RSS

Monthly Archives: August 2010

Understanding the Conditional Use Permit

The Conditional Use Permit can be found throughout the Minutes of the Town of Christiansburg Town Council Meeting Minutes. I am providing some basic information concerning this ‘device’ in order to point out a common denominator, conditions. A Conditional Use Permit must contain conditions and those conditions are required to be fairly specific to the use to be applied and the impact that use has on neighboring properties. More on this particular topic will follow these bits of background information: Read the rest of this entry »

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 

Some information for those who are considering joining the Christiansburg Rescue Squad.

If you are interested in participating in the Christiansburg Rescue Squad, please keep in mind that it is not simply people that are needed (there is a membership drive underway). It is people willing to make a commitment of time in training and in doing the job. To find out more about what opportunities exist where you can make a difference, try checking out some of these sources of information. Read the rest of this entry »

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on August 24, 2010 in Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, Local Government

 

Aug 23 Cburg Planning Commission Meeting at 5:30 pm. Topics include …

Christiansburg Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled to meet at 5:30pm on Monday August 23rd. The items on the menu, any of which is sure to create indigestion for someone is: Read the rest of this entry »

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on August 22, 2010 in Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, FOIA, Land Use, Local Government, VOTE, Your Tax Money

 

End of an Era: Councilwoman Carter leaves office

For 21 years Ms. Ann Carter has given of herself to the Town of Christiansburg. Had she chosen to run again this past May, she would have easily brought that total up to 25. Ms. Carter will be missed for many reasons, not the least of which is she has long been the single representative of the female population of the Town of Christiansburg to Town Council and the Planning Commission. Read the rest of this entry »

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 

Hire or Appoint? That is the question concerning the Christiansburg Rescue Chief.

Recently there have been a lot of discussions about the ‘hiring of the new Fire Chief’ and whether or not the Rescue Captain should be hired or elected. Despite all of the wonderful dialog Council has had and ideas generated, one little thing may need to be dealt with first. A little something called the Town Code. If you look at the code (see sections below) the Fire Chief is to be appointed by the Town Manager, not elected by the members of the squad, nor appointed by Town Council. Read the rest of this entry »

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on August 16, 2010 in Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, Local Government, VOTE, Your Tax Money

 

So much for campaign issues — The Post Election Mutation Process

Sidewalks were a significant part of the discussion prior to the May 4th Town of Christiansburg elections. The results of the Planning Commissions assignment to evaluate the proposed plan comes to the forefront on Monday, August 16, at 7:00 p.m. when the public is invited to participate and present their input. Thus far, the meetings where the discussions on this item received input from those few who showed up at the Planning Commission Meetings. Most of those people were developers. A common theme developed early in the process.

  • These are hard economic times and to raise the costs to developers (which would be passed on to the consumer) were not needed and would, in effect, be a ‘tax’.

Sidewalks, the absence of and the degradation of existing ones have long been topics with citizens and government. What started as a general discussion on a possible ordinance change requiring sidewalks in residential areas went through a series of transmutations that have let us with what will be presented to the public at this meeting. Although not available on the town’s website for quick and easy citizen access, I have been getting copies at each step along the way, and I am providing what I believe to be the most recent copy of the proposed amendment here. Note: this addresses Chapter 26 Subdivisions and Chapter 30 Zoning.

Within Chapter 26 Subdivisions, you will find proposed changes in bold print:

  • Sec. 26-7. Generally (d), (1) Dedications: added the phrase: Subdividers choosing the compact development option as detailed in Chapter 30 “Zoning” shall not be compensated for dedications exceeding ten percent.

Within Chapter 30 Zoning, you will find proposed changes in bold print:

  • Sec. 20-1. Definitions: Open space. Any space reserved for common use (as among a homeowners association or as common space in apartment complexes) as to provide for outdoor living, patios, pools, lawns, play areas, walks, wooded areas and the like, but not including driveways and parking areas with the exception of driveways and parking areas strictly for community buildings, picnic shelters, ball fields, trails, pools, and similar common use amenities located within the open space.
  • Article VII. Residential Manufactured Home Subdivision District R-MS, Sec. 30-63 Yards.: Sidewalks shall be required for all new development. The Zoning Administrator/Town Manager may waive this requirement in circumstances that sidewalks do not provide desired connectivity and/or are not physically practical due to site limitations provided the owner/developer makes a contribution in an amount approximate to the sidewalk installation cost to the Town of Christiansburg to be utilized for sidewalk improvements and/or repairs in other locations. The Zoning Administrator/Town Manager may refer the decision regarding the connectivity and/or practicality to the Planning Commission should there be any doubts. The Town Manager/Town Engineer shall make the determination of the approximate sidewalk installation cost. (Code 1972, § 30-63; Ord. of 6-20-89; Ord. 2007-1 of 4-3-07)
  • Article XXII. Miscellaneous Provisions. Sec. 30-200. Compact development option. (This whole section was added. Use the link to go to the document to see it in detail. Essentially, it is a voluntary option that allows developers to obtain higher density in exchange for providing sidewalks/trails in R-1A, R-1, R-2 and R-3 Residential Districts and MU-1 and MU-2 Mixed Use Districts. It specifically excludes any single-family residential and two-family residential development on existing public streets..)

You will note that rather than a Town-wide approach to requiring sidewalks in residential areas, it has become an isolated optional application for certain Zoning designations.

From the Feb. 2, 2010 Town Council Minutes Item 3 in Discussions (http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_02_02TC/2010_02_2TC4.html):

  • SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.  Councilman Showalter encouraged fellow Councilmembers to support adopting an ordinance that would require developers to place sidewalks in medium to high density subdivisions.  Councilman Stipes said he supports this as a requirement for all three residential zoning districts.  Councilman Barber commented that lack of sidewalks in Town is a common complaint of citizens and he would like to see this action taken immediately.  Councilman Vanhoozier suggested forming a committee to review the matter since it will require a change to Town ordinance.  Mayor Ballengee turned this matter over to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to Council within three months.

From the March 2, 2010 Town Council Minutes:http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_03_02TC/2010_03_2TC2.html

  • Mr. Craig Moore, Planning Commission Chairman, to address Council regarding open space and sidewalk requirements.  Mr. Craig Moore asked Town Council to clarify its direction that the Planning Commission review open space and sidewalk requirements (see Town Council Minutes of 2/16/10).  Per Mr. Moore, the Planning Commission is unclear as to whether the Town Council wants the Commission to study if open space and sidewalk requirements should be modified; or does Town Council want the open space and sidewalk requirements modified and it want the Planning Commission to focus on design standards.  If the direction was for the Planning Commission to focus on design standards, then the time involvement will be greater than three months.  Some of the areas that would need to be studied for a design plan for sidewalks are:  Cost, drainage, curb/gutter, maintenance, ditches, environmental impact, connectivity, and safety.  Minimum requirement threshold and usage would need to be studied for open space modification.  Mayor Ballengee, noting that Town Council needs to give the Planning Commission perimeters for review, turned to Councilman Showalter for comment.  Councilman Showalter suggested Town Council have a work session to review VDOT’s minimum standards on these issues as a starting point.  The Planning Commission would be involved with this work session.  A work session date of March 23, 2010 was determined by Council, with a time to be announced at a later date.

March 16 Town Council Minutes Town Manager Report: (http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_03_16TC/2010_03_16TC3.html)

  • TOWN MANAGER TERPENNY reported that a joint work session with the Planning Commission has been scheduled for March 23, 2010 from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M., to review and discuss VDOT standards, sidewalks, and green/open space.

March 23, 2010 Town Council – Planning Commission Work Session on Sidewalk Ordinance, no citizen comments allowed. Includes Power Point Presentation.) (http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_03_23TCWS/2010_03_23TCWS1.html) (3 parts). This set of videos holds the most information on what citizens have said and what has been seen in the neighborhoods. Even the Mayor indicated that he had clearly seen the need for sidewalks in his own neighborhood. And, the discussion was clearly concerning ALL residential developments. It was also pointed out that this ordinance could remove the ‘case-by-case’ application and create and even ‘playing field’. Currently a total of 4 miles of sidewalks exist with the boundaries of the town of 136 miles of roadway. This 4 miles includes those ‘crumbling sections of sidewalks in older areas of Town per the Town Manager. This was also the first time that ‘citizens might like this but developers not like it’ came up in any discussions and it was brought up by the Mayor. Additional discussion on green space indicated that some Council and Commission members felt that useable green space was key to any ordinance changes. The Town Manager advised that there are differences between green space, open space, and recreation space (either passive or active), but he did not provide definitions those terms. (Definitions found in Town Code follow) The discussion indicated some confusion as to what the State Code actually allowed and it was requested that more information be provided Council.

From the Christiansburg Town Code:

  • Open space. Any space reserved for common use (as among a homeowners association or as common space in apartment complexes) as to provide for outdoor living, patios, pools, lawns, play areas, walks, wooded areas and the like, but not including driveways and parking areas.
  • Required open space. Any space required in any front, side or rear yard or as delineated on an approved site plan or otherwise specified in this chapter.
  • Greenspace. Area of non-impervious surfaces. Landscaping/landscaped areas may be counted toward greenspace.
  • Recreation space (active or passive) not found.

That is all of the Town Council input that has occurred in the public eye, PRIOR TO THE ELECTION, on this matter and expresses the intent of Council in referring this to the Planning Commission for review.

Unfortunately, there are no minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting so the agendas will have to suffice (augmented, of course by those videos which are available):

  • Feb. 22, 2010 Planning Commission Agenda: 3) Consideration of amendment to the Christiansburg Town Code in regards to sidewalk requirements and open space requirements in Residential Districts. (No video available of this meeting.)

Arguments against requiring sidewalks in all new residential developments have included:

  1. Almost all land is already developed. There are few places where such an ordinance would apply. (No discussion of how this would also affect future lands annexed by the Town.)
  2. It would be a hardship on developers because it would cost more.
  3. It would be a hardship on home buyers because the cost would increase. (That pretty much gets rid of the argument of costing developers more because the cost would be passed on to consumers. And, is recouped by the property owner through increased home value upon resale.)
  4. Since there are few sidewalks in existing areas, there is no need to provide ‘connections’ with new developments.
  5. Who would be responsible for upkeep and maintenance of the sidewalks? Home owners or the Town?
  6. People do not use sidewalks now. (Yeah, it is a fairly common phenomenon that people do not use what does not exist.)
  7. Previously, the requirement in Commercial areas for sidewalks have not been fairly applied to all developers. Some did not have to do it and others did.
  8. Sidewalks being required for all is not appropriate where there are only one or a few lots in an area where there are no sidewalks. (This seems to have created the shift to new developments only.)
  9. VDOT does not hold jurisdiction over Christiansburg roadways and therefore VDOT criteria does not apply.
  10. Sidewalks could have a negative impact on on-street parking (which is allowed and encouraged throughout town – on-street parking is necessary where variances on setbacks provide for increased density of developments and more usable land for development).

At one point, it was mentioned that connectivity to existing sidewalks should be considered and a study to see exactly what sidewalks existed and where people are likely to go was suggested. Planning Director Wingfield noted that a document existed for this (developed YEARS ago) that already filled this purpose. (The concept of doing a current evaluation, including recent growth, died on the vine.) Very little of the discussion by the Planning Commission addresses the safety and well-being of citizens. Mostly, an audience driven discussion, the bulk of the focus was on the negative impact to developers.

This may or may not be an important issue to you. Regardless of your personal level of interest, this is certainly something that has a ‘community’ interest. Safe routes to school, the ability to be able to safely walk or ride a bike to key points within the community, saving a bit of gas money, exercising for your health (car dodging does NOT count as exercise), home values, the overall appearance of the town, impact on developers, and other issues abound. Why not take some time to look at one or more of these videos to see what is being discussed. Then come on out to the public meeting and express your views. In a community, every voice is important.



EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The Future Land Use Map and How to Abuse It.

Okay, I’ve done enough dancing around the subject of the Future Land Use Map. I’ve been nice, waiting to see what would be said or done. In the meantime, I’ve been reviewing, reviewing, and reviewing just to verify what I had found. Read the rest of this entry »

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 

Building a Retirement Package Christiansburg, VA Style!

There is so much talk going on with people asking “How in the world did this retirement package come to be?” that I went back through the Town Council Minutes for some insight. The retirement package for former Town Manger Terpenny is a function of his pay at the time of his ‘retirement’ and upon the types of programs that the Town Council has approved for employees. Read the rest of this entry »

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 

Let’s put the FUTURE back in the FUTURE Land Use Map.

(The videos of the Aug. 3, 2010 Planning Commission and Town Council are available online.)

If you have been to any of the Town meetings or listened to the videos, you will have heard reference to the “Future Land Use Map” for decision-making on rezoning issues.

One thing seems to keep getting missed in all of those discussions. The simple word “Future”. As a tool, the future land use map represents future growth for the town as it is needed. IT DOES NOT MEAN THE LAND HAS TO BE DEVELOPED TODAY. The Comprehensive Plan and this map, that is a piece of it, are a way of preparing for the future.

When faced with a decision on whether or not to rezone those areas designated for change in the future land use map, the Planning Commission and Town Council should perhaps look to the future as well as the present. Just because a piece of land is set for residential in the future does NOT mean that it is ‘right’ for that use today.

Some of the questions that I would like to see answered before such rezoning decisions are made are:

  1. Is more development currently needed?
  2. Is the infrastructure in place to support development at the proposed area?

In number 1, some additional things to look at would be what type of housing if proposed and what is the demand for that housing now? Simply building a bunch of homes that sit empty or become rentals just doesn’t meet with my understanding of residential development. If you want to put up student rental housing, then do that but do it openly and honestly. Say that is your intention. Otherwise, if there are tons of homes in the proposed price range sitting empty in town already, then why push to build more?

Number 2 above brings us to many of the issues and complaints that have been brought forth in recent years. Making decisions based upon what VDoT or any other group may do in the near future is pure gambling. Development decision have previously been made with the understanding that ‘X & such’ road would be widened or extended in the near future. Well, 10 years later many people are still waiting for those improvements but the developments have progressed and problems have arisen.

Number 2 also points to the area of making sure that sufficient services (water, sewer, garbage, etc.) already exist OR the funding for improvements are available and earmarked specifically for that use. Making plans to add or enhance services is pretty meaningless if the money required is either not available or is redirected to some other project and the projects needed to support new development are pushed aside for some future date when resources MAY be available.

Let me reiterate that fact that FUTURE LAND USE does not mean that the changes have to occur today, tomorrow, or next week. It must be carefully balanced against the needs of the Town to accommodate growth AND the ability of the Town to support such growth.

I think it is time for the question to change from “Does the rezoning match the Future Land Use Map?” to add to that “Does the need exist today to warrant making the change and can the town effectively respond to the needs generated by such a change. While the change in zoning may be right, it may not be right for today.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on August 5, 2010 in Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, Land Use, Local Government

 

Tags: , ,

August 3 Planning Commission and Town Council Meeting

You really need to take the time to watch the videos or show up at the meetings to really get a good understanding of everything.  The newspapers and blogs can only give you bits and pieces of the whole process. Unfortunately, time and space constraints mean that neither newspapers nor bloggers can give you the full story. What is provided generally focuses on certain ‘key issues’, but are those the issues that are key to you?

I try to focus on key issues, particularly those relating to the statutes and codes because I find them so fascinating. I learn something new about them every single day. In the first psychology course that I took I learned one key lesson about being human. ‘ There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion’. Every piece of information presented to you through someone else is either intentionally or unintentionally screened through the values and beliefs of the person giving that information. Being unbiased is a goal to work towards but is never achievable. Some people come closer to that goal than others.

Enough of that, now on to my ‘not totally unbiased, but striving’ report of today’s activities:)

The Planning Commission met at 3pm today but did not have the quorum necessary to take any action such a voting on a recommendation to the Town Council. After some discussion on other items not requiring a vote, the meeting was continued to 6:30pm. At 6:30pm there was still no quorum but shortly after 7pm a 4th member appeared and the 3 items to be voted on were addressed. PC voted to recommend approval of the Main Street Baptist Church and the 1225-C Roanoke St game room Conditional Use Permits.

A major ‘hitch in the get along’ occurred when a motion to approve the rezoning of the Albert Land, LP property (Ivy Ridge/Sage Lane) died on the table without a 2nd to the motion.

At the Town Council meeting the 2 items with PC recommendation to approve passed handily with only a little bit of discussion. A second ‘hitch in the get along’ involving the Albert Land property came up the motion was made to approve but after a lengthy discussion, the motion was pulled from the table and, instead, it was decided that the issue should be returned to the PC for another assessment and possible recommendation in 2 weeks. It was verified that there was ample time for this to occur without TC losing control of the situation and having it default in favor of the developer due to in action.

Unfortunately, sending this back to PC only means that the PC will need to vote or possibly end up with another ‘no vote’ or tie situation. The public hearing has already occurred so no modifications to proffers can be made without starting the process over and holding another public meeting with any new proffers included.

Part of the discussion centered around the issues that all of those nice drawings are pretty worthless if there are not things in the proffers that insure that the concepts such as greenspace, trails, etc. would be followed. (If you want to see the particular issues that Mr. Barber and Mr. Stipes pointed out, you’ll have to watch the videos which I am working on while I write this – hopefully, they will be available early tomorrow.) Once the property is rezoned, the developer can do any by-right development desired. There is no guarantee that there would be any sort of special development requiring a CUP with TC could have some control over. The 4 per acre proffered in the rezoning request, is the same that is required in the requested rezoning. Where the drawings display extensive green space and open space (20-30%) it was not proffered as such so when the subdivision ordinance is applied, it could actually be developed with a minimum of 10% green space. This is a perfect example of how it is that people believe one thing is going to happen but something else is the reality. And, it is all perfectly legal.

I’ll let you know when the videos are ready, in the meantime, suffice it to say that the Albert Land deal is doing a great imitation of a Carousel, going round and round without making any forward or backwards progress. (This soap opera may ultimately top the Edge of Night for run time.)

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 

Tags: , , , , ,