Traffic coming into City via Albemarle County
  • Traffic calming options in the City
  • The merits of improving the street grid with new interconnections
  • The absence of traffic and employment data for the decision makers to consider

Here are some specific highlights from the discussion:

  • 00:24:13 -- Jim Tolbert: "One solution to cut-through [traffic in the City] is to make the arterials flow better [improving the level of service]... If you do that though, then the other side of that is, do you encourage even more of that traffic to come through Charlottesville that might better be served going around us with some of the projects that we have [in the County]? If you look at this map it clearly shows an Eastern Connector need, a Southern Connector need, probably shows a connection on the West that is needed....Do we want to improve the roads that we have to encourage more traffic to use those roads?  I'm not sure."
  • 20070118city200:28:16 -- Kevin Lynch: "I brought a couple maps from 2000....I think it frames the problem in a way that is more obvious to me in that we're in the middle of this area and we've got all these pipes coming in from the County....We are already at most of our 2015 [traffic projections]....This is a similar map...looking at projections for 2020.  We were projecting 4200 cars a day on Old Lynchburg Road by 2020 and [today] we've got 5300...On every [road] I can see, we are higher on the existing map then we were projecting in 2020....I think part of that problem is... we are in the center of this growing region.  Albemarle County created the development area in 1980 and since 1980 they have essentially built a city the size of Charlottesville around Charlottesville and they've built exactly two roads.  They have built Berkmar Drive... and the [road in front of Monticello High School].  That's it.  Two roads to handle a City the size of Charlottesville."
  • 00:46:20 -- Kevin Lynch: "We gotta say no Meadowcreek Parkway.  We don't want to put another pipe into the City until [the County] builds something that connects around. That's part of what has been driving our strategy, build the Eastern Connector, build the Southern Parkway, then we will do the Meadowcreek Parkway, otherwise we are just putting more pipes into the center."
  • 01:40:00 -- Bill Lucy: Mr. Lucy suggests two policy recommendations: 1) extend UVA prohibition on students with cars to include second year students, or if they have a car, require it to be parked in a UVA parking lot and not in City neighborhoods; 2) prohibit Charlottesville High School sophomores from parking at the school.
  • 01:51:30 -- David Brown: "I think the interest among some members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in a transit authority is to create something where they can see some efficient transit that goes from Pantops up [Route] 29 without having to go on Main Street....I think that is a real positive trend."
  • 01:58:00 -- Kevin Lynch: "In the case of proffers for Biscuit Run. They've talked about $3 million in proffers the City could get.  My take on it is I'd rather not have your proffers.  I'd rather you build a road, take that $3 million and build a bridge over Moore's Creek so you can build the [Fontaine Ave/Sunset Connector].  Those are the kind of decisions I think we need to have.  We have gone along since 2000 with supporting the County not wanting the [Western 29] bypass, or at least not pushing for the 29 bypass.  At the time they said this really wasn't the right road, we need a grid of streets....I don't see that flexible network.  At the time on the [Metropolitan Planning Organization], if the City had voted to build the bypass, we could have had it built."
  • 01:59:20 -- David Brown: "To be fair, the City Council at the time, I don't know about the current City Council, was not unanimously in favor of the road, that's for sure."

Brian Wheeler

January 19, 2007

TDRs receive in-depth discussion by local leaders

On January 18, 2007, Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP), held their monthly meeting at the Westminster Presbyterian Church in Charlottesville.  The topic was Albemarle County's consideration of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program as a growth management tool. 

20070118asap3_2

20070118asap4_1Charlottesville Tomorrow has prepared a written transcript of this very informative panel discussion on TDRs.

The panel members included Supervisor David Slutzky of the Rio District, Supervisor Dennis Rooker of the Jack Jouett District, Rich Collins, Professor Emeritus in Environmental Planning at the University of Virginia, and Jeff Werner, Field Officer with the Piedmont Environmental Council. About 35 members of the public were in attendance for the forum moderated by ASAP President, Jack Marshall.

Download_6Download Dennis Rooker's audience handout.

20070118asap2This program by Charlottesville Tomorrow is broken into two 1-hour recordings.  In this first part, we begin with the welcome and introductions by Jack Marshall. The panelist presentations in this portion include Rich Collins, David Slutzky, and Jeff Werner.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download podcast #1: Download 20070118-ASAP-TDR1.mp3

In this second part, we begin with the presentation by the fourth panelist Supervisor Dennis Rooker. This is followed by the panel's discussion, and audience questions.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download podcast #2: Download 20070118-ASAP-TDR2.mp3

Brian Wheeler

January 18, 2007

Proffers in Loudoun County

An article in today's Washington Post discusses a decision by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors to approve a rezoning request after the developer significantly increased the value of the proffers.  The story has parallels to Albemarle County's discussion of proffers, phasing of development, retail absorption, and major transportation infrastructure needs. 

See if any of this sounds familiar...

The vote came after months of negotiations with the developer... which this month agreed to scale back the maximum number of residences from 1,569 to just over 1,000 and to upgrade the intersection of Route 7 and Ashburn Village Boulevard. In addition, the company will donate a 20-acre plot for an elementary school, among other proffers.

"This applicant has really stepped up to the plate with its proffers," said Supervisor Lori L. Waters (R-Broad Run), who brokered the agreement. "It is a complete package. I believe this is a real winner for Loudoun County."

Board Chairman Scott K. York (I) and Vice Chairman Bruce E. Tulloch (R-Potomac) voted against the rezoning, however. They said that there are many shopping centers in the area, including Dulles Town Center, and that they feared there would not be enough demand to support additional retail.

"We are already maxed out in both on-the-ground and planned retail uses," York said. "I'm just trying to understand why we need a whole lot more retail on Route 7."

In the next month, the Albemarle County Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee will be bringing the Board of Supervisors recommendations for an improved proffer system.  In the meantime, I thought it might be helpful to compare our local proffers to this project in Loudoun.  This past Tuesday, Attorney Steve Blaine presented information on the proffers for Biscuit Run.  He described the proposed Biscuit Run proffers as having a value of $33.5 million and indicated his belief that additional cash proffers (i.e. per household) are not appropriate given the magnitude of the other contributions being proposed. Further, Mr. Blaine told the Planning Commission, "I would challenge you to find any project that's come close to a fraction of the value of those proffers."   

Presumably Mr. Blaine was referring to other projects locally, but let's compare Biscuit Run to this one project in Loudoun County.

Attribute Biscuit Run One Loudoun
Status of rezoning Under review Approved 1-16-07
Start of project 2005 2004
Acreage 828 358
Housing Units 3,100 1,040
Non-residential (retail/office) 0.15 million sq.ft. 4.4 million sq.ft.
Total proffer value
(excluding internal roads)
$29,045,000 $30,440,000
Proffer value per residential unit $9,369 $29,269
Addl cash proffers per housing unit No No
Phasing of development No Yes
Biggest road improvement Adding 2 lanes on Route 20 for $5.5 million New interchange on Route 7 for $20.24 million
Biggest road improvement as % of total proffers 24% or $6.86 million 66% or $20.24 million
CPI escalator on other cash proffers No Yes
Elem school site proffered Yes, 11 acres (1.3% of land) Yes, 19.7 acres (5.5% of land)

Update 1/22/07: Elaine Echols, Principal Planner with Albemarle County, has said that the proffer proposals presented by Mr. Blaine to the Planning Commission "are preliminary and have not been verified."  Charlottesville Tomorrow will track the proffer proposals as they are further refined during 2007.  Some will become part of the development work and not be considered actual proffers.  Others will be added.  Many will change in value as calculated by the County and developer. This analysis is intended to help inform that discussion for the public.

Brian Wheeler

January 16, 2007

Another Biscuit Run work session

20070116acopc

Another work session and another potential candidate for Supervisor

On January 16, 2007, the Albemarle County Planning Commission met for a work session on the proposed Biscuit Run development in the County's Southern urban growth area.  The proposal before the board is a rezoning request that currently encompasses up to 3,100 homes on 828 acres.

The transportation issues will be discussed at a work session on January 30, 2007 in a joint meeting with the City Planning Commission.

Key discussion questions posed by staff and considered in this work session.

  1. Should additional natural resources on the site be protected?
  2. Is the revised design and layout of the site appropriate?
  3. Should the district park be located in the rural area?
  4. Should additional natural resources on site be protected knowing that in order to do this the housing density proposed may need to be lowered?
  5. Should the greenway system be designed and managed for multiple purposes, designed to be sensitive to natural areas, and should timeline for pocket parks be modified?
  6. Should affordable housing proffer be revised to be satisfactory with staff’s recommendation related to appropriateness and enforceability?
  7. Should elementary school site proffer be revised to better address issues like the sunset clause?
  8. Should park proffer be revised to include a cash contribution?
  9. Should there be a commitment to phasing of the development’s construction?
  10. Should there be a commitment in cash proffers per housing unit?

During the applicant's presentation, attorney Steve Blaine distributed the document linked below to the Commissioners and the audience.

Download_5 Biscuit Run handout 1/16/07 

It provides details on the nature of the current voluntary proffer proposals being proposed by the applicant in an effort to receive the County's approval for a rezoning.  Without the rezoning, the developer is limited to the by-right development potential which Mr. Blaine estimated was 1,400 homes.

Most interesting NEW issue raised during the evening
Commissioner Cal Morris (@18m22s) points out that staff report indicates the "Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has recently raised concerns about the potential lack of capacity to provide public water and sewer for the Biscuit Run development."  Commissioners were informed that the applicant, RWSA, planning staff, and the Albemarle County Service Authority are meeting tomorrow to review this situation and the ability of the sewer interceptor line to handle the projected needs for Biscuit Run.

Most interesting response to the question of phasing of development in Albemarle
Attorney Steve Blaine responds (@1h43m40s) to the staff question on phasing in a growth area (see this discussion: Supervisors Question Pace of Growth). He starts by noting that phasing has not been described in the proposal, and continues, "We are not going to develop or grade this entire project [at once] because we are going to respond to market demand.  We expect it to be built in phases....We ought to be able to address the aesthetic concerns by our ample buffers so people looking in are not going to see that pre-development activity....If someone could articulate a reason as to why we need to phase, particularly if it is some artificial limit on the delivery of residential units, it's counter to what we just talked about with limiting supply and affordability. To date, no one has articulated that for us, perhaps someone will."  Earlier in the meeting, Mr. Blaine indicated he was not opposed in principal to phasing, but that it was his belief that the impacts of the development are addressed in proffers and code of development (i.e. it shouldn’t matter when it is built). 

20070116ccopckfletcher
Kevin Fletcher offers feedback on Biscuit Run development during public comment

Most interesting appearance by a past candidate for the Board of Supervisors
Kevin Fletcher, who ran an unsuccessful write-in campaign for Supervisor against Lindsay Dorrier (Scottsville) in 2003, spoke during public comment  (@37m44s) with his concerns about the development.  Mr. Fletcher shared his belief that, "We don't need more housing and we don't need more commercial space....We need to conserve as much of our growth area as possible because once this is gone the cry will come out for more growth area."  After speaking, Mr. Fletcher confirmed for Charlottesville Tomorrow that he was actively considering another run for Supervisor in the Scottsville District, but at this point he is not prepared to announce a timeline for that decision or whether he would run as an Independent or seek the nomination of a political party.

Note: Biscuit Run begins at 10m 45s into the recording.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20070116-CoPC-BiscuitRun.mp3

Brian Wheeler

County holds Places29 work session

20070116dcopcplaces29_1
Planning Commissioners Marcia Joseph and Cal Morris review the Places29 Master Plan Maps

On January 16, 2007, the Albemarle County Planning Commission met for a work session on the Places 29 Master Plan, the master planning process currently underway for the Route 29 North corridor.

This meeting was an information update in advance of a January 30, 2007 work session where staff will present the next draft of the master plan proposal.  That draft will then be assessed by the public in a late February workshop and in several neighborhood meetings.  During May-June 2007 the Planning Commission will receive a final draft of the master plan and in Summer 2007 the final public review process will take place before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20070116-CoPC-Places29.mp3

Brian Wheeler

January 12, 2007

Ann Mallek Running for Supervisor in White Hall

Earlysville Democrat Ann Mallek has announced her intentions to run for the White Hall District seat on the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.  A formal announcement is expected later in January.  Ms. Mallek told Charlottesville Tomorrow, "I am definitely running."  It appears the campaign website is coming together here: http://www.annmallekforsupervisor.com. She also announced her campaign at last night's meeting of the Crozet Community Association.

With the first campaigns now underway, Charlottesville Tomorrow has released our 2007 Election Watch websiteVisit the website and check out our exciting anouncement about the tracking of campaign donations in our local elections!  Sign up for our e-mail alerts to keep track of all the campaign announcements in 2007

The White Hall district stretches across NW Albemarle and includes Crozet, White Hall, Free Union, Advance Mills, and parts of Earlysville.  Ms. Mallek serves on the Development Review Process Task Force with David Wyant, the Supervisor currently representing the White Hall district.  Mr. Wyant was elected in 2003, defeating Eric Strucko by 360 votes, and is starting his fourth year as a member of the Board of Supervisors where he was recently elected to be Vice Chair. It is not known if Mr. Wyant intends to seek re-election and Charlottesville Tomorrow was unable to reach him by telephone this afternoon for comment.

Brian Wheeler

January 11, 2007

Toscano submits bill to aid Albemarle's TDR initiative

Toscano_davidOn the first day of the 2007 General Assembly, Delegate David Toscano (D-57th) filed a bill (HB2503) that would aid in Albemarle County's effort to implement a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. TDR legislation was passed by the General Assembly in the 2006 session giving local government the ability to launch TDR programs.  However, the TDR initiative advanced by Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio District) would require adjustments in the state law.

According to Lee Catlin, Albemarle's Community Relations Manager, at the end of their meeting Wednesday evening, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors voted 6-0 passing a resolution of support for the legislation, thus lending their support to the bill that had been submitted earlier in the day by Delegate Toscano.

Download_4 Download Supervisors' resolution

Catlin said that the resolution "supported a change [in state law] that would improve the definition of development rights and receiving areas that would make it easier if the County, were it to go in the direction of implementing a TDR program."

Brian Wheeler