Supervisor candidates on expansion of County growth areas

As the community gets ready for election day on November 6th, Charlottesville Tomorrow is preparing to mail our non-partisan voter guides featuring the results of interviews with each of the candidates for Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. 

Over the next few weeks, this blog will feature some of the questions that did not make the cut for the voter guide, but which still offer important insights into the candidates' views on local growth and development issues.

 

Our Election Watch 2007 website includes the complete audio and written transcript for each candidate interview.  Subscribe to our e-mails to get immediate notification of the availability of the 2007 Voter Guides.  The content below are excerpts pulled from the verbatim transcripts.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, FOURTH IN A SERIES

How do you feel about an expansion of the County’s designated growth areas, currently 5% of the County’s land area, to support a transfer of development rights program or to support a developer’s request to move land from the rural area to the growth area?How do you feel about an expansion of the County’s designated growth areas, currently 5% of the County’s land area, to support a transfer of development rights program or to support a developer’s request to move land from the rural area to the growth area?

---

RIVANNA

Ken Boyd (R)-Incumbent: Well, I think that the transfer of development rights program is an intriguing idea and I’m very anxious to see more about it but I really am not going to make up my mind until I’ve had more analysis that would come from the staff and from a report which we haven’t received yet.

Marcia Joseph (D)-Challenger: …I think there [is] still available land out there, not only green land that hasn’t been used, but land that could be redeveloped.  I don’t think we need to expand them at this point.  TDRs are a very interesting concept.  Before I would ever commit to anything like that, I’d like to see what other localities are doing, what have they done, what have they been successful in doing… the receiving area of these transferred development rights is extremely critical because you realize that there’s no rezoning going on, that that increased density just goes on in there so we’d have to make very very sure that all of this infrastructure that we’ve been talking about is adequate and could support that increased density.

---

SCOTTSVILLE

Lindsay Dorrier (D)-Incumbent: I am against any expansion of the growth area in Albemarle County.

Kevin Fletcher (I)-Challenger: I am not in favor of expanding our growth area… because we have squandered I think a lot of our opportunities in the growth area, but I think that the proposed plan benefits most everyone except I guess the small landowner in Albemarle County, the people who are developers or land speculators, you know, they get what they want… the proposed plan would, as I believe as Mr. Slutzky has proposed, puts a great deal of burden of this plan on the small landowners and I’m not in favor of that in any way….  I don’t think there’s been any new legislation to allow the transferring of development rights…

Denny King (I)-Challenger: You know, the more I look at the 95/5% split, the more I become convinced that such an imbalance, such an enormous imbalance of 95% and 5%, how could it ever be sustainable?... Are we rapidly becoming northern Virginia?... 

Transferring more development into the 5% or expanding the growth areas, I don’t think does much to address the basic imbalance.  That’s simply a band-aid…

---

WHITE HALL

David Wyant (R)-Incumbent: Well, I’m opposed to expanding the development areas and especially Crozet, if we do a Transfer of Development Rights, if it’s ever considered.  I think if you look at Albemarle County from up at 20,000 [feet], it’s kind of unusual to have a development area outside of the major one of in the County, but I understand why years ago the Board selected that with ConAgra and the ACME [businesses] that no longer exist there. 

…When we get into the Transfer of Development Rights, what you’re going to have to consider there, as I’ve said in engineering, I’m trying to provide services and the trunk lines and the other means for water and sewer, [TDRs] really [do] change that.  I as a designer of those infrastructures, it’s difficult for me to design for that when those boundaries are changing on it…

Ann Mallek (D)-Challenger: I oppose expanding the growth area.  We made a commitment that growth area residents would have the countryside nearby, so that the growth area does not become a huge monolith, with miles and miles of high rise and high density living.  If we betray that trust our growth areas will fail.  Providing greater encouragement to farming nearby would increase the proximity of farm products to customers.

Kendall Singleton

Farm Bureau hosts Albemarle County Supervisor Candidates

The campaign season for three Board of Supervisors races is officially underway, with the first candidates' forum of the year. Seven candidates for three seats were guests at the annual meeting of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, held August 14, 2007 at Western Albemarle High School.

President Joe Jones joked with the crowd that he would have preferred to have booked a bluegrass band  to close out the annual meeting.

“However, the Board of Directors felt with the number of seats up for election this fall, that part of our responsibility as an organization is to educate our membership,” he said. “Part of that education is getting to know the candidates for the Board of Supervisors.”

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast

Download the transcript

Watch the video::

Candidates were asked three questions, each of which stemmed from a set of resolutions adopted by Farm Bureau members during the meeting prior to the forum. Their local government resolutions were as follows:

1. We oppose and county law which would have the effect of diminishing property value
2. We urge that no ordinances be created that infringe on an individual' right to farm
3. We support the transfer of development rights with no easements required
4. We oppose the timed release ("phasing") of division rights in any form, as well as clustering and "preservation trusts" which inhibit agricultural use of land
5. We support enforcement of land-use taxation regulations

The forum was moderated Mark Campbell, a field representative of the Virginia Farm Bureau. The format of the event did not include opening or closing statements and the. candidates were not given copies of the three questions in advance.

Question 1:
"Much discussion within the Board of Supervisors and in public has advocated "farmland preservation." What measures would you support to encourage and support the business and livelihood of those who continue to farm that land?"

All candidates supported the idea of dedicating county staff time to helping farmers' market their products.

Kevin Fletcher, independent candidate for the Scottsville District, said he suggested that Albemarle County farmers be connected with growers in surrounding counties to help share marketing strategies, especially in tapping in to the lucrative market of local restaurants. Lindsay Dorrier, incumbent in the Scottsville District, said he wanted to continue “an ongoing dialog” with area farmers. The other independent in the district, Denny King, said the County needs to do more to be “farm-friendly” given that 95 percent of the land is rural.

Marcia Joseph, Democratic candidate for the Rivanna District, told the crowd she thought it was an exciting time for local farms with increasing demand for Community Supported Agriculture and organic produce. As a resident of the rural area, she said preserving farmland was an important priority. “I really would much rather see cattle raised next door than the houses going up next door,” she said.

Ken Boyd, incumbent Rivanna Supervisor, responded to the question by expressing his philosophy of government - “government that regulates least regulates best.” He pointed out that the Board has reduced the tax rate twice in the past four years he has been a Supervisor. He said the county's farming liaison staff should help farmers find supplementary sources of income during hard times.

David Wyant, incumbent White Hall Supervisor, he supports the county's Acquisition of Conservation Easement programs as well as the land-use taxation program. His opponent, Ann Mallek, wants the county to remove obstacles to farm-sales, provide education on high-yield markets, and by linking retiring farmers with aspiring ones to encourage agricultural land to remain so. She echoed Joseph's comments that local farmers have an opportunity to tap into the local market with renewed attention on food safety.

Question 2:
Control of population growth has been cited as a basis for measures such as the transfer of development rights. Would you be willing to support compensating landowners for limiting further division of their real property without attaching easement restriction on the future use of the land so long as it remain ineligible for subdivision?

Ken Boyd said he was a “huge advocate of personal property rights” and that he has too many questions about transferable development rights (TDRs) before he could answer for sure. Boyd is skeptical that TDRs would generate enough of a market to be equitable for all residents, especially ifs downzoning of rural areas is part of that package. He said farmers whose families have been working County lands for generations can be trusted not to abuse programs designed to protect their farmland from development.

Joseph took issue with the notion that TDRs are designed to control population growth, and said that the County's population will likely continue to grow at a rate of 2 percent. “It's important to make sure that any easement placed on a piece of property does not hinder you from doing any agricultural use.”

Ann Mallek, a member of the Acquisition of Conservation Easements committee since 2000, said she needed more information on the question before she could answer. Her opponent David Wyant said he would not support attaching easements to rural land if the owners transferred their development rights.

Lindsay Dorrier related his personal experience with TDRs. “I know first hand about TDRs because my mother owns a 50 acre farm, and 2 years go she decided to get a conservation easement and works with the Virginia Outdoor Foundation to do it. The value of the property really did not diminish that much, but it allowed her children to get a tax credit to apply against our state income tax,” he said. “That has an easement restriction on it.”

Denny King said did not have enough information to take a position on the question. Kevin Fletcher said he was against TDRs if they expanded the county's growth area, but said he supports the ACE program as well as the Virginia Outdoor Foundation, two programs that support conservation easements.

Question 3:
What is your position on the land-use assessment program? What should be done to ensure compliance with the requirements for designation of land-use property?

All of the candidates expressed support for the current land use taxation program, but some said it was being abused.

Ann Mallek said farm land in production does not put a burden on the County in terms of requiring services like schools. But she said the program needs to be as “squeaky clean” as possible to prevent mistrust among urban residents of the county. David Wyant said that he did not think compliance enforcement was much of an issue.

Denny King said the County has not done a good job of policing the program. “I believe that there are people out there in our County who are enjoying land use taxation who don't qualify and have not earned that right,” he said. Kevin Fletcher agreed that the tax incentive was misused but said without the program, many people would not be able to stay in the County, but he suggested farmers file annual reports on what they produce. Lindsay Dorrier says land use taxation was enacted farmers, but that the program has not worked out as well as envisioned. He also said he did not see that it had been abused.

Marcia Joseph said it hurts her heart when she hears Albemarle County residents who live in the urban ring describe the land-use taxation program as “farmers not paying their fair share.” She says the County could not survive without its farmers. Ken Boyd said he relies on staff to police for abuse, but that he was unaware of widespread problems with the program.

A transcript of this candidate forum will be prepared by Charlottesville Tomorrow and added to this post in the near future.  Visit our Election Watch 2007 website for complete coverage of local elections.

Sean Tubbs

Good article on growth and development

Today's Washington Post has a great front page article that discusses some growth and development issues relevant to Charlottesville-Albemarle (W. Post 2/8/07: Area Officials Struggle To Fit Lid on Growth).

"To hear some activists and local officials in Virginia tell it, the key to slowing rampant growth is to follow the lead of many Maryland counties: Ban development where roads and schools are crowded. But here is what that method has accomplished in Anne Arundel County...development is being pushed to more rural parts of the state less suited to handle it."

That is the concern raised most frequently by County Supervisor David Slutzky.  At the recent ASAP forum on Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs, Mr. Slutzky said, "We know we’ve got 5% of the County allocated to growth and 95% of the County is designated rural area and it’s not supposed to be having growth happen in it. I don’t know if you’ve noticed driving out Garth Road, but growth’s happening in it. It’s a serious problem, one that concerns me greatly."

We are certainly building homes in Albemarle's rural fields, farms and forests.  However, and here is where I would like to draw a contrast to Anne Arundel County, MD and the first points made in the Washington Post article--we have been doing so at a consistent rate for over a decade, about 300 homes a year [see chart on this post from last Summer].  Our Board of Supervisors would all certainly like to see that number as close to zero as possible.  How we best do that is at the heart of the debate about rural area protection strategies. 

Instead, where we see dramatic increases is in the amount of housing approved in the growth areas, much of which has not been built.  We simply don't have the population growth facing these localities around Washington, D.C. and there is apparently not a market for these homes in Charlottesville-Albemarle to be built quickly.  One of the ramifications of that market condition is that the affordable housing that has been proffered (over 600 units in Albemarle) is also not getting built.

Finally, the article has a good summary of the politics of growth before the Virginia General Assembly.  Here is a lengthy quote which covers a number of the frequently asked questions about the powers of local government, proffers, and impact fees:

In Richmond, Kaine again proposed legislation that would make it easier for Virginia counties to reject requests to rezone properties for more intense development if officials determine that it would overwhelm local roads. The legislation was blocked recently under opposition from developers but might resurface in another form.

But even if the proposal is revived, there are doubts among some officials about how much Kaine's plan would accomplish, since the legislation essentially spelled out a power that many local officials say they already have.

The proposal's supporters say it would help anyway because, by clarifying local authority, it would give counties more confidence to reject requests without fear of being taken to court by developers.

"You can say no, but it's always a crapshoot," said Loudoun Supervisor James Burton (I-Blue Ridge). "The more arrows we have in the quiver, the better off we are."

Similarly, builders oppose the proposal because they fear that the broader language it contains will make it easier for local officials to oppose rezonings without clear evidence of traffic troubles. It lowers the bar for rejections "to an arbitrary or capricious standard," said Michael Toalson, lobbyist for the powerful Home Builders Association of Virginia. "You don't have to defend it -- you can just say, 'Nope, we don't want it.' "

But the legislation would have no effect on the expanse of potential residential development that can already occur under existing zoning, also known as by-right construction. In Loudoun, there are about 35,000 lots that can still be built; in Prince William, 26,500; and in Spotsylvania County, 23,000.  [Note: That figure is about 10,000 lots in Albemarle County's rural areas]

What Virginia really needs, some local officials say, are regulations like the "adequate public facilities" ordinances used in many Maryland counties. Under those ordinances, counties can impose moratoriums on by-right construction in certain areas if they determine that there aren't enough roads, schools or other services, and they can also assess per-house "impact fees" on by-right development to pay for infrastructure.

In Virginia, most counties can only seek money from developers in the form of "proffers" for rezoning requests, not for by-right development. Stafford and Spotsylvania counties have state permission to assess impact fees on already zoned land, but with constraints. In the past three years, Stafford has assessed fees on only a few hundred of 9,000 homes built, for $1,600 to $5,300 a home.

The transportation funding package being pushed by many Republicans includes an impact fee provision, but local officials say that it is too limited to be useful, because it applies only to a fraction of land. Prince William's legislative liaison said the fees would cover only about 200 homes built in the county each year.

The crux of the problem, said Stafford Supervisor Peter J. Fields (D-George Washington), is that if counties really tried to assess fees on new exurban homes for the full costs of their impact, they would run into the tens of thousands of dollars, beyond what most would consider reasonable. But somehow, he said, the state must find a way to regulate construction on land that is already zoned.

"No other change . . . is going to make a difference in our built environment or in the cost to taxpayers, and until we do that, I am loath to congratulate ourselves for having done something for the problem," he said.

Brian Wheeler

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. 

Charlottesville 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 Dennis Rooker's audience handout.

This 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

Toscano submits bill to aid Albemarle's TDR initiative

On 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 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

Top-10 Growth & Development Stories of 2006

In my weekly appearance on WINA AM 1070 with Coy Barefoot on the Charlottesville Right Now program, Coy and I will count down the top-10 growth and development stories of 2006. Call 977-1070 to get on the air and share your insights.

Charlottesville Tomorrow's Top-10 Growth and Development Stories of 2006

1. County Supervisors reach a stalemate on rural area protection strategies after agreeing unanimously in 2005 to aggressively pursue new policies as part of the Rural Area Comprehensive Plan update.
2. City/County agree on 50-year urban water supply plan which features a pipeline connecting our two major reservoirs.
3. County approves North Pointe rezoning.
4. County Supervisors unanimously endorse a potential population for Crozet of 24,000 people (current population: About 4,800).
5. The local housing pipeline grows.  Since 2000 over 8,100 homes have been approved in the County alone.  Most have not been built yet.
6. City’s vertical growth looms large—Officials question zoning allowing 9-story development.
7. County advances economic development initiatives.
8. City/County support development of Regional Transit Authority.  UVA observes from the sidelines.
9. The Slutzky factor – Supervisor David Slutzky brings new ideas and a powerful swing vote on a number of growth and development issues.
10. City/County advance major new e-Government communication initiatives [not really growth and development specific, but hugely helpful initiatives to those in the public interested in tracking these issues].

Honorable mention stories for 2006:

• Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange receives Federal earmark for almost $27 million.
• May 2006 City Council Elections

Think I left something off this list?  There were so many possibilities and I culled the list from past blog postings and the piles of files in my office. If you think something else deserves attention, please add a comment below and/or call in to WINA between 5:00 and 6:00 PM today. 

Brian Wheeler

Boyd offers clarification on recent initiatives

At the end of yesterday's meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Ken Boyd (Rivanna) responded to public criticism of the Board from earlier in the evening and offered clarifications about the intent of his motions last week to create a $250,000 economic development fund and to have the County rejoin the Chamber of Commerce, a business advocacy organization it has not belonged to since the 1970s.

First, Mr. Boyd responded to citizen complaints that the actions were taken at the end of the last meeting under other business and thus they were not on the agenda for public comment (nor for that matter were they something on which the Board received advanced reports from staff).

"Unfortunately, our procedure is such that other matters from the public are at the beginning of each meeting and other matters from the Board members are at the end of each meeting, so that is the only time we have to bring up matters that are of concern to us."

I other situations late in their meetings, Board members have sought consensus to have something placed on the agenda for future discussion and public comment, something Mr. Boyd proceeded to do a few moments later when he sought and received Board consensus to have a work session on Mr. Slutzky's transfer of development rights (TDR) initiative at a future meeting.

Then Mr. Boyd turned to explaining his view of the votes to create the economic development fund and join the Chamber of Commerce.

"What I proposed, and what was in my mind, and what was approved were two accounting entries, not policy changes.  We had $200,000 of undesignated money in our budget for this year and I asked that it be set aside for future use as an opportunity fund.  I also asked for the additional $50,000 to be worked through the public process and brought forward as part of our budget for next year.  In my mind that was an accounting entry."

"The other [issue] was that we paid our dues for the Chamber of Commerce.  Now I don't like the term 'seat at the table,' but if you think about it, we've had a seat at the table for thirty years... [County Executive] Bob [Tucker] has been on the Board of Directors for the last 15-16 years... somehow that didn't corrupt our County....I just felt that we not free load anymore and that we pay our dues.  So I asked that it be brought forward as a budget initiative and as an appropriation initiative and I asked that it be done at a time when we have a public hearing..."

The expenditure for Chamber dues will be on the agenda for a future public hearing as an 'accounting entry' in the next regular batch of appropriations periodically approved by the Supervisors.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20061213-BOS.MP3

Brian Wheeler

What are the 5Cs?

I recently asked a member of the Albemarle County Planning Commission if they planned to go to the meeting of the 5C's to hear David Slutzky give a presentation on a transfer of development rights (TDR) program.  The response?  "What are the 5Cs?"

So I thought I would share in this posting a little more history on the Citizens Committee for City-County Cooperation (aka The 5Cs).  I'll preface this by saying I have never been to one of their meetings and I don't even know exactly who is a 5C member and who is not.  The 5Cs are facilitated by Leigh Middleditch, Jr., an attorney at McGuireWoods.  In January, I did share a post that included a podcast of Mr. Middleditch describing the origins of the 5Cs when he was giving a report to the MPO.  The 5Cs had been approached to make recommendations on local transportation funding options. I just have not taken the opportunity to ask him for any further details or a membership list.

Today I received an e-mail announcing Mr. Slutzky's presentation to the 5Cs on Thursday, December 14th.  It included the following passage of interest:

"For those of you without an 'institutional memory', the 5Cs Committee was established in 1980 as a non-partisan group of city and county residents to support the then referendum on the novel Revenue Sharing Agreement as a replacement for annexation, a referendum that passed overwhelmingly and has served both jurisdictions well for the last 25 + years.  The 5Cs was reconstituted about ten years ago and has been instrumental in fostering additional city-county cooperation in a number of areas."

That is a little more than I knew yesterday.  Maybe others can chime in with their knowledge of this group and its accomplishments and we can build some institutional memory on the Charlottesville Tomorrow weblog.

Brian Wheeler

Transfer of development rights program fails to receive support

Update 12/14/06: At their meeting on December 13, 2006, the Board of Supervisors, at the request of Ken Boyd (Rivanna), agreed to hold a work session in early 2007 on the transfer of development rights initiative.

At the December 6, 2006 meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, there was a formal presentation from Supervisor David Slutzky about a plan for protection for the County's rural areas through a transfer of development rights (or TDR) program [download proposal].  Mr. Slutzky first brought this proposal to the attention of the Board in early October. 

At the end of the discussion today, the proposal failed to receive the board's support, and while a vote was not taken, Mr. Slutzky commented afterwards that he did not see a commitment by the Supervisors to pursue a TDR proposal at this time.  The Board did not rule it out entirely and did discuss the possibility of TDRs coming up again at future work sessions related to rural area protection strategies.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20061206-BOS-TDR.MP3

Update 12/7/06: Daily Progress coverage here.

Brian Wheeler

Slutzky presents TDR proposal to Supervisors

At this Wednesday's Albemarle County Board of Supervisors meeting around 11:00 AM, Rio District representative David Slutzky is scheduled to make his first formal presentation to the Board about his plan for protection for the County's rural areas through a transfer of development rights (TDR) program.

Mr. Slutzky first went public with his plan on October 3, 2006 and subsequent details were presented in an October interview on WINA. You can download the material provided to the Board in advance of their meeting here: http://www.cvilletomorrow.org/docs/20061206-Slutzky-TDRs.pdf

After reviewing the document, I do not see much in the way of new details or modifications.  The proposal is very much in line with Mr. Slutzky's past statements about his goals with the TDR initiative.  Charlottesville Tomorrow's blog will have a podcast of this discussion later in the day on Wednesday.

Brian Wheeler