There will be a Public Hearing on a  Zoning Ordinance change before Christiansburg Town Council at their next meeting. The Planning Commission has already had a Public Hearing and last night (1/30/12) they voted on their recommendation to Town Council on that change in zoning ordinance. The vote was a tied: 4 members voted against and 4 voted for the Zoning Change. The proposed change will go to Council with no recommendation by the Planning Commission. On the other hand, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to endorse a CUP contingent upon that Zoning change for a large apartment complex in one specific area. I personally believe that the application is correct for the land it is proposed for, but I have some problems with the changing of a Town Zoning Code in order to allow it to happen.

So, what was the change? Well, I’ve included a copy of the proposed change, 2012 District B3 Zoning Change to allow high density residential and it pertains to Article XII. General Business District B-3, Section 30-100. Permitted uses of the Christiansburg Town Code.

The long and short of it is that the proposed code amendment would add this statement: “and for multi-family dwellings, the density of development shall not exceed the ratio of twenty dwelling units per gross acre.”

How does that affect citizens? To really see the potential impact of such a zoning change you need to take a look at the current zoning map. (Since I had some difficulties getting the Town’s page for this to load on my computer, I’ve provided an extra copy here of that document: 2011 Christiansburg, VA Zoning Map.

You really have to look at the map in order to see what properties are potentially affected by this change, which properties will have the door opened for high density residential development. On the map, it is all of those areas designated in “Red” color which includes a large volume of land.

Then, take a look at all of the land currently zoned as R3 (Multi-Family Residential which is “Yellow” on the map). These sections provide for a maximum density of multi-family dwellings of 10 dwelling units per gross acre (per Christiansburg Town Article VI. Multiple-Family Residential District R-3, Section 30-48).

Next note that there are 2 other designations on the Zoning Map: MU-1 (see Article VIII. Mixed Use: Residential-Limited Business District MU-1, Section 30-69 which allows up to 10 dwelling units per gross acre) and MU-2 (see Article IX. Mixed Use: Residential-Limited Business-Limited Industrial District MU-2, Sec. 30-80, which, again, has a maximum of 10 dwelling units per gross acre). What is most important is to look at exactly how much acreage is actually committed to these Zoning types. You’ll be hard pressed to even find them on the map!!! And yet, these two designations were implemented as a means of providing a location for high-density development!!!

These other areas share the common “10 dwelling units per gross acre” and one other feature. They are limited to a maximum of 2 unrelated individuals sharing a residence.

Now, looking at the Town Code (Article XII. General Business District B-3), Sec. 30-99 Statement of intent. provides this:

This district covers that portion of the community intended for the conduct of general business to which the public requires direct and frequent access, but which is not characterized either by constant heavy trucking other than stocking and delivery of light retail goods or by any nuisance factors other than occasioned by incidental light and noise of congregation of people and passenger vehicles. This district shall include such uses as retail stores, banks, theaters, business offices, newspaper offices, printing presses, restaurants and taverns and garages and service stations. In view of the extensive application of the district and the variety of conditions which may be anticipated, residential uses are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. (Code 1972, § 30-77; Ord. 2004-4 of 9-7-04, § 30-77)

As noted previously, the proposed change in the Zoning Ordinance pertains to Article XII. General Business District B-3 Sec. 30-111 would take the existing Code (Section 30-100. Permitted uses. (a) and change it from the original text:

(a) Any principal use permitted in the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District, with a Conditional Use Permit, except that  uses permitted as conditional uses in the R-3 District but permitted as of right in the B-3 District shall not require a
Conditional Use Permit. Dwellings are subject to the same requirements as in the R-3 District except that a single-family dwelling in association with a permitted office, business or commercial use, in the same building or on the same premises for use by the proprietor or an employee of said business shall be permitted but not subject to said requirements, including one unrelated individual per unit.

to allow for “multi-family dwellings, the density of development shall not exceed the ratio of the twenty dwelling units per gross acre”.

Granted, it will require a Conditional Use Permit which means that depending upon who is in office and how they feel about a particular proposal may be the determining factor in what happens in a neighborhood near you, or in YOUR neighborhood. It also means that citizens will be dependent upon the Town for monitoring and enforcement of the Conditions. (yeah, right, like if a condition gets violated the Town will make someone tear down a bunch of apartment buildings and restore the land). In fact, what would happen if there were violations such as 5 unrelated people sharing the same dwelling? Are there fines? Or, are they just unenforceable words stuck on paper to look good?

Go ahead and take a look at the map. See what areas of Town could be affected by a change in the Zoning Ordinance. Stop and think about traffic problems, the overcrowding of schools, the lack of pedestrian access, limited bus service, impact on existing infrastructure such as water and sewer, and general quality of life related to growth. Of course, given the current economy, it could be that people move out of their homes and into apartments, leaving a lot of empty houses.

At the public hearing, to be held on 2/7/12, Town Council will allow citizens to speak up on the proposed Code change and on the Conditional Use Permit. The packet for that meeting is not available online yet, but it will be there soon. You may want to check the Town’s website often so that you can see what documents Town Council will have before them, or browse through the documents that have been included as part of the Planning Commission Packets for the Jan 30th, and Jan. 23th meetings when these were discussed.

You can also look at the videos of those Planning Commission meetings (http://myvaresources.com/Town%20of%20Cburg/NEWAudioVideo.htm), or Jan. 23rd Planning Commission Videos,  and, Jan. 30th Planning Commission Videos are right here:

The Weldon Cooper Center keeps track of building permits data for Virginia jurisdictions and the data I found for 2010 was quite surprising. Of the 27 Towns for which data is provided, a total of 295 units  (est. cost of $41,632,373) were reported. Of that number, Christiansburg had the highest number of units at 103 (est. cost of $9,199,311). The next highest units were recorded for Herndon at 41 (est. cost of $6,551,000), then Warrenton at 30 (est. cost of $3,700,000). (Building permits do not necessarily mean that the unit has been constructed, it simply shows that someone put forth the time and money involved to start the process.)

On the same data chart, there is information on Counties and Cities as well. With the County data, the numbers for the Towns are included in the County total. So, where Montgomery County shows a total of 169 units (est. cost of $27,509,926). So, if Christiansburg contributed 103  to that total, 136 were left over for Blacksburg and the County as a whole. (Blacksburg contributed 21 (est. cost of $6,631,615).

Although the estimated cost for building for Montgomery County was $27,509,926, the Town of Christiansburg only contributed to $9,199,311 of that total. So, roughly 33 % of the building costs total of Montgomery County was related to Christianburg building. Yet, 60% of the total number of units for the County were designated in Christiansburg.

What does this mean for citizens? Well, it could well mean that Christiansburg’s growth would have a two fold impact on schools. First, the potential number of students entering into the school system is likely to be significantly impacted by these 103 total units. In fact, using the numbers, 33% of the growth impact on student population could come from Christiansburg.

Secondly, since cost of building is directly related to value of the home, the lower costs of homes in Christiansburg are likely to sell at lower values than those in other parts of the county. This means lower revenue for the County to apply to such things as, yep, you guessed it, schools. Ultimately, this could result in an increase in taxes to offset the demands.

Christiansburg and Blacksburg are Towns and as such do NOT have their own school systems. Montgomery County (and therefore all residents of Montgomery County) carry the burden for those schools. That burden includes the cost of building, repairing, maintaining, expanding, etc. as well as the day-to-day cost of such things as utilities to schools, ground maintenance, maintenance of sports fields, and more.

Building more affordable housing has long been the goal for Christiansburg. But perhaps it is time to really look at the price ranges and see if there might not be enough housing in the lower price range (just drive around and look at the number of these properties that are empty now) and look towards spending some time looking at more moderate or high price range developments.

If Christiansburg doesn’t take the time to look at the impact its growth has on its neighbors and, in particular, the County as a whole (since Christiansburg residents do pay County taxes as well as Town) residents should not be surprised at increases in property taxes.

Next … hmmm…let me look and see what else is here:)

Other issues have examples of how to use spreadsheets to manage data for such things as public input, saving a lot of money. Contributing authors include public employees, contractors, reporters, educators, and citizens so that issues such as open government, plain text writing, public outreach and information, and simply understanding the concept of land use planning are shown from different perspectives. If you’ve ever tried to make sense of the ‘alphabet soup’ of the rfp/rfq process, then there is an article covering that topic, in earlier issues. (Although sold as a journal, copies of individual back issues are also available.)

Described as “Popular Mechanics Meets Planning”, the journal does bring the planning process into a form that makes the process more understandable for citizens. It also helps governments to understand the role of citizens and their input in the process of planning. Where possible, the jargon had been eliminated. Where that could not be done, definitions of those “key words and catching phrases” are provided.

Whether you are a professional in the field of planning, an elected or appointed government official who is involved in planning, or simply a citizen who wants to know what their government is doing, The Community Planner has something to offer you. Perhaps even more importantly though, it helps to start building a communication bridge between government and citizens. Why heck! Even your everyday little gray-haired old lady citizen activist will find a wealth of useful information. (Yepper, I’m talking about myself there.)

This is an excerpt from Volume I Issue 3 of The Community Planner. It is from an article on a citizen’s perspective of open government that I wrote and includes some of the tips and tricks I have learned over the past few years. It also includes some of the “watch out for things” that governments can use to insure they are not being perceived as being secretive.

If your jurisdiction does not have a website, there is a good likelihood that another area in your state does have. Taking the time to look at some of those websites can provide you with invaluable information as to they types of documents that can be available and what information those documents should contain. I will discuss another source for discovering what documents might be available to you in another section.”

To see some of the topics covered here are the cover pages and table of contents for the first 3 issues:

Volume 1 Number 1 – Fall 2010
Volume 1 Number 2 – Winter 2011
Volume 1 Number 3 – Spring 2011

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:

There is a website available that is a good resource in understand land use issues. HousingVirginia.org.  In particular, I have found their Glossary of Housing Words and Terms to be very helpful. For instance, here is the definition for Conditional Use Permit.

• conditional use permit
  A conditional use permit (CUP) is granted by a municipality to authorize a development type or land use on a specific lot that would not otherwise have been permitted by the underlying zoning code. In many cases, the permit is granted only upon the fulfillment of certain conditions. For example, the developer of a multifamily project may receive permission to build at a higher density than ordinarily allowed in exchange for the inclusion of a modest share of affordable homes in the development.

The Conditional Use Permit essentially becomes a trade-off, the property owner wants to do something that does not conform to the use of the property as it is currently zoned. The person comes up with offers of something that the jurisdiction deems beneficial to offer in exchange for being allowed to  apply the use that is not within the by right use under the zoning designation. Seems simple? Not so much. There are certain criteria that must be met in evaluating the impact and the conditions must be related to that impact.

For a clearer and far more extensive discussion on the Special/Conditional Use Permit, go to the website of Albemarle County Virginia’s County Attorney webpage and look at the Land Use Law Handbook. Specifically, look at Chapter 12 of this multi-section document. (I wonder how many of our Town Council or Planning Commission members have made use of this document?) The materials are presented in an easy to read manner and State Code is clearly cited as are relevant Court cases. Special/Conditional Use Permits are used interchangeable although they are somewhat different.

With Special Use Permits, the Zoning Ordinance contains special exemptions to a particular Zoning designation to which Special Use Permits can be applied. These exemptions are clearly defined in the Zoning Ordinance as a list of uses that can be applied with Special Use Permits. The Christiansburg Town Code does this using the term Conditional Use Permit in many of the Zoning areas, where you find that ‘X & Such” can be done although it is not a by right use by using a Conditional Use Permit. The Christiansburg Town Code also allows for a multitude of unlisted variations which can be done if the person presents a Conditional Use Permit that is approved.

On the first page of Chapter 12 Key Principles About Special Use Permits are carefully laid out. This is a list of 6 primary criteria that are components of such permits.  In particular for this article  are the second, fourth and fifth ones in that list:

• “Uses allowed by special use permit are considered to have a potentially greater impact than those allowed as a matter of right.”
• “Impacts from special uses are addressed through conditions.”
• “Conditions must be reasonably related to the impacts to be addressed, and the extent of the conditions must be roughly proportional to the impacts”

Page 2 provides a list of those “Uses for Which a Locality May Not Require a Special Use Permit”. Of particular note here is 6th in the list: “As a condition of approval of a subdivision plat, site plan or building permit for a residential development where the dwellings meet the use, height and density requirements allowed by right, with exceptions in Virginia Code § 15.2-2288.1.” This is what has created quite a few disgruntled citizens in Christiansburg where developers have talked about designs and Conditions under a Conditional Use Permit that never materialized after the land was re-zoned at the developer’s request.

A search of the Christiansburg Town Code yields:

Definition of Special use permit.  See Conditional Use Permit. (That wasn’t very helpful because Conditional Use Permit isn’t in the definitions. Instead it is found in Sec. 30-8 of the Town Code:

Sec. 30-8. Conditional Use Permits.   Where so stated by this chapter, the location of permitted uses shall require, in addition to the zoning permit and certificate of occupancy, a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Town Council when authorized as herein after provided.  A Conditional Use Permit should be approved only if it is permitted as a conditional use in the district regulations and only if it is found that the location is appropriate and not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, that the public health, safety, and general welfare will not be adversely affected, that adequate utilities and off-street parking facilities will be provided, and that necessary safeguards will be provided for the protection of surrounding property, persons, and neighborhood values, and further provided that the additional standards of this chapter are complied with.  In approving a Conditional Use Permit the Town Council may impose such reasonable conditions as it believes necessary to accomplish the intent of this chapter.  Unless otherwise specified in this chapter or specified as a condition of approval, the height limits, yard spaces, lot area, and sign requirements shall be the same as for other uses in the district in which the proposed conditional use is located. In determining the conditions to be imposed, the Town Council shall take into consideration the intent of this chapter and may impose reasonable conditions that:  abate or restrict noise, smoke, dust, or other elements that may affect surrounding property; establish setback requirements necessary for orderly expansion; prevent or alleviate traffic congestion; provide for adequate parking and ingress and egress to public streets or roads; provide adjoining property with a buffer or shield from view of the proposed use if such use is considered to be detrimental to adjoining property; tend to prevent such use from changing the character and established pattern of development of the community.

Any use listed as requiring approval of a Conditional Use Permit and which use legally exists at the effective date of the regulations of this chapter shall be considered a nonconforming use unless it has been approved as a conditional use by the Town Council.  Conditional Use Permits may be revoked by the Town Council, Town Manager, or Zoning Administrator if the conditions of such permit are not fulfilled.  Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to compel the Town Council to issue a Conditional Use Permit.  Conditional Use Permits approved shall be subject to administrative review on an annual basis.  The Town Council, Town Manager, and Zoning Administrator are authorized to require supplemental Conditional Use Permit(s) if questions of compliance should arise regarding any provision of this chapter.  (Code 1972, § 30-8; Ord. of 6-2-98; Ord. of 4-20-99)

Page 3, last paragraph of the Law Use Handbook provides the minimum standards which should be applied: (1) “the impacts of the special use on the character of the district; (2) the impacts of the special use on the welfare of the landowners and occupants of land in the district … ; and (3) consistency with the comprehensive plan”. … Other factors which MAY be considered are ” (1) the character of the property; (2) the general welfare of the public; and (3) the economic development of the community. …”

Page 7 provides a list of Five Reasonable Grounds to Deny a Special use Permit which include: inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, adversely impacts character of neighborhood, adversely impacts road or creates “hazardous traffic situation”, adversely impacts abutting property.

One excerpt from the Virginia State Code:

§ 15.2-2296. Conditional zoning; declaration of legislative policy and findings; purpose.

It is the general policy of the Commonwealth in accordance with the provisions of § 15.2-2283 to provide for the orderly development of land, for all purposes, through zoning and other land development legislation. Frequently, where competing and incompatible uses conflict, traditional zoning methods and procedures are inadequate. In these cases, more flexible and adaptable zoning methods are needed to permit differing land uses and the same time to recognize effects of change. It is the purpose of §§ 15.2-2296 through 15.2-2300 to provide a more flexible and adaptable zoning method to cope with situations found in such zones through conditional zoning, whereby a zoning reclassification may be allowed subject to certain conditions proffered by the zoning applicant for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned. The exercise of authority granted pursuant to §§ 15.2-2296 through 15.2-2302 shall not be construed to limit or restrict powers otherwise granted to any locality, nor to affect the validity of any ordinance adopted by any such locality which would be valid without regard to this section. The provisions of this section and the following six sections shall not be used for the purpose of discrimination in housing.

(1978, c. 320, § 15.1-491.1; 1997, c. 587.)

These all show that conditions MUST be part of the Conditional Use Permit. Otherwise, you are not looking at Conditional Use, you are looking at “Spot Zoning” which is, ah…oh, yeah, Illegal! As noted on the Rezoning Application for Bristol Virginia planning Commission form as a notice to applicants: “The Planning Commission cannot grant requests for “Spot Zoning” which has been defined by the Supreme Court as:”

“Spot Zoning is the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area, for benefit of owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners, and, as such is the very antithesis of planned zoning.”

What does all of this have to do with the Town of Christiansburg? Well, I finally got the copy of the CUP Index (required by State Code) that is kept at Town Hall. That data is available in .pdf format at http://myvaresources.com/Special/CUPs_Zoning%20Permits.pdf. Please feel free to check the following data:

• Since 1962 a total of 621 Conditional Use Permits have been submitted (111 from 2005 thru 2010 – 18% of the 1962 thru 2010 total)
• 446 of those were approved (97from 2005 thru 2010 – 22% of the 1962 thru 2010 total)
• 175 were not approved (denied, withdrawn, etc.) (14 from 2005 thru 2010 -8% of the 1962 thru 2010 total)
• Of the 621 Total CUPs from 1962 thru 2010, 180 (29%) of those have no information in one column, the column used to identify the # of conditions. Of those 180, 14 specifically denote that there are no conditions associated with the Conditional Use Permits, the remainder are just left blank.
• Of the 621 Total CUPs: 72 had  1 condition, 26 had 2 conditions, 35 had 3 conditions, 30 had 4 conditions, 18 had 5 conditions, 17 had 6 conditions, 7 had 12 conditions, 11 had 8 conditions, 11 had 9 conditions, 10 had 10 conditions, 9 had 11 conditions, 9 had 12 conditions, 3 had 13 conditions, 2 had 14 conditions, 0 had 15 conditions, 0 had 16 conditions, and 1 had 18 conditions.

I’ll let you do the math from there and plug the numbers into the definitions. For myself, I’ll assume that at best, there is a lot of missing information and a fair few cases of Spot Zoning. Too bad the actual conditions are not listed on the sheet so that they could be monitored for compliance easily by the Town. Fortunately, a lot of this information can be found in the records that I FOIA’d from the Town so I can look at some of the stuff before planning a lengthy work session at Town Hall to try to fill in the blanks. (see chart to get an idea of frequency of CUPs over time and whether they were approved or not)

A Public Hearing is being held on April 5 for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) for a private Farmer’s Market (not a Town enterprise). The agenda packet contained several documents pertaining to that CUP. All looked pretty straight-forward and direct until I got to a copy of the proposed CUP. That is the point where I entered the Twilight Zone.

I looks as if the CUP conditions provided were simply cut-and-pasted from another CUP. There are 13 conditions that are all suitable, but do not included those issues specifically noted in the 30 minute section of the Planning Commission meeting where the CUP was discussed. Perhaps the most important thing missing is the issue of parking. Parking was a large part of the discussion by Planning Commission and specific wording of a condition was developed to insure that parking met existing code requirements “as amended”. This “as amended” would allow for future code modifications to address the specific needs of such a market. It would take too long to go through the process of a code modification at this point and would push the opening of the farmer’s market back to where much of the season would be lost.

Other issues discussed was adding conditions to insure compliance with building code, fire code, health department regulations and other regulatory criteria applicable to a farmer’s market.

In essence, what the Town is doing is developing a CUP for a specific use in lieu of changing the Town Code to provide for Farmer’s Markets until such time as a Code change can be made to include such markets.

The primary purpose of a CUP is to look at one specific use that is not allowed by Code but could fit within a specific location. What that means is that each and every CUP should be specific to the use proposed. It should not be a cut-and-paste, nor should it be a standard of “well, we did it before and we can do it the same way again.” It is UNIQUE and should be treated that way.

One of the conditions in the Town’s version (that version of the CUP submitted to Council in the packet) addresses hours of operation to be sunrise to sunset with no number of days mentioned, the document provided by the requester of the CUP gives tentative hours of operation as being from 8am to 2pm with setup starting at 7am and specifies that it would be for Saturdays only at this point with another weekday to be considered in the future.

In order to see the missing pieces of this puzzle and issues that may come up at the Joint Public Hearing or at the Planning Commission Meeting held directly after that or at the Town Discussion of it prior to the Town Council vote, you might want to take a few minutes to look at  the videos of the Planning Commission meeting where this CUP was to have been developed (discussion begins at minute 9 of the 1st video and continues for another section. There are a lot of things missing in this CUP presented to Town Council.

Issues such as current parking would only allow approximately 12 vendors while the concept map in the packet addresses 29 Vendors requiring 116 parking spaces which is in addition to those parking spaces already required by Corrine’s -25 spaces and American Mulch-1 space. This comcept map also shows that the actual parking provided is a total of 62 for Corrines & Farmer’s Market and 7 for American Mulch. Unfortunately, with Montgomery County Public Schools being unable to open their area for customer parking, parking becomes a significant issues.

Issues such as another map showing how all parking within a 600 ft radius can be considered as off-site parking with that radius extending into residential areas. Or, such as hours of operation being at sunrise when the property is adjacent to residential areas.

(Some have said that those properties are just rentals so don’t count. NO! All citizens have rights, even those who rent.)

It is likely that the Town Council Meeting on Tuesday, April 5, 2011 @ 7:30pm (Town Hall) will be interesting. The Town Council Meeting will open and Public Hearings will be held. Then there will be an adjournment of Council and the Planning Commission will hold their meeting. This is the time when the Planning Commission can come back to request additional conditions that may have been omitted in the copy provided to Town Council. Then, Town Council will go back in session and the CUP conditions will be read (including any changes) and voting will occur. (I’m afraid that the extra questions that may come up and additional discussion may make your meeting run late, Mr. Mayor.)

While I have no problem with the need for and implementation of a Farmer’s Market, I do have some trouble with the fact that a cut-and-paste approach, that virtually ignores the concerns of the Planning Commission was the document presented to Town Council and the Public. I just checked again and no amendment to the CUP has been provided that includes the recommendations of the Planning Commission.

This behavior is disrespectful of the Planning Commission, Town Council, and citizens. All of those groups should have a complete document before them in order to fully understand what is happening. With the process thus initiated, using a CUP that is not representative of the work done by Planning Commission or citizen concerns, all parties have to go through the inconvenience of ‘re-doing’ what has already been done (a waste of time for all), and it does not fully inform citizens of what will be happening in their community and in a specific neighborhood.

Christiansburg has moved so strongly of late to an era of open government and citizen participation, it makes this type of behavior standout significantly for it’s lack of transparency, lack of providing accurate information, and lack of open government. Citizens should not have to guess at what is going on. One such instance should not be taken as a ‘relapse’. Old habits are hard to break. It could well be that it was just a matter of running out of time to write a location specific CUP during the week since that Planning Commission Meeting, but it will require extra time at the meeting to get changes made. Or, it could be doing things the way that they have always been done. Either way, my hope is that it is a situation that does not become a pattern. Having documents put on the website by the Town is a great service to citizens and is to be encouraged. But, please, please make sure the information is correct. This is the only instance of this sort that I have noticed and I hope that it is simply a one time occurrence.

Keeping the Sunlight in is one of the best ways to make sure that citizens are “informed and engaged”. Christianburg has made great strides in working towards that goal!

Whether you are a planning professional, an elected or appointed official, or a citizen who wants to have more information and be an active participant in your government, The Community Planner has something to offer you. It is provided on a CD-Rom so there is plenty of room for templates, worksheets, and examples. These articles are written in plain text and definitions/explanations are provided. A variety of formats are used including document files, spreadsheets, and presentations so that you can simply adapt the samples for your own use. Links are provided to a wide range of websites where additional information can be obtained including, but not limited to, how different different jurisdiction’s laws affect the process. By using your imagination, I feel sure that you can find many ways to use these tools beyond just Planning.

Two members of the steering committee members for the Farmer’s Market, Tacy Newell (Tacy Newell-Foutz) and  Barry Robinson, were present at the March 15, 2011 Town Council Meeting. (A third member, Keith Mileski, was not present at the meeting.) These are the individuals who will be planning and implementing the market. They requested that the Town absorb the cost of the CUP (Conditional Use Permit) required to put the proposed Farmer’s Market at the chosen location.

The cost of the CUP ($500) is designed to recoup those expenses incurred by the Town for publication of notices and handling of documents required to process the CUP. While the Town cannot legally ‘waive’ such a fee, they can absorb it (essentially pay it for the applicant), resulting in no charges to the applicant.

A while back I set up a survey to elicit public information on the development of a Farmer’s Market and the information was to be provided to Town Council for use in making decisions that pertain to any role the Town might have in that Market. You can still participate in that survey if you wish: Farmer’s Market Survey.

With 80 respondents to the survey:

• 98.8% of respondents stated that they would shop at such a market
• 66% felt it should be open 2 days per week and 34% felt that 1 day was enough

The rest of the results are in a format that allows for input rather than making choices so is a bit more complex to analyze. However, I will note that many people wanted to make sure that the market was not in direct competition with the markets already located at the Livestock Market and that evening hours to maintained allowing those who work days to participate. Being non-competitive with other area farmer’s markets was noted as a concern because scheduling on the same days & times would make it harder for local producers to maximize their sales. One weekend day and one week day were the top choices. Another key issue for potential customers was that parking had to be sufficient.

One concern was identified i about the cost of such a market to the Town. Well, it has been made clear that the Town of Christiansburg is not floating this ship! Independent citizens, one of which just happens to also be a Town Council Member, are putting this together. Please note that Mr. Huppert is doing this as a citizen, not as a representative of the Town or Town Council and appears to be in an “Advisory” capacity. The Town will not be involved in funding or management of the endeavor. In fact, because of Conflict of Interest laws, it is possible that Mr. Huppert will choose to abstain from voting (to prevent any perception of conflict of interest) on any issues that do come before Town Council concerning the Farmer’s Market.

This doesn’t mean that the Town can or cannot do anything. The Town will have to be involved in any licensing, conditional use permits, re-zonings, or code changes that may be required. But, this is no different than the activities required for any private or non-profit business.

The Christiansburg Farmer’s Market is not a service provided by the Town of Christiansburg, it is a private enterprise so contacting the Town for information will not give you much help:) Instead, contact information is provided in the following links as is the information concerning who the people are to contact. Use these contacts in order to find out more or to obtain updates on the process.

NRV Grown Blog (Contact information: Persons interested in selling at the Farmers Market in Christiansburg are encouraged to call (540) 391-0678 (O-NRV) or email nrvgrown@gmail.com.

NRV Grown on facebook

Thinkchristiansburg: Ideas Need Coordinated Action to Establish Farmers Market

Depotdazed: Christiansburg’s Farmer’s Market: Start with a firm foundation.

Roanoke Times Article: Growing a farmers market in Christiansburg

Photo Album of Proposed Site as it Develops (watch for changes)

Roanoke Times: Christiansburg farmers market seeking participants (Contact information: For more information, contact Councilman Steve Huppert at 382-6593, or hupps440@aol.com.)

Town Council Meeting 3/15/11 where discussion was held

Planning Commission Meeting 3/21/11 where discussion on CUP was held (coming soon…I hope:)

The next big ‘hurdle’ that the Farmer’s Market needs to get over will be the Joint Public Hearing and vote by both the Planning Commission and Town Council at the Town Council Meeting scheduled for April 5, 2011 at 7:30pm. The location is at Christiansburg Town Hall in Council Chambers. Parking may remain an issue as negotiations between the “NRVGrown” group and possible rental of additional parking had not been resolved at the time of this meeting. The number of vendor stands determines the number of parking spaces required (4 per stand according to Town Code) and the number of stands available will be directly affected by the number of parking spaces that are available.

The most important question I have heard from people working through the exercise is that they do not understand why there seems to be duplication of things in the different sections. There are several reasons for that to have occurred.

First, and foremost, the process of working with a budget is a system process. That means that everything affects everything else. A town is not comprised of individual parts and pieces. It is comprised of parts and pieces that interact with other parts and pieces. For instance, if you are thinking in terms of trying to increase the number/types of events that bring non-residents into Christiansburg, there will be more people in town. This influx of people will likely increase revenues for the Town via sales taxes, meals taxes, and hotel taxes. Those people will arrive by car (for the most part) which means more vehicles on the road. This will result in (please remember this is just one example of how this can apply):

• increased traffic congestion
• increased wear and tear on the roads
• increased demands for parking
• increased number of vehicle related accidents
• increased number of people who could become sick while here
• increased amount of garbage produced
• increased amount of water and sewer usage
• increased other things that are too numerous to mention:)

That means that the potential revenue needs to be evaluated in light of the potential costs. What costs? Taking the above list and thinking in terms of what taxpayer funded services are affected I come up with this list:

• impact on law enforcement (more personnel, more overtime pay, wear and tear on vehicles)
• possibly altering traffic patterns or adding traffic calming measures requiring services for design, building, supplies, equipment, personnel, etc
• number of emergency response vehicles and personnel necessary to have available
• maintenance or replacement of Town vehicles due to greater usage
• upgrading or adding to existing water and sewer systems

No single item can be changed without having an impact on other areas. This is why you may see the same or similar item listed below one of the groups listed in the $100 exercise. Along with that is the impact upon citizens directly. It could mean standing in checkout lines longer. It could mean modifying your schedule for routine activities to bend around the impact of having more people in town. It could mean leaving earlier and returning later when it comes to getting to work or to meetings. Nothing is gained without some cost somewhere in the process. The role of good government is to be aware of all the potential impacts and to make decisions that result in the greatest benefit with the least amount of negative impact. This DOES NOT mean forcing all of the negatives onto one small group of people, it means spreading the negatives around so that no smaller section of the whole carries the entire weight of those negatives in order to gain positives for the whole. It DOES NOT mean creating a huge benefit for one segment of the Town at the cost of all. It is a balancing act of insuring that all citizens share in the costs and the benefits. AND, most importantly, where ever possible the benefits MUST exceed the costs.

Another contributing factor to what appears to be duplication is the fact that the basic platform used during the citizen input portion of the process (see the videos of the December 14, 2010 public meeting at: Part 1 & Part 2) was built upon the Town Council’s Vision 2020 document that was created by Town Council while at a retreat. Unfortunately, since it was constructed without public input, a crucial feature was deleted from the process, the values and needs of citizens.

The last portion of this Priority-Based Budgeting Public Meeting was not recorded by the Town. However, (drum roll please) Yep. I got got it. It comprised almost 3 hours and the first 1 hr and 20 minutes are pretty much a lot of deadspace because it was the time during which the audience was asked to respond to specific questions in writing. The written statements were then clustered into primary groups for the rest of the session. The sections that I have posted are where the consultants put those responses together in clusters so that we could see all the input. You will see that I have added text on the video to indicate the general topic of the section. Links to these videos can be found in the 2010 listing section on my main video page.

What I noticed during that section was that people have very different perceptions of what was meant when the questions were asked. Business people see it one way, general citizens see it a different way, and town staff have yet another perspective. There is nothing wrong with there being different perspectives, in fact it is normal and healthy. The trick is in creating a synthesis of those perspectives that encompass all of the varying values

There are a lot of ‘keywords & catchy phrases” used in that document that can have a lot of different meanings. While it is possible that Council Members discussed those and made sure they were on the same page (using the same definitions, for words like progressive community, revitalized downtown, commerce, tourism, and many more such words and phrases), there is no way to verify that fact. When the document was unveiled for the public, there is no list of definitions to make sure that all citizens understood what these terms mean. Agreement to the meaning of such words and phrases is the first step towards compiling an effective document.

If you want to have some fun, just start asking people how they define those terms as they apply to Christiansburg. I did it and came up with a tremendous variety of answers. Then, I started asking people about those terms/phrases in general then how they would define them for Christiansburg itself. The range of responses have been phenomenal. Had citizens been involved in the process of developing the Vision 2020, it is more likely that citizens would have been privy to some shared definitions and a more effective dialog would now be available.

People are using a variety of approaches to determine how they will spread their $100 ‘allowance’ around to the different sections/services. What I did was to start with each section independently. There are a list of items under each section and I gave those items a score of 0, 1, or 2 with 0 being not important, 1 being important, and 2 being very important. Then I totaled those for that section. These numbers then helped me to develop a prioritization for the importance of the main categories. That, then helped me to decide where to put my money. Maybe this way of looking at it will help someone else. If you do use it, remember it is only a worksheet, the actual form provided by the Town is the one that you need to submit. My modified Priority-based $100 exercise sheet.

Lastly, please remember that this process started late. It was clear, with the problems of the last budget process, that something needed to be changed. Because of the late start, there was not time to do the amount of citizen input that the Town really wanted to do on this. The plan is to use this as the base for a greatly expanded process in the future. Expect the next budget process to be much more interactive with the public. I respect Town staff for taking on this format and using it to try to make the budgeting process more efficient, effective, and with a greater involvement of citizens. This degree of transparency is rare in many other government groups. Thank you for taking the time to participate as a citizen.

Every journey begins with one step, followed by another, then another. The first step has been taken by the Town. Citizens need to take the next step in this process by choosing to participate. For all of those who I have heard say “I’m not doing it because it won’t matter, they won’t pay any attention to what I have to say,” the best way to guarantee that your opinion is not a part of the process is to keep quite, to choose not to be involved. The choice is yours.

Anyway, I did locate some information on Christiansburg:

• Total Population is 21,041 with 16, 178 of those being 18 years of age and over.
• There is a total of 9,556 housing units
• 8,873 of those housing units are occupied (it does not specify owned/rented where I looked)
• And, 683 of those housing units are vacant.

While the number of vacant housing units bothers me a bit as more are planned to be constructed, this article is for looking at the impact that an increase in population can have on the Town. One of the key issues with these empty homes is discussed in an April 27, 2008 Washington Post article: As Foreclosed Homes Empty, Crime Arrives. (Not to mention that a Google search for information on ‘empty houses and fire’ provided 7,560,000 results.)

Population increases often bring with them changes in State Code. These have to be addressed/identified. Sometimes these changes are considered good, sometimes not so good, but the fact remains that it is the law. These are a few of the examples of how these changes could impact Christiansburg:

Money coming from State to Jurisdiction:

1. § 9.1-166. Local governments to receive state funds for law enforcement. This notes that state funds are distributed to local governments for law enforcement.The code section just before this one contains definitions indicating that population can take a significant role in calculating how munch money is received. § 9.1-170. Distribution of funds to towns. Describes the process of distribution of some of those funds. Could this mean that the State funds coming back to Christiansburg will increase? Will those funds need to be applied to specific programs? How will this affect the Priority-Based Budgeting process currently in the works in Christiansburg? (Hmm…note to self: be sure to dig further on this “adjusted crime index thingie that is noted in the text.)

Salaries of Elected Officials:

1. Another thing that the increase in population brings is the potential for increase in salaries of Mayor and Council Members. State Codes sets the maximum limits in cities for Mayor and Council in § 15.2-1414.6. Permitted salaries; salary increases; reimbursement for expenses. Using this standard for Cities, (The previous bracket of 15,000 to 19,999 set Mayor maximum at $12,000 and Council at $11,000. Christiansburg’s new population would boost them into the next bracket of 20,000 to 34,999 where it would go to $13,000 for Mayor and $12,000 for Council.)
2. Granted, these pay scales are for Cities NOT Towns. § 15.2-1414.7. Salaries of town council members and mayors covers Towns and allows for the town charter or law or council itself may establish the compensation rate. Town officials may see the need to increase their own salaries as work load increases with population.
3. Is it possible that Christiansburg elected officials could use the Town Charter as a means of increasing their own salaries since the Town Charter gives the right of fixing those salaries to the Council Members and there is no restriction. I can find nothing that prohibits them from increasing salaries as desired. Any change in salaries does require a 2/3′s majority vote of sitting Council Members. Only the Mayor’s position is expressly prohibited from being reduced while he/she is currently seated. (note: Sec. 2.17 Salaries of Councilmen of the Charter notes that Council sets salaries by ordinance or resolution. Since I can’t find anything specific in the Town Codes, I assume that a resolution was established. It would be interesting to see the history of such resolutions and how salaries of elected officials have changed over time.)

Planning and Zoning:

Perhaps the biggest challenge will fall upon the shoulders of the Planning Commission. According to § 15.2-2223.1. Comprehensive plan to include urban development areas, the Town of Christiansburg will now be required to include urban development areas as part of their planning guidelines. While the Comprehensive Plan had to be at minimum reviewed and passed along as is (as done in the last Comprehensive Plan review), it is now mandated that urban development areas will have to be deal with and incorporated into the plan. Some of the specifics from that State Code include:

1. B – 1. The comprehensive plan of a locality having a population of less than 130,000 persons shall provide for urban development areas that are appropriate for development at a density on the developable acreage of at least four single-family residences, six townhouses, or 12 apartments, condominium units, or cooperative units per acre, and an authorized floor area ratio of at least 0.4 per acre for commercial development, or any proportional combination thereof.
2. B – 3. The urban development areas designated by a locality shall be sufficient to meet projected residential and commercial growth in the locality for an ensuing period of at least 10 but not more than 20 years, which may include phasing of development within the urban development areas. Where an urban development area in a county with the urban county executive form of government includes planned or existing rail transit, the planning horizon may be for an ensuing period of at least 10 but not more than 40 years. Future residential and commercial growth shall be based on official estimates of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service of the University of Virginia or official projections of the Virginia Employment Commission or the United States Bureau of the Census.
3. B – 4. The boundaries and size of each urban development area shall be reexamined and, if necessary, revised every five years in conjunction with the review of the comprehensive plan and in accordance with the most recent available population growth estimates and projections.
4. B – 5. The boundaries of each urban development area shall be identified in the locality’s comprehensive plan and shall be shown on future land use maps contained in such comprehensive plan.
5. B – 6. The comprehensive plan shall incorporate principles of traditional neighborhood design in the urban development area, which may include but need not be limited to (i) pedestrian-friendly road design, (ii) interconnection of new local streets with existing local streets and roads, (iii) connectivity of road and pedestrian networks, (iv) preservation of natural areas, (v) mixed-use neighborhoods, including mixed housing types, with affordable housing to meet the projected family income distributions of future residential growth, (vi) reduction of front and side yard building setbacks, and (vii) reduction of subdivision street widths and turning radii at subdivision street intersections.
6. B – 7. The comprehensive plan shall describe any financial and other incentives for development in the urban development areas.
7. B – 8. A portion of one or more urban development areas shall be designated as a receiving area for any transfer of development rights program established by the locality.
8. C. No locality that has amended its comprehensive plan in accordance with this section shall limit or prohibit development pursuant to existing zoning or shall refuse to consider any application for rezoning based solely on the fact that the property is located outside the urban development area.
9. E. Localities shall consult with adjacent localities, as well as the relevant planning district commission and metropolitan planning organization, in establishing the appropriate size and location of urban development areas to promote orderly and efficient development of their region.
10. F. Any county that amends its comprehensive plan pursuant to subsection B may designate one or more urban development areas in any incorporated town within such county, if the council of the town has also amended its comprehensive plan to designate the same areas as urban development areas with at least the same density designated by the county. However, if a town has established an urban development area within its corporate boundaries, the county within which the town is located shall not include the town’s projected population and commercial growth when initially determining or reexamining the size and boundary of any other urban development area within the county.
11. G. To the extent possible, federal, state and local transportation, housing, water and sewer facility, economic development, and other public infrastructure funding for new and expanded facilities shall be directed to the urban development area, or in the case of a locality that adopts a resolution pursuant to subsection D, to the area that accommodates growth in a manner consistent with this section.
12. I. Any locality that becomes subject to provision 2 of subsection B shall have until July 1, 2012, to amend its comprehensive plan in accordance with this section.
13. J. Any locality that becomes subject to this section due to population growth shall have two years following the report of the United States Bureau of the Census made pursuant to P.L. 94-171 to amend its comprehensive plan in accordance with this section.

I’m thinking that the Planning Commission and Planning Department will need to be pretty busy dealing with these changes. All of these changes will also need to be incorporated into the Town Code as the Comprehensive Plan is the legal basis for the Zoning Ordinance.

One thing is for sure, citizens need to have input in this process. That means that the Town has to make reasonable efforts (Note: reasonable does not mean the minimum required by law in my opinion, rather it means taking steps to actively engage citizens.) to reach out to citizens AND that citizens must also take some responsibility by taking the time to be involved. Good government requires an effective 2 way flow of information between citizens and government. In this instance is use the word ‘effective’ to mean both listening and speaking … on both sides.

Overall, it looks like simply adding to Christiansburg’s persona of being the “retail hub of the region” documentation of a population increase that many had already identified will lead to many challenges for Christiansburg. Many of those challenges have express deadlines which must be met.

I started with Sec. 30-8 Conditional Use Permits of the Town Code.

1. Where so stated by this chapter, the location of permitted uses shall require, in addition to the zoning permit and certificate of occupancy, a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Town Council when authorized as herein after provided. A Conditional Use Permit should be approved only if it is permitted as a conditional use in the district regulations and only if it is found that the location is appropriate and not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, that the public health, safety, and general welfare will not be adversely affected, that adequate utilities and off-street parking facilities will be provided, and that necessary safeguards will be provided for the protection of surrounding property, persons, and neighborhood values, and further provided that the additional standards of this chapter are complied with. In approving a Conditional Use Permit the Town Council may impose such reasonable conditions as it believes necessary to accomplish the intent of this chapter. Unless otherwise specified in this chapter or specified as a condition of approval, the height limits, yard spaces, lot area, and sign requirements shall be the same as for other uses in the district in which the proposed conditional use is located.
2. In determining the conditions to be imposed, the Town Council shall take into consideration the intent of this chapter and may impose reasonable conditions that: abate or restrict noise, smoke, dust, or other elements that may affect surrounding property; establish setback requirements necessary for orderly expansion; prevent or alleviate traffic congestion; provide for adequate parking and ingress and egress to public streets or roads; provide adjoining property with a buffer or shield from view of the proposed use if such use is considered to be detrimental to adjoining property; tend to prevent such use fkom changing the character and established pattern of development of the community.
3. Any use listed as requiring approval of a Conditional Use Permit and which use legally exists at the effective date of the regulations of this chapter shall be considered a nonconforming use unless it has been approved as a conditional use by the Town Council. Conditional Use Permits may be revoked by the Town Council, Town Manager, or Zoning Administrator if the conditions of such permit are not fulfilled. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to compel the Town Council to issue a Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permits approved shall be subject to administrative review on an annual basis. The Town Council, Town Manager, and Zoning Administrator are authorized to require supplemental Conditional Use Permit(s) if questions of compliance should arise regarding any provision of this chapter.

(Code 1972, 5 30-8; Ord. of 6-2-98; Ord. of 4-20-99)

My take on things:

Okay, so this code has not been updated since 4/20/99. That may become significant later, but for the time being, this will be used as it is.

The first paragraph (1) clearly states that Conditional Use Permits are required where specifically noted in the Town Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 30 of the Town Code). It also notes that the Conditional Use Permit must be approved by Council. The first criteria for application of a CUP begin in sentence 2 of that paragraph:

1. It must be permitted in the district regulations
2. The location is appropriate
3. The location is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan
4. The public health, safety, and general welfare will not be adversely affected
5. Adequate utilities will be provided
6. Adequate off-street parking facilities will be provided
7. Necessary safeguards will be provided for the protection of surrounding property
8. Necessary safeguards will be provided for the protections of persons
9. Necesasary safeguards will be provided for the protection of neighborhood values
10. That additional standards of this chapter are complied with.

The Town Council may impose such reasonable conditions as it believes necessary to accomplish the intent of this chapter. (last sentence of paragraph 1)

(para. 2) In determining the conditions to be imposed, the Town Council shall take into consideration the intent of this chapter and may impose reasonable conditions that:

• abate or restrict noise
• abate or restrict smoke
• abate or restrict dust
• abade or restrict other elements that may affect surrounding property
• establish setback requirements necessary for orderly expansion
• prevent or alleviate traffic congestion
• provide for adequate parking
• provide for ingress and egress to public streets or roads
• provide adjoining property with a buffer or shield from view of the proposed use if such use is considered to be detrimental to adjoining property
• tend to prevent such use from changing the character and established pattern of development of the the community

The last paragraph simply gives discussion on what happens if rezoning of an area creates a situation in which property already in use would need a Conditional Use Permit, clarifying that these will be reviewed annually by administration, AND (a bit of an important note here):

• The Town Council, Town Manager, and Zoning Administrator are authorized to require supplemental Conditional Use Permit(s) if questions of compliance should arise regarding any provision of this chapter.

These are the things that Christiansburg citizens have the right to expect their Planning Commission and Town Council when they are deciding whether or not to support/approve a CUP. History (and plenty of videos) show that these have not always be addressed. It seems to me that a simple checklist, insuring that all criteria were evaluated, would make the process easier for the ‘deciders’ and for the people left to live with their decisions. At least people would know that everything relevant had been evaluated. Maybe I will try to get a checklist made so that I can do a more thorough evaluation in the future.