Christiansburg Town Council to Look at City Status and Moving Meeting Dates.

May 6, 2012

Carol Lindstrom Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, Economic Development, Education, Local Government, Your Tax Money , , , , , , , , Comments Off

It came as a bit of a surprise at the end of the May 1st Town Council Meeting when Councilmember Steve Huppert requested that the Town Council again look at moving their meeting dates so that they do not conflict with the Montgomery County School Board.

I’ve been supporting this move for some time now. It has become even more important to me now that the Town of Christiansburg is making it’s own videos of meetings. You see, I’ve got this camera that for several years now I’ve been using to record Christiansburg Town Council Meetings. It’s gathering dust. I haven’t figured out how to be 2 places at one time, but I would love to be able to provide for the Montgomery County School Board what I provided for the Town of Christiansburg, citizen recorded public meetings of the School Board posted online to share with the public. The decisions made by the School Board AND their discussions/deliberations are just too darned important not to provide access to citizens. If the Town of Christiansburg moves it’s meetings to another date, it will mean that I lose more nights of prime-time TV (like I have time to watch that anyway), but it would give me a wonderful opportunity to learn more about the School Board and to be able to share that information here.

Then, came an even bigger surprise when Councilmember Cord Hall asked that it be put on the agenda of the next meeting to begin discussions of the Town of Christiansburg moving to City status. Wow! I’ve heard this discussed previously and I had been against such a move. However, now that I’ve had some time to really look at a LOT of budget numbers for a lot of different jurisdictions, I’m no longer sure that this is not the best move that Christiansburg could make. Christiansburg is growing and even in this “down” economy, continues to grow. Christiansburg has a tremendous retail base for which the taxes are now directed to the County School System.

Christiansburg also has superb resources in the Recreation Center and Aquatic Center that could be used with a City School system and we could become the home of future Olympic Champions!!! Christiansburg citizens already take great pride in the schools located within it’s boundary even though those schools are part of the Montgomery County School System. How much greater would that pride be in a situation where they were truly Christiansburg Schools!

Christiansburg citizens would have control over their schools! They would have their own School Board, and we know how to use our votes to get the biggest bang for our voting “buck”. We would have to have our own library. Maybe one with more computers and greater public usage? It would be responsible to the citizens of Christiansburg, not to the whims of the County.

Perhaps more importantly, our elected officials would have more control over services. We’re already “donating” money to social services, the library, and other such services. There is grant money and other resources available to Cities that is not available to Towns.

But, all this really means is that an honest and true cost-benefit analysis would need to be done. It would need to be done without any bias and, for me, that means contacting the Weldon Cooper Center (Economic and Policy Studies section). This is not a decision to be taken lightly, nor is it one to be discounted out of fear of the unknown. I hope Town Council will take a serious look at this, but as far as I can see, with the research that I’ve managed to do, Christiansburg is in the perfect spot to go to City Status. All of those jurisdictions who have dropped or are planning to drop back from City to Town status have not had the retail network that Christiansburg has (with more to come) developed. We’ve got it and we should maximize the use of it by keeping that money here.

 

So much for campaign issues — The Post Election Mutation Process

August 14, 2010

Carol Lindstrom Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, Land Use, Letter vs Spirit of the Law, Local Government, VOTE, Your Tax Money , , , , , , , , 2 Comments

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.



August 3 Planning Commission and Town Council Meeting

August 4, 2010

Carol Lindstrom Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, Land Use, Local Government , , , , , 1 Comment

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.)

A Very Busy Tuesday for Christiansburg Government and Citizens.

August 2, 2010

Carol Lindstrom Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, Land Use, Local Government, Your Tax Money , , , , , , , , Comments Off

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! More

Oath Keeper or Oath Breaker, The Duty of Elected and Appointed Officials

July 25, 2010

Carol Lindstrom Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, Local Government, US Government, VA government, VOTE , , , , , 1 Comment

Read the Virginia Constitution lately? All elected and appointed officials of the Town of Christiansburg must complete the oath of office before taking office. They use this standard form of that oath as set forth in Article II Section 7 of the Virginia Constitution. More

Smoke and Mirrors! But who is lighting those fires?

July 21, 2010

Carol Lindstrom Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, FOIA, Local Government, VOTE , , , , , , , 7 Comments

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. More

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

July 20, 2010

Carol Lindstrom Christiansburg, VA, VOTE , , , , , Comments Off

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. More

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) should investigate Christiansburg.

July 15, 2010

Carol Lindstrom Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, Land Use, Letter vs Spirit of the Law, Local Government, VOTE , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

While the EPA does not hold control over the uses of mirrors, the billowing clouds of smoke coming from the vicinity of the Christiansburg Town Hall should be setting off alarms all over the place. More

How is it that the Sage Lane issue ever came up?

July 14, 2010

Carol Lindstrom Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, Environment, FOIA, Land Use, Letter vs Spirit of the Law, Local Government, Your Tax Money , , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments Off

Now that is a $1,000,000 plus question. (By the way, videos of the meeting are at: http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_07_12PC/2010_07_12PC1.html

Here are a few observations/questions about why this and many other development issues have come up. More

A 3 year contract for the Town Manager was considered, but was it simply a diversion?

July 10, 2010

Carol Lindstrom Christiansburg, VA, Citizen Participation, Local Government, Your Tax Money , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

Something I have been waiting to see addressed in relation to the 3 year contract for the Town Manager is a part of the Virginia State Code.

§ 15.2-1503. Tenure of officers and employees; suspension or removal.

A. All appointments of officers and hiring of other employees by a locality shall be without definite term, unless for temporary services not to exceed one year or except as otherwise provided by general law or special act.

B. Any officer or employee of a locality employed pursuant to subsection A of this section may be suspended or removed from office or employment in accordance with the provisions of §§ 24.2-230 through 24.2-238, if such sections are applicable. Otherwise, any such employee may be suspended or removed in accordance with procedure established by special act or by the governing body, if any.

C. In case of the absence or disability of any officer or employee, the governing body or other appointing power may designate some responsible person to temporarily perform the duties of the office.

(1997, c. 587.)

This rather makes it appear that the Town Charter and/or Code would have had to have been changed before said 3 year contract could have gone into effect. The other localities that I found to have gone with a longer contract for Town Manager, have specifically generated ordinances/charter changes in order to support those. My guess is that the reason for that was this state code.

So, should the town council have been looking at such a contract without having first established that there was such a need as to warrant Charter and/or Code changes. I never heard of any discussions concerning those changes except for some mumblings on how they could enter into the contract first, then change the  Charter/Code afterwards. Maybe there are some lawyers out there who have a better understand of the intent of this State Code and would care to comment.

Is it possible that the 3 year contract was merely a ‘smoke screen’ simply to get people riled up so that they wouldn’t see what was really going on. If so, then you have to wonder who the ‘they’ is in this situation. Certainly with Showalter and Carter being the last to find out anything, they are ruled out.

Of course, the town attorney was in the meetings so if this was actually an issue, one would expect it to have been raised.

Fortunately, the State Code also makes sure that the public will know the full extent of the severance packages of any individuals to which they have or shall be awarded. If it is consistent with the document read by Mr. Barber, there are some pretty vague places that I hope will be clarified before the deal is finalized.

§ 15.2-1510.1. Public announcement of severance packages for certain officials.

Severance benefits provided to any departing official appointed by a local governing body or school board shall be publicly announced by the local governing body or school board, respectively, prior to such departure.

(2006, c. 254; 2007, c. 257.)

It sounds like the details should be pretty specific to me, but I am sure that someone can argue that the Letter of the Law was met in Mr. Barbers statement. However, I wonder if it will truly meet the Spirit of the Law. After all, it is the citizen’s money being used for any such severance benefits.

Older Entries