High Growth Coalition meets in Culpeper to discuss new state regulations impacting land use and transportation

By Julia Glendening
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, July 3, 2009

The Virginia Coalition of High Growth Communities, is a membership association for local government officials from counties in Virginia with rapid residential development. Also known as the High Growth Coalition, the group met on June 29, 2009 in Culpeper to listen to speakers and discuss three major topics: the regulation of alternative onsite sewage systems; new stormwater management requirements; and VDOT’s secondary street requirements. The focus of the discussion was to examine how local governments will be influenced by changes in legislation approved by the General Assembly and speakers stressed how important it is for local officials to make their opinions heard.  Albemarle County is a member of the Coalition and was represented by Supervisors Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller), Ann Mallek (White Hall), and Mark Graham, the County’s Director of Community Development.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090629-coalition-high-growth-communities

Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems (AOSS)

According to the Code of Virginia (§ 32.1-163), a conventional onsite sewage system consists of one or more septic tanks flowing to a gravity distributed drainfield. An alternative onsite sewage system does not have the characteristics of a conventional system and does not flow to a point source discharge, such as a pipe.  An AOSS can treat sewage with a device other than a septic tank, such as a media filter, which uses other ways to separate the sewage, for example with peat, byproducts of coal, or foam cubes. Pressurized systems are also used instead of gravity to distribute the wastewater within a drainfield.

Earlier this year, the General Assembly passed two bills (HB 1788  and SB 1276) declaring that local governments cannot prohibit the use of alternative onsite sewage systems, both of which went into effect on July 1, 2009. Previously, a building permit could be withheld if the soil on site would not support a traditional septic system and public sewer was not available to the property.  In compliance with the interim requirements of the new legislation, alternative systems installed after July 1, 2009 will have to be operated and maintained by the most stringent policies declared by the manufacturer, the local government, or the state. These will be replaced by the Board of Health emergency regulations in April 6, 2010 and final regulations at the end of 2010.

In an interview with Charlottesville Tomorrow, Jeff McDaniel, local Environmental Health Manager for the Virginia Department of Health (VDH), said in 2008 about 74 alternative systems were approved in Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, Greene, and Nelson Counties. McDaniel said Albemarle did not prohibit the use of alternative systems prior to this year’s legislation and he thought the legislation would have more of an effect on other regions of Virginia.

Albemarle County's Mark Graham, told Charlottesville Tomorrow that, before the new legislation went into effect this week, alternative onsite sewage systems were allowed only when an existing conventional system had failed. Graham said a developer previously had to demonstrate a conventional system could be implemented in order to get a building plan approved. Under the new law, an alternative system could be specified up front and local government would not be able to deny a development right.

Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) expressed concern about the potential for increased residential growth on previously undevelopable land in an update she gave to the Board of Supervisors at their July 1 meeting.

“We have regarded whether land [percolates for septic] or not as a land use control,” said Thomas. “Now that will no longer be a controlling factor.”

McDaniel noted that about 5 to 10% of building permits with conventional sewage systems have been denied in the past year due to various limiting factors, such as soil or location limitations.

“I see it [alternative systems] as a positive thing,” said McDaniel. “Conventional systems treat the sewage, but alternative systems clean the sewage to a different level. There are places where alternative systems can be used to better treat the effluent.”

He emphasized the importance of properly maintaining all types of sewage systems and said he saw the new maintenance regulations as a way to improve VDH’s existing procedures.

“I think we’re going to clarify some better maintenance and monitoring of not just alternative but conventional [systems],” said McDaniel.

Panelists at the Coalition meeting, however, discussed potential problems with the AOSS regulations. Trapper Davis, from the Coastal Plains Environmental Group, LLC, said he maintains these systems and was also concerned with the cost for residential clients, which is currently $400 for a year of maintenance. He said that may deter people from keeping their sewage systems properly maintained. Davis also said he believed industry professionals do not have enough knowledge about proper maintenance for AOSS and this could be a problem once the interim regulations go into effect.

Bob Lee, from the Loudoun County Health Department, said many homeowners are unaware their sewage system is an AOSS, which could create a problem for trying to identify systems for inspection. Lee also emphasized the importance of establishing quantitative performance standards.

Allen Knapp, from the Virginia Department of Health, said the frequency and cost of monitoring are major issues for the implementation of AOSS.

Stormwater Management Requirements

The state is currently changing storm water management regulations for construction, local programs, and permit fees in order to increase water quality standards, in compliance with EPA standards for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) was created in 2004 with House Bill 1177, which authorized local authorities to implement stormwater management programs. The Soil and Water Conservation Board proposed amendments to parts I, II, III, and XIII of VSMP regulations on September 25, 2008. The amendments are still being discussed and there will be a 60-day public comment ending on August 21, 2009.

Ryan Brown, Policy and Planning Assistant Director for the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, described these amendments and said there will be a stricter phosphorous standard for new development from 0.45 lbs per acre per year to 0.28. The amendments also propose a decrease in nutrient levels for land redevelopment. Currently the standard is a 10% reduction to the predevelopment load and the amendments will require a 20% reduction in nutrients from the predevelopment load.

“This addresses new development and prevents us from making the situation worse,” said Brown.

Lisa Ochsenhirt, of Aqualaw, PLC, described the obligations for local governments in order to help clean up the Chesapeake Bay. She stated the three year milestone goal is to increase the pace of reduction by 86% for nitrogen and 52% for phosphorous during 2009-2011. She said this reduction would cost Virginia’s state government a projected $1.2 billion. Ochsenhirt stated the consequences would include a tightening of regulations and permits, an increase in reporting and auditing, and an increase in lawsuits by the EPA, state, or citizens. She warned the High Growth Coalition that the restrictions would hit the high growth communities the hardest.

Mike Flagg, Director of Public Works for Hanover County, said Hanover had calculated the expense to retrofit areas with stormwater treatment from 2005 data and determined it would cost $1,525 a person. Flagg also declared it would cost $500 or more per lot to maintain the nutrient regulations for stormwater, all of which could create more expensive growth areas.

“We may actually be promoting sprawl with some of these rules,” said Flagg.

Thomas also commented at the Board of Supervisors meeting on how the stormwater regulations will affect Albemarle County.

“Our main concern I think in this community is that if you regulate stormwater in the city or in the urban area more stringently you’re just going to squish development out into the rural area because it will be a lot less expensive in the rural area,” said Thomas.

VDOT Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements (SSAR)

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has developed Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements (SSAR), which will become mandatory July 1, 2009. The SSAR includes three goals: ensuring the connectivity of road and pedestrian networks; minimizing impervious surface area; and addressing performance bonding needs of new secondary streets. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved the SSAR in February 2009 and a transition period was instated from March 9 to June 30.

Ted McCormack, the Director of Governmental Affairs for the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), outlined the requirements, which included a calculated interconnectivity index for each neighborhood. He stressed the importance of interconnectivity and said it would lead to less construction, increased pedestrian safety, a faster emergency vehicle response time, and a more efficient network overall. He said VDOT has determined that on average throughout Virginia, 10% of all trips are walking trips, demonstrating the lack of pedestrian accessibility.

Nick Donahue, Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Virginia, said VDOT has taken a position of not widening the right of way
to reduce congestion because they believe connectivity is a more successful solution.

“It’s much more cost effective for us to have connectivity so that people’s trips to school, the grocery store, etc. are on the local roads than it is for VDOT to widen the main roads,” said Donahue.

Donahue also answered questions about the impact a reduced state budget has had on VDOT. He said there have been cutbacks in many areas due to the decrease from $8.7 billion in revenue in FY2008 to $5.4 billion in FY2010.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST FROM JULY 1, 2009 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING

• 01:45 – Dennis Rooker asks about the Virginia Health Department’s view of alternative sewage systems
• 04:45 – David Slutzky discusses the possibility of a cap and trade program
• 06:45 – Rooker asks what local authority will regulate agricultural runoff
• 07:55 – Ann Mallek comments on other counties’ setback requirements

ASAP invites Farm Bureau to discussion on future of Albemarle's rural farms

Panelists (L to R) Ann Mallek, Stephen Levine (background), & Carl Tinder (foreground)

On June 18, 2009, Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP) held a panel discussion entitled: “The Future of Albemarle Farmland.” Carl Tinder, President of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, and Stephen Levine, an ASAP Board member, discussed their respective organization’s efforts to insure a healthy rural environment and the preservation of local farms. Albemarle County Supervisor Ann Mallek, served as moderator. An audience of about thirty people gathered at the Westminster Presbyterian Church to listen to the panelists answer questions they received in advance and to those from the audience.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090618-ASAP

QUESTIONS & TIMELINE FOR PODCAST
01:14 - Introduction by David Shreve

Moderated by Ann Mallek

10:49 - Question 1 - Much of the land in Albemarle County now in housing developments was farmland in past years. What is to stop this pattern from continuing in the future?

14:29 - Question 2 - Is the non-farming community justified in encouraging local government to enact regulations that will reduce the probability that developers and speculators will buy farmland and turn it into residential developments?

18:44 - Question 3 - Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP), because of the use of the word “population” in its name, has sometimes been identified as a “one trick pony.” That is, some mistakenly assume that population is its only concern, rather than an essential component in issues such as environmental degradation, traffic congestion, sprawl, resource depletion, strained infrastructure, and threat to our quality of life. What in your view is the connection between population size and these issues?

21:51 - Question 4 - What could be done to develop more common ground between ASAP and local Farm Bureau members? Are they aware of the existence of ASAP and why it is trying to stabilize local population at a sustainable level?

24:04 - Question 5 - Conservation easements are one tool for protecting rural land from excessive development. Other such tools include zoning, subdivision limits, growth boundaries, and the protection of prime agricultural land, forests, and wildlife habitat. Given that U.S. and Virginia courts have consistently decided that these tools violate no property rights, how does this indicate that we (everyone involved) could begin to use these tools in a more robust and effective manner?

28:44 - Question 6 - Does your organization support TDRs? Why or why not?

32:34 - Question 7 - Since much of the appreciated value of rural land is related directly to ongoing public investments in the nearby urban and suburban region, does this not make land use in these affected rural areas a necessary focus of public policy?

43:19 - Question 8 - In the past five decades, traditional methods of farming have increasingly given way to large scale, industrial farming, resulting in significant soil erosion, lowering of aquifers, widespread pollution of soil, air, and water (with pesticides, fertilizer, and hormones), and the excessive use of antibiotics demanded by the crowded, unnatural, and stressful conditions that characterize factory farming--agricultural practices that surely threaten the very sustainability of agriculture itself, as well as the health of the American people. What can your organization do to address these problems and to promote more sustainable and environmentally healthy methods of food production?

49:30 - Question 9 - Critics of the USDA claim that its policies are designed to favor large industrial farming operations at the expense of traditional family farms, making it very difficult for such farms to support their   families and discouraging people who would like to become farmers from pursuing such a career. What can be done to make family farming as it existed up to the 1950s a more viable option than it presently is and ensure that farming remains, or becomes anew, a viable career in this county?

53:14 - Question 10 - There is a move about to provide a permanent home for Charlottesville’s farmers’ market that could function year-round, as well as other initiatives for moving agricultural products more directly from farmer to consumer. How important do you think it is to local farmers to provide these new avenues for selling agricultural products? The ACE program attempts to compensate farmers for voluntarily giving up development rights -- rights they say they will not use in any case.  Why don’t more farmers take advantage of the ACE program?

Audience Questions:

1:01:25 - Question on not supporting county funding of food hubs

1:03:49 - Question on how the Farm Bureau can help the small farmer

1:05:29 - Question on how industrial farms are defined

1:09:18 - Question on farms near the Gulf of Mexico

1:11:04 - Comments on rural area development and a consumer-driven market

1:17:09 - Comment on real estate revenue for farms

1:20:00 - Question on property taxes are on value of farm

1:24:54 - Question on which state has a better tax system

1:26:19 - Comment on the term industrial farm and the future of local farming

1:31:37 - Question on next generation of farmers

1:35:59 - Comment on farming lifestyle

1:40:04 - Question on large corporations affecting local farmers

1:44:24 - Discussion on property tax in California

1:52:26 - Mallek concludes

Supervisors deny addition of new rural lot for western Albemarle family

By Julia Glendening
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Monday, June 15, 2009

On June 10, 2009, Ronald and Janie Matheny appeared before the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to request an additional development right on their property in western Albemarle near the County’s border with Nelson County. The Mathenys hoped to divide their property to create a new family subdivision allowing for the construction of a new home for their grandson. The Planning Commission reviewed the request on April 21, 2009 and by a 4-2 vote recommended denial to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors also denied the request because the majority determined it was not in accordance with the County’s strategy to limit development in the rural area.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090610-Matheny-development

The Matheny’s current lot is 4.9 acres and they requested an additional development right to allow their grandson to build on 2.17 of the acres. Their property on Craigs Store Road was previously divided to create five small residential parcels, all of which are owned by the Mathenys. The land is part of the County’s Rural Areas and additional development rights, beyond what the family had already created, are not in compliance with the rural areas zoning.

In their discussion, the Board of Supervisors established that if the new building was an accessory apartment, new development rights would not have to be granted. Amelia McCulley the County's Zoning Administrator, defined an accessory apartment as a neighboring dwelling that must be connected to the main building by a “conditioned space” and cannot exceed 35% of the total gross area of the main building. Since the Mathenys wanted to develop a separate dwelling, the Board was asked to consider a special circumstance for their family subdivision.

Director of Planning, Wayne Cilimberg, stated twenty requests for additional rural development rights, in excess of what is allowed by-right, have come before the board since 1981 and half were approved. Half of these approvals were for additional lots for family members.

Location map of the Matheny lot

Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) was opposed to granting the request and said she has never approved an increase of rural development rights. She said she could only remember one approval in the past 16 years she has been a member of the Board and the approval was for the development of the North Garden fire station on December 5, 2007. She also recognized the Mathenys reside in her district. “Although it hurts when it’s one family,” said Thomas, “I think we sitting up here have to think about hundreds of families and not just one.”

Supervisor Ken Boyd (Rivanna) was in favor of granting the development right and said he believed the Board should have “compassion.” “Sometimes we have to have a little common sense,” said Boyd, who commented on how he supported family subdivisions. The only Supervisor who agreed with Boyd was Lindsay Dorrier (Scottsville) who said he did not think this development would deviate greatly from their rural area protection strategies.

However, Supervisors Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett), Ann Mallek (White Hall), and David Slutzky (Rio) all expressed their concern that if they approved this petition, it would set a precedent for the approval of future requests.

 “I think we’ve put a lot of thought and effort into trying to encourage growth activities inside of our development areas, that’s what the [Rural Areas] Comprehensive Plan contemplates and I think that’s what we need to stick to,” said Slutzky.

The Board denied the development right by a vote of 4-2. Even though the request was for a family subdivision, the majority of the board decided it was not an extreme circumstance that justified approval of the special use permit.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST
01:10 Slutzky introduces topic
01:22 Cilimberg reviews staff report
10:10 Janie Matheny answers questions
18:22 Thomas states why she does not grant approval
19:35 Boyd explains his approval
20:55 Slutzky comments on the request
22:10 Dorrier gives his opinion
24:30 Rooker explains problems with approval
25:00 Mallek remarks on voting consistency
26:45 Motion to deny development right

Albemarle releases quarterly building report data

Albemarle County released today their First Quarter Building Report for 2009.  This chart, prepared by Charlottesville Tomorrow shows the trend in building permits and their location in Albemarle's growth area vs. rural area since 1997.  The linked report has details about the specific type of building (e.g. single family detached) as well as the specific magisterial district/neighborhood area.

There is also a First Quarter Certificate of Occupancy report for 2009.

Brian Wheeler

Charlottesville City Council considers paying to preserve Albemarle’s rural space

By Fania Gordon & Daniel Nairn
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Monday, April 6, 2009

Councilor David Brown

City Councilor David Brown has recently floated the idea of contributing funding to assist Albemarle County with their Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program.  During a Council budget work session on April 2, 2009, Brown expressed his view that the preservation of rural land in Albemarle County is also in the best interest of City residents, and noted that the County is struggling  to maintain current levels of funding in a difficult economy.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090402-CC-Easements

“A part of what makes our community special is the natural area of the County,” said Brown.

The ACE program was established in Albemarle County in 2000 in order to help prevent the loss of rural land to development and is administered by the Albemarle County Department of Community Development.  Through the ACE program, landowners can sell a conservation easement to a public agency to be held in trust.  The agency will pay the landowner for the value of the easement and the landowner’s property taxes will be reduced due to the diminution in value of their property.

This year, funding for the ACE program has been reduced in response to the economic downturn. This year’s Capital Improvement Program budget had originally set aside $1.7 million for the program, but that allocation was revised downward to $950,000 for FY 2010.

Brown was quick to point out that his suggestion has no relation in his mind to the revenue-sharing agreement between the City and County. He does not see regional initiatives as the intent of those funds.

“We should talk about, either now or in the future, making a contribution to help expand and protect areas in the county permanently from not being developed,” said Brown.

Each of the Councilors responded with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Councilor Julian Taliaferro simply said he would have to think about it, and Councilor Holly Edwards wanted to learn more about the program. Councilor Satyendra Huja was the only member of Council to express outright disapproval. He excused himself for being the “bad guy,” but he said there were not enough revenues to cover the City’s own initiatives.

Mayor Dave Norris said he was open to a regional solution, but he had some reservations. He questioned whether reforming land use taxation, as was discussed by County’s Board of Supervisors  last year, could make up for the shortage of funding for the ACE program. He also expressed a desire to preserve open space within City boundaries. 

“If there is an initiative to work collaboratively to preserve valuable green space, I am absolutely in favor of pursuing it,” Norris said.

Supervisors deny permit for wood recycling site in eastern Albemarle County

The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has unanimously voted against a special use permit (SUP) that would allow a wood recycling plant to operate in the Keswick area. They did so at their meeting on March 11, 2009. They followed recommendations from the Planning Commission, County planning staff, and over 20 residents from the surrounding area who came to speak at the public hearing.

Mark Keller presented for Central Virginia Recycling on behalf of the applicant. The requested facility would process unwanted wood scraps into mulch. He emphasized how important a wood recycling facility would be to Albemarle County and referenced a number of studies purporting to show that the impact of the site would not exceed acceptable levels for state requirements.

“We did a query for heavy industrial sites, knowing that we need somewhere above 12 or 13 acres, and we could not find a vacant site within the county,” Keller told the Board. As such, he felt the rural areas were the only possible location available.

Members of the public who came to speak saw the matter differently. Residents brought up the issues of excessive noise levels, unpleasant odors and dust, potential public health concerns, adding to the traffic burden on Route 250, and groundwater and soil contamination from dyes that would be used to color the mulch. Numerous speakers raised concerns about mulch catching on fire, an occurrence they claimed is not uncommon for such facilities. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Supervisors did not spend much time on discussion before voting to deny the permit.

“We would benefit as a community from having a facility like this in our midst [but] not in this location,” said Chairman David Slutzky (Rio). Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) pushed this idea further.

“This is a failure of our rural policy,” she said. “You ought to be able to have something like this in the rural areas, but this isn’t a rural area. This is a residential area, and in this case the residents were there first.”

Daniel Nairn

Experts on transfer of development rights programs identify success factors

A new study has been published in the Journal of the American Planning Association on Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs around the county. Rick Pruetz and Noah Standridge, two veteran TDR consultants and planning practitioners, ranked the top 20 programs in terms of their success in preserving land, drawing from a pool of 191 TDR programs that have been implemented across the nation. Each of these is matched up with a list of potential success factors that have been recommended by experts in the academic literature. Finally, these suggested success factors are prioritized in value, depending on how often they show up in the most successful programs.

While the idea of TDR may be fairly new to the Charlottesville-Albemarle community, the concept has been in practice for about 40 years. The rate of success has varied widely between communities. Pruetz’s and Standridge’s evaluation of the factors that differentiate the successful programs from those that have not been able to meet their stated goals could help local leaders determine whether Charlottesville-Albemarle has the right conditions and aspirations for a successful TDR program.

A Rural Area of Albemarle County

Here is the top ten list of success factors from the study:

1. Enough demand in the receiving area for bonuses. Whether in the form of extra density or other perks, developers have to truly want the bonuses that a purchase of development rights would confer.
   
2. The receiving area is customized to the community. The receiving area must have adequate infrastructure, political backing, and a clear designation. Ideally, the receiving area would be in a city or urban fringe, although a few communities that face urban pressures against development have created new town centers as receiving areas.
   
3. Strict sending area development regulations. “Strict regulations” are defined as prohibitions of densities greater than one unit per five acres, but some of the most successful programs have much stricter prohibitions than this. [Note: Albemarle County’s Rural Areas zoning ordinance currently allows one single-family residential unit for twenty-one acres in most cases.]
   
4. Few or no alternatives to TDR for achieving additional development. There is less demand for TDR in communities where developers believe they can receive a waiver to regulations without having to purchase development rights.
   
5. Market incentives: transfer ratios and conversion factors. The most successful programs have carefully matched the values of development rights in the selling area with the values they would be sold for in the receiving area. This is done by setting a favorable ratio for trading, so that each development right sold would be worth multiple rights to the buyer.
   
6. Ensuring that Developers will be able to use TDR. Many successful communities have rewritten zoning laws to allow by-right development with TDR, rather than making the buyer go through what could be a lengthy and expensive approval process. This drives demand by giving developers more certainty their projects can be completed on schedule.
   
7. Strong Public Support for Preservation. The most successful programs are in counties that already have publicly-funded land preservation measures in place, such as outright purchases of development rights.  [Note: Albemarle County has an Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program.]
   
8. Simplicity.  Programs that are easier to understand and implement find more support and participation.
   
9. TDR Promotion and facilitation. Citizens have to be well informed and regularly updated about the TDR program. This is usually accomplished with a high-quality website and an initial promotional push.
   
10. A TDR Bank. While only four of the top twenty communities established official TDR banks, these four programs have been remarkably successful. A TDR bank is an officially designated intermediary between buyers and sellers. It serves to facilitate trades, stabilized prices, and ensure continuous market activity.  [Note: Albemarle County has enabling legislation that would allow for the banking of development rights.]

Image from King County, Washington

Applying the success factors to the Charlottesville-Albemarle context

Pruetz and Standridge emphasize that not all ten of these traits are necessary to run a successful program. For example, Montgomery County, Maryland does not have a TDR bank and does not promise developers can use TDR by-right, yet they have managed to conserve an average of 1,851 acres per year since the inception of the program in 1980. Another highly successful program, New Jersey Pinelands, scores quite low on simplicity points. All of these factors reinforce each other in complex ways, and the diversity of individual characteristics of each community make any simplistic formula for success impossible.

However, there are some examples that relate to Charlottesville-Albemarle’s particular situation. Now that the City of Charlottesville has expressed an interest in TDR, the example of Boulder County, Colorado may prove illuminating. Their program, which began in 1989, has preserved 5,900 acres of land, and an expanded version was just ratified in the summer of 2008.  Boulder County has entered into intergovernmental agreements with six different incorporated towns in the county in order to find acceptable receiving areas for development rights.  The contracts give the cities the authority to set the receiving area within their boundaries, and they clarify the exact terms of a trade of development rights between the city and county.

King County, Washington, the TDR program with the best record in the country, also extends across political boundaries. There is potential for confusion, however, because each city government has its own policy of which development rights it is willing to accept. A municipal government, for instance, may only want to protect land within its own watershed. In 1998, The City of Seattle, located in King County, used TDR to allow developers to increase the number of stories on new buildings in a target neighborhood. Each additional story was priced at $120,000. Half of the cost went to purchasing three development rights from the county, and the other half was used for infrastructure improvements to the immediate vicinity of the development. Other creative arrangements between the two jurisdictions have been used since this initiative.

Albemarle County Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) has said that in his own research he was not able to find any well-functioning TDR program that did not also include a down-zoning. The Pruetz and Standridge study confirm this finding. All of the top 12 TDR programs included strict land use controls on the sending area. Montgomery County down-zoned to 1 dwelling unit per 25 acres, a number they considered to be the minimum amount of land for a for a viable working farm. Boulder County has a base density of 1 dwelling unit per 35 acres, while King County maintains a more modest 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres limit. The researchers identified development restrictions like this as just short of essential for a TDR system to function. Many of the 191 programs with more permissive land use showed no TDR transactions at all.

Albemarle County’s Rural Areas zoning ordinance allows development of 1 single-family residence per 21 acres in most cases. The findings of Pruetz and Sandridge would already classify Albemarle’s rural development restrictions as “strict.” When the TDR concept was originally proposed by Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) in 2006, he suggested Albemarle’s rural areas be down-zoned to one dwelling unit per 50 acres.

An August TDR stakeholder meeting at the Weldon Cooper Center

During the recent meetings on TDR facilitated by the Weldon-Cooper Center at the University of Virginia, stakeholders wrestled with the acceptability and practicality of further downzoning rural Albemarle.  Some rural property owners felt such a change, like the one approved in Albemarle’s “Great Rezoning” of 1980, would be a violation of their property rights.  By their fourth meeting, that key tenet of Slutzky’s TDR proposal was off the table.  At the time, the group discussed how large land parcels in Albemarle (over 50 acres) might best be protected with voluntary conservation easements. 

The most essential success factor, according the study, is whether enough development demand exists in the receiving area to prime the pumps of the market. This question may be especially pertinent in the current slow housing market.  King County had a thriving TDR trade until the housing bubble burst within the last two years, and since then there has been very little market activity. If developers are even hesitant to build to allowable standards, they are all the more unlikely to want to purchase the right to exceed those standards. Nevertheless, King County officials intend to simply wait out the slow economic climate and keep the TDR apparatus in place for the anticipated recovery. In many cases, TDR is intended as a long-term strategy that may have to weather the inevitable vicissitudes of the housing market.

Participants in the TDR stakeholder meetings also spent a considerable amount of time discussing what the exact constitution of the receiving area should be. Supervisor Slutzky’s original proposal suggested a 1% increase in the County’s designated growth area, but this proposal was abandoned during the stakeholder discussions. Many in the environmental community were resistant to growth area expansion, while others favored opening more of Albemarle’s rural area to development. The group eventually formed a consensus around setting the receiving area as the current designated growth area of the County and, if the City would agree, portions of Charlottesville.

Pruetz and Sandridge found a significant amount of variety in successful receiving areas, so they were hesitant to delineate specific Best Practices to follow. The criteria they did establish were that there had to be adequate infrastructure, or plans to extend the infrastructure necessary to accommodate higher density. There could not be any confusion about the boundaries, and the selected area should not draw political controversy. All of these factors have already figured heavily in the Albemarle-Charlottesville discussions.

While there are many models of good TDR programs to measure against, it is equally important to take account of the numerous TDR attempts that have incurred unnecessary costs, inspired needless controversy, or simply just faded away. Pruetz and Sandridge prove to be a helpful guide through the complex landscape of TDR policies around the country, another voice to add to the careful and inclusive conversation currently underway in the Albemarle-Charlottesville community.

Daniel Nairn

Charlottesville considered as a receiving area for Albemarle development rights

(Left to right) City Planning Commissioner Dan Rosensweig, Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris and Albemarle County Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio)

The City of Charlottesville has stepped further into the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) discussion. A stakeholder group met on January 29, 2009 for the final installment of the TDR discussions hosted by the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. For the first time, Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris joined the group and announced that the City is considering what role it may play in a TDR system.

The possibility of adopting a TDR system in Albemarle County has been a topic of conversation ever since Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) initiated the idea in 2006. The stated goal of Slutzky’s TDR proposal is to limit growth in rural areas while compensating owners for their loss of property rights. A market would be established, allowing property owners in rural areas to detach the development rights from their land and sell them at market price to developers in a designated receiving area. The Weldon Cooper Center meetings began in August of 2008 as a way to begin a community dialogue on TDRs that used Slutzky’s original proposal as a launching point.  In the course of the stakeholder meetings, strong opposition has been expressed to expanding the County’s existing growth areas to serve as a receiving area for new development.  However, in 2007 the Virginia General Assembly passed enabling legislation which allows a county to transfer development rights to an adjacent city.

The City was not represented at the meetings until October, when Charlottesville Planning Commissioner Dan Rosensweig first attended.  While he has expressed personal interest in the TDR proposal in the past, until this last week, he has been hesitant to elaborate on whether Charlottesville could receive development rights from County landowners. During the meeting, however, he indicated at least a possible willingness on the part of the City to designate certain urban areas to be a “receiving area” for a TDR system.

In order to accept these development rights, the City has to determine where additional housing density could be accommodated and where it is inappropriate. Rosensweig said that if TDRs could be received in the City it would have to involve the upzoning of some R1 areas, areas characterized by low-density detached houses.  

While there is some difference of opinion in the City over whether this would be a beneficial change, Rosensweig personally favors a selective increase in residential density. Alternatively, the City could downzone some mixed-use corridors that were rezoned in 2003 for higher density by Special Use Permit. The more intensive uses could be made conditional upon the purchase of a development right. Mayor Norris assented to this possibility, and mentioned that it would require a discretionary act by City Council.

The Charlottesville Planning Commission raised the topic of residential density two days earlier, during their January 27, 2009 work session. Commissioner Rosensweig suggested then it would be appropriate to be  “looking for opportunities to rezone some areas for increased density and/or more intensive use.” According to Rosensweig, these selected areas could serve as TDR receivers. As an example, he mentioned the possibility of rezoning an area of Woolen Mills from Industrial to high-density mixed-use. He noted that such a transition may require an update of the Comprehensive plan and that this will likely be an ongoing conversation.

How would the city benefit from a TDR arrangement? Rosensweig offered two answers to this question in an interview with Charlottesville Tomorrow.

First, the City has a vested interest in preserving the natural landscape of the county. He said the City’s drinking water, access to local foods, and recreational opportunities are all at stake.

Second, increases in density, if managed well, could help the city “redevelop in a pedestrian- and transit-oriented way.” According to Rosensweig, this is an issue that requires a wider scope.

“In all critical planning matters, we must begin to resist the urge to be Balkanized,” Rosensweig said.  "We must really commit to regional, national and global solutions to problems attendant with unhealthy, sprawling development.” .

The Planning Commission will evaluate residential densities over the course of 2009, as part of their adopted work plan. While no clear resolutions were reached during the course of the TDR meetings, many of the participants indicated an interest in continuing the dialogue.

Daniel Nairn

Albemarle County sets priorities for Department of Community Development

Mark Graham, Director of Albemarle County's Department of Community Development

During their February 4, 2009 meeting, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved the work program for the Department of Community Development for the upcoming year. Director Mark Graham presented his recommendations for priority work related to County master planning efforts, Comprehensive Plan updates, and other initiatives.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090204-BOS-Work-Plan

The County’s Community Development Department is operating with nine and one half less staff members than they had the year before, due to positions that have been frozen as a response to a budget cuts.  However, the workload has also been reduced.  Requests for building permits are down almost 25%. Subdivision applications are down 15%. Rezoning applications are also down.

Site plans and applications to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) are the exception. These actually reached record high levels in 2008. Graham told the Board that the actual capacity of the Department to take on new initiatives has not changed much. The slimmer department is offset by the slower state of the economy.

Legally mandated objectives were given the highest priority in the work plan. State law requires that the County’s Comprehensive plan undergo an update every five years. There are a few ongoing master plans that will receive staff attention. Places29 and the Village of Rivanna plans are expected to be finished later this year. The Crozet Master Plan and the Rural Areas plan are also due for updates this year. Work on the Southern Urban Area plan has been pushed back to FY2010-11.

The Board of Supervisors raised no serious disagreements with Graham’s strategy for the coming year, but offered a few administrative suggestions.

Supervisor Ken Boyd (Rivanna) wanted to be clearly informed of how much money was spent on consultant fees, and other Supervisors questioned whether more projects could be handled in-house. Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) thought the Board should move quickly to develop a coherent stance on wind turbines. He also asked how rural landowners could be kept better informed of the options available for voluntary conservation easements. However, Boyd told Graham that he would prefer that staff resources be prioritized towards the completion of the Places29 master plan for the Route 29N corridor.

Daniel Nairn

Board further refines criteria for economic opportunity fund; Has reservations on tapping fund for local food hub

Supervisor Ann Mallek (White Hall) chaired the meeting in Chairman David Slutzky's absence

The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has directed County staff to develop criteria that will restrict the use of the County’s Economic Opportunity Fund (EOF) to projects that qualify for state matching funds. That means a group proposing a local food hub will likely not receive money from the EOF to support their project.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090204-BOS-EOF

The proposal from C&G Associates requests $80,000 from the fund to support the creation of a local food distribution hub in Ivy.  Customers of the hub would include the Jefferson Area Board for Aging and the Darden School for Business Administration. The group first presented its idea to the Board at their day meeting on January.

Seven people spoke out in favor of the project during the Board’s public comment section. City resident John Alexander said the small allocation of County funds would allow farmers to leverage their products to reach larger customers. Lisa Reader said the County’s investment would pave the way for additional funds from the private sector. White Hall resident Elizabeth Birdsall said the project would support local farmers and the environment by making it easier for County residents to find local food products.

However, two people spoke out against the project. Kathy Rash of the group Forever Albemarle said that while her group thought the idea of a local food hub was a good one, they could not support the use of taxpayer dollars to fund it. County farmer Keith McKenna said if there were truly a demand for local food, the private sector would be providing it.

Susan Stimart

When it came time for the Board to discuss the use of the EOF, County Business Development Facilitator Susan Stimart described how the criteria for the EOF have changed since the Board’s work session on the matter in January. The $250,000 fund was created in January 2007, and the Board asked for criteria to govern its usage in October 2008.

To even be considered, Stimart said applicants would need to provide financial documents, business plans, as well as documentation of the applicant’s qualifications. Applications would be evaluated according to a ranking system with 5 categories.

• Would investment lead to the creation of high-wage jobs?
• Would investment lead to local workforce development opportunities?
• Would the investment be matched with other funds?
• Would there be tangible benefits to the community?
• Would the investment help the County advance its goals and objectives?

Supervisor Ken Boyd (Rivanna) said he wanted the purpose statement of the fund to reflect the County’s wish to attract new investment into the community that would translate into more tax revenue. He said the guidelines as amended made the fund seem too much like a venture capital fund.  A phrase addressing his concern was added to the statement of purpose. 

Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) said while she wanted to encourage the creation of high-wage jobs, those positions can sometimes attract non-County residents who then do not choose to move to Albemarle.  

Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) said he was also opposed to using the fund as a pool to seed entrepreneurs. 

“This was originally created, I think, [so] that we would have some money available to match government [programs] such as the Virginia Opportunity Fund, where they require a local match,” Rooker said. “It wasn’t set up to entertain high-tech companies coming here.”

After discussing the global criteria, Boyd asked about the six applications that have been received by the County so far. He wanted to know if staff would vet the applications, or if a committee made up of staff and citizens would have that duty.

Rooker said applications should be thoroughly vetted through strict criteria until they come before the Board. At that point, the Board would get the chance to weigh in an applicant’s significance to the County.

Rooker also questioned whether the $250,000 fund would even be replenished, and wondered if the County really should create a bureaucratic system of granting seed money. Boyd agreed with Rooker’s comments.

“As the person who proposed this originally, it was really a small amount of money… and the idea was that if we had some proposals that came from the Virginia Economic Development Opportunity Fund, and they always looked for matching funds, and we had no source to give them,” Boyd said.

Rooker said he did not oppose the criteria, but lamented that the County seemed to be moving away from using the fund as Boyd said it was intended. He said that the food hub application should be vetted in the same process as the other five applications received so far. Boyd recommended taking a step back before proceeding with appropriating any money.

FOOD HUB PROPONENTS ‘DISAPPOINTED’ BY BOARD

But Ann Mallek said she felt bad for those from the food hub because they have been the guinea pigs by which the economic opportunity fund concept was being developed.

Thomas asked how the food hub proposal would be evaluated, given that the criteria had not been adopted yet. County Executive Robert Tucker said it had been planned that the Board consider the food hub application after adopting the criteria.

“But now I’m hearing maybe you might want to take a step back,” Tucker said.

Thomas said she was concerned that by relying on the state agency to vet the application, the Board would lose a chance to fund something that originated from local groups. Rooker asked where the Board would draw the line.

“We’ve got a very small amount of money, and are we going to really start looking at every idea that germinates from the community as something we should put money into?” Rooker asked.

Deputy County Executive Tom Foley

Deputy County Executive Tom Foley suggested that the Board could take up the local food hub when it next considers the County’s plan for the rural areas. He suggested the EOF could be further revised to restrict it to state matching funds.

Thomas said the six proposals were being submitted in part because the Board has not been able to pay for the actions called for in Comprehensive Plan.

“We had a strategy for the rural area, we had a position already in our budget, we never carried through with that, we don’t have anyone in that position, and we’ve done very little in what we said we were going to do in our agricultural strategy,” Thomas said. “And now we have some real [people]who thought they saw a pot of money just sitting there that wasn’t being spent and I don’t blame them for thinking that might be a way to fund their proposals.”

Rooker said that the farming community was not unified behind the food hub proposal, pointing out the opposition from the Farm Bureau and Forever Albemarle. In an interview after the vote, Farm Bureau President Carl Tinder told Charlottesville Tomorrow that the idea for a food hub was a good one, but that his group did not support the use of tax dollars to fund its creation. 

Boyd sought to end the debate, and recommended accepting Foley’s recommendation to redefine the criteria.

“But I also think we need to identify that those people here with specific proposals that it looks like this fund is not going to be available for that use,” Boyd said. Rooker agreed. But Thomas said the food hub proposal meets most of the criteria laid out by Stimart. Rooker said it would be hard to draw the line on all the good ideas that might come out of the community.

Because Chairman David Slutzky (Rio) was not present at the meeting, Vice Chair Mallek held the gavel and allowed food hub representative Kate Collier to approach the Board to make one last pitch for the funding. Collier said she was confused and disappointed, because the Board had urged her to come back with a business plan.

“We were encouraged to come back, and now it sounds like you are deciding [our proposal] doesn’t fit in that system,” Collier said. “We clearly believe that we fit within the guidelines.”

Rooker said the Board had not yet adopted the guidelines.

“One of the problems is that your proposal has come to us before we’ve put in the overlay of criteria,” Rooker said.

Mallek told Collier that she was sorry that the Board had “trapped” the food hub proposal by agreeing to hear it in January before criteria were adopted.

Kate Collier holds up the business plan drawn up for the local food hub

Collier said the food hub proposal should be seen as an investment in the County’s agricultural infrastructure. After Rooker tried to explain how the private sector could better play that role, Collier expressed frustration about being misled.

“Mr. Boyd sent the television station to us after we had this meeting last time to broadcast this economic opportunity fund was available and that they had not very many applicants,” Collier said.

Boyd said that last time, the Board directed Collier to get together with a competing proposal to see if the two could be combined so the local government did not have to make a value judgment over which one was more worthy of funding. The two groups decided not to combine. Collier said local governments often have to pick one group over another for funding. Mallek said that’s where the difficulty with this proposal lay.

“This is a new experience for us,” Mallek said. “In all the years I’ve been watching from the audience [I have not] seen any kind of competition for funds like this. That’s the root of our misery here.”
Staff said they had enough direction to come back with revised criteria at a future Board meeting.

Sean Tubbs

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:20 - City resident John Alexander speaking out in favor of County support for the food hub
• 03:20 - County resident Lisa Reader speaking out in favor of County support for the food hub
• 05:50 - Comments from Nelson County farmer Gary Scott speaking out in favor of County support for the food hub
• 08:50 - Comments from Kay Jenkins of JABA in favor of County support for the food hub
• 11:20 - Comments from County resident Elizabeth Birdsall in favor of County support for the food hub
• 12:05 - Comments from Mary Scott Birdsall in favor of County support for the food hub
• 13:20 - Comments from Chad Zekaib in support of County support for the food hub
• 16:30 - Comments from Kathy Rash of Forever Albemarle against County support for the food hub
• 18:30-  Comments from County farmer Keith McKenna against County support for the food hub
• 20:50 - Supervisor Lindsay Dorrier (Scottsville) asks McKenna questions
• 23:30- Staff report from Susan Stimart, County's Business Development Facilitator
• 26:11 - Supervisor Dennis Rooker asks for "unemployment" to be added to the purpose statement
• 27:10 - Supervisor Sally Thomas agrees, but warns that creating high-wage jobs can sometimes attract non-County residents to work here
• 29:20 - Supervisor Ken Boyd repeats call for making sure any funds expended can translate into new taxes for County
• 30:50 - Dorrier says that criteria should have distinguishing factors that
• 32:00 - Stimart takes Supervisors through the proposed Minimum Requirements for Consideration
• 33:48 - Boyd reads a suggested amendment to make submission of business plans optional in the case of expanding businesses
• 35:09 - Stimart takes Supervisors through the proposed evaluation criteria
• 41:40 - Supervisors discuss the best way to add criteria to give priority to projects that give workforce opportunities to local resident
• 44:30 - Stimart explains condition that project must require 80% match
• 45:40 - Supervisors discuss the dangers of becoming a venture capital fund
• 47:24 - Dorrier calls for additional cost-benefit analysis to be performed on each candidate project
• 52:40 - Dorrier calls for a historic rehabilitation category
• 56:40 - Mallek asks if pay-outs from the fund would be considered as grants
• 58:10 - Rooker explains why he thinks the fund is becoming too complex
• 1:01:25 - Rooker says he laments moving away from the reason why the fund was created
• 1:04:25 - Thomas asks how EOF discussion relates to the discussion of the food hub
• 1:05:40 - Boyd thinks the Board is reevaluating the EOF to require state agencies to vet the applications
• 1:06:40 - Thomas expresses concern over losing an opportunity for the Board to fund local projects
• 1:09:55 - Stimart describes how a similar county uses the fund
• 1:10:40 - Deputy County Executive Tom Foley suggests that many of the proposals support County's rural area goals
• 1:13:40 - Thomas says proposals are coming forward in part because the County has not adequately funded rural area strategies
• 1:20:00 - Thomas lists the reasons she thinks the food hub would qualify for the EOF
• 1:22:10 - County Attorney Larry Davis offers a clarification on how the County evaluates non-profit budget requests
• 1:25:00 - Kate Collier says her group was encouraged to build a business plan and come back