Monthly Archives: March 2008

“….has found following a duly advertised Joint Public Hearing with Council that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices (permit/do not permit)…”

Scanning the public documents in order to put them up online means that I handle each piece of paper individually. Reading them as I go, helps me to pass the time. Each CUP (Conditional Use Permit) and Rezoning that I have seen contained the statement above. The basic form of this appears to stem from the historical basis of zoning and police power (this is a great article, please take the time to check it out).

Today my purpose was to review documents where this statement was found and see if I could determine how those basic criteria were evaluated. I have only been through a portion of the documents but I have yet to find any clear information. Other jurisdictions use a method of composing their Resolutions/Ordinances in such a manner that each of the items is clearly identified in a brief sentence or two. (See this document for an example.) It would be nice to see the rationale for such decision-making written in a format that is easy for the individual citizen to understand.

How does the proposed change in the existing ordinance or a conditional use permit affect the following:

1. Public Necessity?
2. Convenience?
3. General Welfare?
4. Good Zoning Practices?

The Virginia Code gives this section: Purpose of zoning ordinances to identify some of these issues.
Zoning ordinances shall be for the general purpose of promoting the health, safety or general welfare of the public and of further accomplishing the objectives of § 15.2-2200. To these ends, such ordinances shall be designed to give reasonable consideration to each of the following purposes, where applicable:

• (i) to provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire, flood, crime and other dangers;
• (ii) to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets;
• (iii) to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community;
• (iv) to facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements;
• (v) to protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas;
• (vi) to protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers;
• (vii) to encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base;
• (viii) to provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment;
• (ix) to protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities;
• (x) to promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing suitable for meeting the current and future needs of the locality as well as a reasonable proportion of the current and future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated; and
• (xi) to provide reasonable protection against encroachment upon military bases, military installations, and military airports and their adjacent safety areas, excluding armories operated by the Virginia National Guard. Such ordinance may also include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with applicable state water quality standards, to protect surface water and ground water as defined in § 62.1-255.

Well, I have definitely got some more reading to do on these topics. I will be setting up a ‘scorecard’ for myself to start taking a closer look at how the Town Council and Planning Commission address these issues currently and how it is documented for previous meetings.

Even more importantly, I will be looking at how all of this works with the Comprehensive Plan which is the basis for the Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Christiansburg.

“….has found following a duly advertised Joint Public Hearing with Council that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices (permit/do not permit)…”

Scanning the public documents in order to put them up online means that I handle each piece of paper individually. Reading them as I go, helps me to pass the time. Each CUP (Conditional Use Permit) and Rezoning that I have seen contained the statement above. The basic form of this appears to stem from the historical basis of zoning and police power (this is a great article, please take the time to check it out).

Today my purpose was to review documents where this statement was found and see if I could determine how those basic criteria were evaluated. I have only been through a portion of the documents but I have yet to find any clear information. Other jurisdictions use a method of composing their Resolutions/Ordinances in such a manner that each of the items is clearly identified in a brief sentence or two. (See this document for an example.) It would be nice to see the rationale for such decision-making written in a format that is easy for the individual citizen to understand.

How does the proposed change in the existing ordinance or a conditional use permit affect the following:

1. Public Necessity?
2. Convenience?
3. General Welfare?
4. Good Zoning Practices?

The Virginia Code gives this section: Purpose of zoning ordinances to identify some of these issues.
Zoning ordinances shall be for the general purpose of promoting the health, safety or general welfare of the public and of further accomplishing the objectives of § 15.2-2200. To these ends, such ordinances shall be designed to give reasonable consideration to each of the following purposes, where applicable:

• (i) to provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire, flood, crime and other dangers;
• (ii) to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets;
• (iii) to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community;
• (iv) to facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements;
• (v) to protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas;
• (vi) to protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers;
• (vii) to encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base;
• (viii) to provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment;
• (ix) to protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities;
• (x) to promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing suitable for meeting the current and future needs of the locality as well as a reasonable proportion of the current and future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated; and
• (xi) to provide reasonable protection against encroachment upon military bases, military installations, and military airports and their adjacent safety areas, excluding armories operated by the Virginia National Guard. Such ordinance may also include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with applicable state water quality standards, to protect surface water and ground water as defined in § 62.1-255.

Well, I have definitely got some more reading to do on these topics. I will be setting up a ‘scorecard’ for myself to start taking a closer look at how the Town Council and Planning Commission address these issues currently and how it is documented for previous meetings.

Even more importantly, I will be looking at how all of this works with the Comprehensive Plan which is the basis for the Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Christiansburg.

Christiansburg Citizen Survey Test Run

I checked on a lot of survey tools out there and decided this is the most likely one for me to use. Please take a moment of your time and help me run a test to see how it works. I would also appreciate any comments you may have or suggestions for surveys you think should be done.

Christiansburg Citizen Survey Test Run

I checked on a lot of survey tools out there and decided this is the most likely one for me to use. Please take a moment of your time and help me run a test to see how it works. I would also appreciate any comments you may have or suggestions for surveys you think should be done.

Over the decades, many of us have taken the following oath as we were sworn into military service: “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

News articles and notes:
http://mworlando.wordpress.com/2007/05/22/slapp-suits-continue-to-plague/
AntiSLAPP Bills by State
Article
Article

The issue of parking facilities is still on the table with a public hearing scheduled for Jan. 6, 2009 (the first Town Council Meeting of the new year … which will also host the first Public Hearing on the Aquatic Center agreement with Virginia Tech where one of the hottest issues will be how much time will citizens actually have available for swimming in this new community facility).

I’ve posted the audio online for you to listen to the discussion. The only thing I really came away with is that it looks like is that there is no real estimate of the parking places that will be needed when the project is completed. It sounded like the estimates for parking places needed were based upon the Courthouse only and not including predictive traffic/parking patterns as the County continues to build new and renovate old structures which may expand the parking needs.

I’ll bet you can count on one thing. If the estimates are low, downtown parking will become nonexistent. Due to the distance from the parking facility, I’m betting that the Town parking lot is quickly taken over by court house parking anyway.

In reference to the digital sign issues, the use of CUP’s again came up but it was acknowledged by Mr.Terpenny that they would not work because the sign ordinance is separate from the zoning ordinance. (The Town Attorney noted at the last Town Council meeting that this was true and could be problematic. He also noted that most jurisdictions have these two combined.)

Each of the town officials I have asked about the combining of the zoning and sign ordinances have reported that it wasn’t done because it would result in variances going to the BZA (Board of Zoning Appeals) and they would overrule the Town 99% of the time. (A quick scan of the Montgomery County records pertaining to BZA and signs shows this is not something that should occur. In fact, the research I’ve done shows that having the two incorporated reduced the number of issues as compared to where they are separate.)

Combining the two would mean the Town Manager would not be the sole determining factor pertaining to any variances. For those who would argue that it would require more people to enforce, nope….sign ordinances aren’t that well enforced now. Most of the people I’ve talked to report that illegal signs are not dealt with unless some citizen complains. In those cases, there is some concern that if the signs are already up, the only thing that happens is that the violator is required to get a sign permit and it is passed regardless of citizen concerns.

There was some discussion of research that the Planning Dept. was to do concerning two other jurisdictions and how they deal with digital signs, Salem and Charlottesville. Well, it took me all of five minutes to find those in Municode (I’m looking at them now.) Salem only addresses illuminated signs which are not the same thing as digital signs. In the Charlottesville code  Illumination of signs is discussed (Sec.34-1034) but applies to the illumination of signs not digital signs. In another section it is noted the following signs are prohibited: (Sec. 34-1029 Prohibited Signs) “(4) Any sign that moves or contains or consists of a searchlight, beacon, strobe light, flashing lights or similar form(s) of illumination; provided that this provision will not affect traffic, parking or informational signs placed by a public authority.”

For those signs that are illuminated, simply signs that have lights shining on them, the restrictions/criteria can be found to include electrical permits and a minimum insurance of $300,000.00. They must be so constructed with gooseneck reflectors or other devices to prevent glare and attention is to be paid to illumination  avoiding glare on adjoining residential properties. The lighting of these signs must comply with the outdoor lighting ordinance.

The removal of any signs in violation of the ordinances and enforcement of maintenance of those signs falls under the authority of the zoning administrator.

(There may be a surprise coming in the next few days so watch for special notices:)

Somewhere or other a rumor has started that the lawsuit against Christiansburg citizens who exercise Free Speech in the form of Blogging has been dropped.

This rumor is not true. There have been new developments but nothing to indicate the case is being dropped.

As most of you know, I am not at liberty to discuss the case at this time.

However, I can let you know that a legal defense fund has been established to help cover expenses of the four individuals. Any money beyond what is necessary to cover legal expenses will be used to help other people in similar situations.

To help out with legal defense go by NBB or mail checks/money orders to:
Dorsett Lindstrom Legal Defense Fund
c/o National Bank of Blacksburg
P.O. Box 90002
Blacksburg, VA 24063

Or do as so many others have and just drop the check off at the Toy Station.  A HUGE Thank you to those who have thus far contributed. Whether your support has come in the form of money or simply words of encouragement, to each and every one of you, my heartfelt thanks.

In the meantime, more information is available at the online citizen’s information page with Minutes and documents from past meetings. These are all set up in searchable pdf files so that you can go through them looking for only one type of issue or one name rather than read through all of the documents. Have fun!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation

Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior “which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities” fear of injury or harm. It’s not necessary to prove that the behavior was so violent as to cause terror or that the victim was actually frightened.^[1] “The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals political, religious, or ideological in nature…through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear” can be defined as terrorism.^[2]

I’m having a bit of a problem putting this together with recording of public meetings, requesting public documents, and writing personal opinion blogs on the internet. Guess this is going to require a bit more thought and research on my part. (See Word for Word for more information.) FOIA as an intimidation tactic? Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly as intimidation tactics? Give me a break!

Open Government is Good Government. Citizen Participation is the Greatest Tool that ANY government has at its disposal. Attend meetings, take time to look at the laws that affect you, read your local papers to keep up on local events.

Okay, I’ve survived yet another Christmas and on the horizon is a New Year full of promise. Before, I can move into that New Year, I want to back up and look at some of the issues I’ve already addressed in this blog.

I’ve previously pointed out that the Town Code is far out of date when compared to the State Codes. One example of this can be found when you explore the Town Code concerning the creation and composition of the Planning Commission.

Town Code Chapter 4, Article VI addresses the Planning Commission. With a quick look, you’ll see that most of this section is based on Code of Virginia Section 15-1. So far, so good? Well, only if you don’t try to find Section 15-1 in the Code of Virginia. It seems this was changed back in the early 70′s and now exists as 15-2 not 15-1.

Now, let’s take a closer look to see if it is only the numbers that changed:)
Sec. 2-216. Creation of the Town Code refers to the Code of Virginia Sec. 15.1-437 through 15.1-445. Since those particular references do not exist at this time, you have to go to 15.2-2210 in the State Code. This merely sets the legal requirement of the Town to establish a Planning Commission.

The first “NEW” item appears when you compare the Composition section of the two Codes. In the Town’s version (Sec. 2-217) where in 15.2-2212 of the State Code you find this line in the first paragraph: “The local governing body may require each member of the commission to take an oath of office.” (The Town has elected not to include this option in the Town Code). In part (b) of this same section, the Town requires that “The Town Manager shall attend the meetings of the Planning Commission” (Note: this only mandates attendance at, not participation in the meetings). Again, in 15.2-2212 of the State Code it is noted that there is NO requirement that anyone on the Town Council or a member of the Administrative Branch (i.e. Town Manager) be included in membership on the Planning Commission. Section 15.2-2212 also gives the criteria whereby planning commission members may be removed from office. The Town Code Section 2-222 adds more reasons for removal of members and require that a public hearing must be held in order to remove the member. State Code Section 15.2-2217 mandates that the planning commission “SHALL adopt rules for the transaction of business and SHALL keep a record of its transactions which SHALL be a public record.” (You will be hard pressed to find this within the town as minutes of these meetings are at best in draft form.)

(An interesting aside can be found in State Code Section 15.2-2218 where it is denoted that the Town can contract with the County planning commission to serve as the Town planning commission for services. This may be a good way for the Town to save money while making sure that there are no issues of conflict of interest to arise by having an independent planning commission. This is further expanded by State Code Section 15.2-2219 which sets the criteria whereby Joint Local Planning Commissions could be established between jurisdictions. Sharing such a group would certainly help to save money and pave the way for participating in grants which are more and more frequently requiring multi-jurisdictional approaches in order to obtain those grant monies.)

Sec .2-219 of the Town Code serve to establish guidelines for what the Planning Commission is to do by developing an outline of activities in 3 areas:
1) Assembling such data regarding the Town and adjacent terriroty as the Commission may deem to be necessary in exercising its functions, powers and duties.
2) Preparing a Comprehensive Plan as a general guide for the development of the Town and as a basis for the preparation of zoning and other regulations.
3) Recommending to the Council appropriate procedures for effectuating such Comprehensive Plan.

Sec. 15.2-2221 of the State Codes give a list of 8 Duties of commissions:

1. Exercise general supervision of, and make regulations for, the administration of its affairs;

2. Prescribe rules pertaining to its investigations and hearings;

3. Supervise its fiscal affairs and responsibilities, under rules and regulations as prescribed by the governing body;

4. Keep a complete record of its proceedings; and be responsible for the custody and preservation of its papers and documents;

5. Make recommendations and an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the commission and the status of planning within its jurisdiction;

6. Prepare, publish and distribute reports, ordinances and other material relating to its activities;

7. Prepare and submit an annual budget in the manner prescribed by the governing body of the county or municipality; and

8. If deemed advisable, establish an advisory committee or committees.

****There is a lot more information coming on this area of local government as there have been tremendous changes concerning planning, comprehensive plans, transportation, zoning, and rezoning. None of these have been included in the Town Code thus far and citizens and developers need to know the current legal basis. I’ll be working on this for several future blogs so keep checking back.****

The important thing to remember is that this is a Dillon Rule state and only those things which the State allows via State Code can be done. When the Town Code is out of sync with the State Code, there are significant areas where problems can arise. Keeping the Town’s Codes up to date should be one of the more crucial aspects of good government, not something to be put aside and ignored for decades!!!

If you want to read about some of the new issues check out these before I blog on them:)

Sec. 15.2-2222.1 Coordination of state and local transportation planning.
Sec. 15.2-2223. Comprehensive plan to be prepared and adopted; scope and purpose.
Sec. 15.2-2223.1 Comprehensive plan to include urban development areas; new urbanism
Sec. 15.2-2230 Plan to be reviewed at least once every five years
Sec. 15.2-22332 Legal status of plan