RSS

Tag Archives: planning

So much for campaign issues — The Post Election Mutation Process

14 Aug

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
 
2 Comments

Posted by on August 14, 2010 in Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, Land Use, Letter vs Spirit of the Law, Local Government, VOTE, Your Tax Money

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

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

05 Aug

(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

04 Aug

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
 
1 Comment

Posted by on August 4, 2010 in Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, Land Use, Local Government

 

Tags: , , , , ,

A Very Busy Tuesday for Christiansburg Government and Citizens.

02 Aug

On Tuesday, August 3, 2010, there will be Planning Commission and Town Council Meetings with a break long enough between the two for you to grab a quick bite to eat. Both agendas can be found on the town’s website at www.christiansburg.org. There are a lot of things going on! Read the rest of this entry »

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on August 2, 2010 in Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, Land Use, Local Government, Your Tax Money

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Smoke and Mirrors! But who is lighting those fires?

21 Jul

This hit the email/internet route about 4:30 PM yesterday, just a few hours before the Public Hearing for the Sage Lane project. When this came up during the Hearing, most council members looked puzzled as did the engineer handling the Ivy Ridge (the let’s kill Sage Lane) project who had just reported that the Sage Lane Road had been eliminated from the proffers. Read the rest of this entry »

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
7 Comments

Posted by on July 21, 2010 in Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, FOIA, Local Government, VOTE

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Town Manager or Town Council, who can really take credit for the good and the bad?

20 Jul

The BlueRidgeMuse has an article that pretty much sums up most of my own thoughts on the move of Christiansburg Lance Terpenny to Floyd. (See the Article) While there has been a great deal of fervor over the performance of Mr. Terpenny in the Town of Christiansburg, one particular item keeps getting masked by all of that smoke. Read the rest of this entry »

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 20, 2010 in Christiansburg, VA, VOTE

 

Tags: , , , , ,

See the Ordinance change for the Floodplain Districts.

04 Aug

I finally got a chance to do a bit more work on the ‘myvaresources.com’ citizen webpage (home to all things Christiansburg related to government).

Along with a bit of a face lift (still working), you can find a copy of the proposed Zoning Amendment related to FloodPlain Districts that will be part of the Public Hearing on August 4th Town Council Meeting. There is also a video of the August 3rd Planning Commission Meeting (a good thing to watch if you ever want to apply for one of those positions.

I will keep working on this site and adding to it when I can find time. Unfortunately, one of the side effects of doing this is that I now have 5 web pages to manage (with a possible 6th coming soon) and they all pay the same … nothing. I have to try to earn a living in between the web work. These pages are not perfect and I always welcome suggestions for change. Please remember that I have only been doing this for a year now and have had no training in how to build and maintain websites. I know of a lot of mistakes that I found and corrected. There are probably that many more that I have not noticed yet. But, heck, it’s still not a bad deal since it is done for free:)

Hope to see you at the Town Council Meeting!

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on August 4, 2009 in FOIA, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Another piece of the Town Council meeting held July 21, 2009.

22 Jul

Staff Analysis is a written document prepared by members of a Planning Dept. to help Planning Commissioners and Town Council members understand all of the issues related to any change in zoning status of a parcel of land (zoning, rezoning, conditional use permit, etc.) These are documents routinely provided to the Planning Commission in every jurisdiction that I have been able to contact within the State of Virginia, except the Town of Christiansburg. (Let it be know that these documents were, in the past, prepared by the Planning Dept. of the Town of Christiansburg but staff was told to stop producing them.

Please note that this document is part of the official record and as such should be included in any minutes of the Town Council where decisions were made. Hmmmm….I’ve got about $1,200.00 worth of documents from the Town thus far. Guess what I don’t have? You got it. There is not one copy of a Staff Analysis in all of those Meeting Minutes, Ordinances, etc.

So, my questions now become: (1) “If those documents were prepared, who were they provided to? (2) If they were provided to anyone, did they ever get into the hands of the decision-makers (Town Council)? (3) If  they were provided to those decision-makers, why were they NOT included in the official documents? (4) Did Town Council make the decision to stop having those documents provided? (5) If the answer to (4) is no, then WHO did? (5) Why was the practice discontinued?

At the July 21 Town Council Meeting, the topic of staff analysis reports was brought up yet again. Henry Showalter, supported by Ann Carter, Michael Barber, and Jim Vanhoozier, noted that such a report would be very helpful in enabling them to make the best possible decisions for citizens.

While it may be brought up again, the door was all but slammed in their faces when the Mayor essentially turned the matter of deciding over to the Town Manager based upon whether the Town has enough staff to do the job!

Hello! If the Town does not have enough staff to do the jobs they should be doing, then just what the heck is going on???? AND, what is being done about it!!!! Trying to save people a few bucks of tax money when you are costing them a heck of a lot more in decreased property values, decreased quality of life, and increased insurance (just to name a few)…..we should thank you for this?????? Do you really think citizens are that stupid???? Well guess what, we’re not. We can see the $$$$ on the wall!!!!

We apparently do not have enough staff to do inspections concerning erosion and sediment control (even at our own Aquatic Center). We don’t have enough staff for the Planning Department to do what they use to do but stopped doing? We do not have enough staff to insure that elected and appointed officials are provided with all appropriate information necessary to make important decisions?

Mr. Mayor, perhaps in education you found it appropriate to just stop having math or science taught because you didn’t have enough staff? I’ll just bet the parents and School Board would love that approach! Or maybe you’d decide not to send an ambulance out to a vehicle accident because there might be too much work to do? Or, perhaps you would tell the Police Chief not to send an officer out to work an intersection where a traffic light was out because there just aren’t enough officers?????

I doubt it! I think you would take those things pretty seriously and deal with the issues as needed. Well, the issue of landuse is pretty darned serious. The issue of stormwater is pretty darned serious. There issue of codes enforcement is pretty darned serious.

Mr. Mayor, I think it is time to get serious about your responsibilities to the Town. It is not the Town Manager people are coming to with issues. It is not the Town Manager that people elected to represent them. It is not the Town Manager who decides the menu at those Town Council meetings. Let’s start dealing with issues rather than ducking them.

Is it time to change or is it time for change? Guess you are the decider on that part of the equation. Of course, you can sit back, do nothing, be non-commital, pass the buck, and wait for election time to come around. Maybe citizens are already looking around for your replacement since rumor has it you won’t run again. Is that why you don’t seem to care any more?

For more reading on the staff analysis debate:

Christiansburg, VA Comprehensive Plan and Stormwater/Flooding….Interesting Reading

Why is a Staff Analaysis a good thing for Planning Commission and Town Council to have?

Town of Christiansburg Finance Committee Meeting: 1st Budget Discussion.

Christiansburg VA Town Council Meeting Full of Surprises

INFORMATION NEEDED! Where are the staff reports for land use issues?

Comprehensive Plan vs Comprehensive Plan Map, Reading Between the Lines

Planning Commission Recording

A good use of property but a very bad way to allow it to happen. Rezoning from R-2 to B-3

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 22, 2009 in Citizen Participation, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Christiansburg’s Most Wanted: Is a Planning Commissioner out there?

20 Jul

The July 15, 2009 issue of the Roanoke Times Current sports this ad:

Christiansburg Planning Commission

The Town of Christiansburg, Virginia is now accepting applications for candidates for the Christiansburg Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the Town Council and makes recommendations on items such as rezoning requests, Conditional Use Permit requests, and amendments to Town Code. Planning Commission members are qualified by knowledge and experience to make decisions on questions of community growth and development, are required to be Town residents, serve four year terms, and are compensated $25.00 per meeting attended. Planning Commission appointments are made by Town Council and will become effective immediately for the remainder of the vacant term.

The Town will accept cover letters, resumes, and applications until Friday July 31, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. at the Town Manager’s Office, Town Hall, 100 E. Main Street, Christiansburg, VA 24073. A Town of Christiansburg job application is required and may be obtained at the Town Municipal Building during normal office hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. EOE.

Okay now folks, here is an opportunity for you to have some say as to how things are going and growing in Christiansburg. Along with the recommendations mentioned above, there is one VERY IMPORTANT role that the Planning Commission members have … the Development and Review of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.

Anyone have any idea why you have to go to Town Hall to pick up the application instead of applying on the website as for other positions? Seems like just another hurdle to reduce the number of applicants to me.

I will also note that minority groups are severely under represented on this Commission. Hopefully, this will be the opportunity for that to change. If there is anyone interested in applying and would like any assistance in getting their paperwork done or would like to know what the State Codes say about the job of Planning Commissioner, I will be happy to assist. Use the contact author link on this page, email me at calindstrom@verizon.net, or call 540-382-6431.

***and no, I can’t apply. If I did who would handle the camera and audio recorder for the meetings?:)***

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 20, 2009 in Citizen Participation, Environment, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

What is the Comprehensive Plan – A Short View from State Codes. Should changes be made?

09 Jun

This is just one small part of the Comprehensive Plan section of the State Codes. Note the use of the word future. How closely does the Town of Christiansburg come to meeting these criteria? (That has been the topic of multiple previous blogs and will be the catalyst for many more in the future.)

(sections from § 15.2-2223. Comprehensive plan to be prepared and adopted; scope and purpose.)

In the preparation of a comprehensive plan, the commission shall make careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing conditions and trends of growth, and of the probable future requirements of its territory and inhabitants. The comprehensive plan shall be made with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants, including the elderly and persons with disabilities.

The plan, with the accompanying maps, plats, charts, and descriptive matter, shall show the locality’s long-range recommendations for the general development of the territory covered by the plan. It may include, but need not be limited to:

1. The designation of areas for various types of public and private development and use, such as different kinds of residential, including age-restricted, housing; business; industrial; agricultural; mineral resources; conservation; active and passive recreation; public service; flood plain and drainage; and other areas;

2. The designation of a system of community service facilities such as parks, sports playing fields, forests, schools, playgrounds, public buildings and institutions, hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, community centers, waterworks, sewage disposal or waste disposal areas, and the like;

3. The designation of historical areas and areas for urban renewal or other treatment;

4. The designation of areas for the implementation of reasonable ground water protection measures;

5. A capital improvements program, a subdivision ordinance, a zoning ordinance and zoning district maps, mineral resource district maps and agricultural and forestal district maps, where applicable;

6. The location of existing or proposed recycling centers;

7. The location of military bases, military installations, and military airports and their adjacent safety areas; and

8. The designation of corridors or routes for electric transmission lines of 150 kilovolts or more.

The plan shall include: the designation of areas and implementation of measures for the construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of affordable housing, which is sufficient to meet the current and future needs of residents of all levels of income in the locality while considering the current and future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated.

The Christiansburg Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2003, reviewed and readopted without change in 2007, and will not be up for full rewrite until 2013. The Town Council has the right to request a full review and update anytime it sees fit. There may be some resistance to doing that because there is now a State Statute that required that any changes in the Comprehensive Plan or any new versions of the Comprehensive Plan MUST be submitted to VDOT for approval. This means there would be some eyes outside of Town Government that would be taking a close look at traffic issues and where problems need to be addressed. (See: 15.2-2222.1. Coordination of state and local transportation planning.)

This might be a good issue to bring up with those candidates who will be running for Town Council in the next election. Yep! Definitely sounds like a campaign issue to me.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on June 9, 2009 in Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

← Older posts