When B.J. Alan Company attempted to construct and operate a state-licensed fireworks store in Congress Township, Ohio, it was forced to apply for a variation from the zoning resolution which was ultimately denied.  The land B.J. Alan wanted to build on land that was zoned A-Agricultural pursuant to the zoning resolution adopted by the Congress Township. This resolution required any landowners seeking to build on the unincorporated areas to apply for a variation from the resolution.  On appeal of the decision, B.J. Alan argued that the zoning resolution adopted by Congress Township was in violation of Ohio law R.C. 519.02 which requires townships to enact zoning resolutions that are “in accordance with a comprehensive plan” because the township had not adopted its own comprehensive plan.  The township asserted that the zoning resolution was in accordance with a comprehensive plan, adopted by Wayne County where the township was located, and was therefore not in violation of the statute.   

Reading the plan language of the statute, the court concluded that section 519.02 only requires a township’s zoning resolution be in accordance with a comprehensive plan and not that a township develop its own comprehensive plan.  Since countywide planning is encouraged by law in Ohio and counties are equipped for developing broad, big-picture plans encompassing all the communities within their jurisdictions, the court held that a county comprehensive plan could constitute a “comprehensive plan” for purposes of section 519.02.  The court went on to conclude that the Wayne County Comprehensive Plan was a comprehensive plan for purposes for section 519.02 due to its comprehensive land-use goals for the county and its demonstrated intent to include Congress Township within its purview. 

B.J. Alan Co. v. Congress Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2009 WL 3837336 (Ohio, 11/12/2009).

This opinion can be accessed at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-5863.pdf

The amicus brief submitted by the American Planning Association can be accessed at: http://www.planning.org/amicus/pdf/bjalanco.pdf

Yesterday, the Washington State Supreme Court issued its decision in the Goldstar Resorts v.  Futurewise matter.    This case involves challenges to Whatcom County’s rural zoning designations.    Central to this case is whether the County appropriately designated Limited Areas of More Intensive Development (“LAMIRDs”).  See my earlier blog posts for more information on LAMIRDs.

On this issue, the Supreme Court ruled  held that the County did not properly designate LAMIRDs when the County revised its comprehensive plan in 2005.  Essentially, the Supreme Court affirmed the original ruling by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (“Hearings Board”)  with regard to this issue.  Consequently, the County has been charged with creating logical boundaries around rural areas containing preexisting development.

Importantly, however, the Supreme Court has remanded this case to the Hearings Board to reconsider its ruling on the validity of  some of the County’s rural zoning designations.  The Hearings Board had originally held that, outside of LAMIRDs,  areas zoned for densities at greater than 5 units per acre (i.e. R1A, R2A, RR2, RR1, etc.) were not rural in nature and thus not compliant with the State’s Growth Management Act (“GMA”).

In remanding this issue to the  Board, the Supreme Court held that there is no “bright line” rule as to what densities are appropriate in rural areas.  The Hearings Board will thus be required to consider the overall character of an area rather than using a strict density rule to determine what is rural under the GMA.

As further discussed in my prior postings on this issue, the County has been working on designating LAMIRDs in compliance with statutory requirements; and work on the County’s rural element will continue into next year.  The Supreme Court’s ruling should not necessarily cause the County to change course on this work except to the extent that the County need not be bound by any “bright line” rule as to what amount of density per acre should be allowed in the rural areas.

For more information on the County’s LAMIRD designation process, see the County’s Rural Element website.

By. Neil Williamson, President

Last night (12/16) the Greene County Planning Commission considered a number of issues regarding the proposed comprehensive plan.  In addition to hearing concerns voiced by the Free Enterprise Forum (more on this below), they also affirmed their decision to remove the parcel of land on U.S. 29 containing Highlands Golf Park from the current designated Development Areas and chose not to include a recommendation for a Ruckersville Citizen Council to be appointed. 

The Planning Commission also expressed general support for Greene County joining The Journey Through Hollowed Ground project but did not want to single out that organization in the comprehensive plan.

Some intrepid readers may recall, this blog has been critical of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission’s (TJPDC) management of the writing of Greene County’s new Comprehensive Plan.

In a March post, we highlighted TJPDC’s maps of Greene County included a blow out map of Zions’  crossroads.  In an April post, we raised the issue of TJPDC promoting groupthink and how county residents were being made to feel as though they were making planning decisions, when in fact they were being led like lemmings off a planner’s cliff.

The current document includes significant editorial commentary that is wholly inappropriate in a comprehensive plan.  A few tidbits:

the land use goals will have a direct impact on the health and viability of the agricultural industry in the county. [Page 2]

The land use goals will have a direct impact on all industries within the county.

The 2003 Greene County Comprehensive Plan estimated that the average new home built in the County costs $1,800 in government services above and beyond the tax revenue generated by the home. [Page 5]

since tax rates can remain low when residential growth is not expanding at a rapid pace. [Page 20]

tax rates remain low since residential development is slowed and county resources are not overburdened. [Page 20]

These statements are clearly opinion and ignore the fact that County government has the ability to change the equation at anytime by adjusting the tax rate or reducing services.  Tax rates are set by Boards of Supervisors and while tax levies are impacted by development, state mandates, citizen demands, even courthouse fires all impact the financial condition of the county

If these regulations or the underlying zoning do not reflect the intent of County planning policy, then the subdivision itself may not be consistent with current policies but must be approved anyway. [Page 26]

The word “anyway” is pejorative and should be struck.

To be fair the latest iteration of the Comprehensive Plan is much more  Greene centric but as we were reviewing the Land Use Chapter, we found a page that not only was never discussed by the public.  It was clearly cribbed from another TJPDC publication.  Page 23 reads in part:

“This document is intended to be a resource for the localities of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District on this topic”.

Later on the same page the TJPDC puts itself in the position of the master planner as it read:

“This requires much foresight as we put in the roads and pipelines to build the places we need.”

Faced with this type of language that until last night had not been called out by the Planning Commission, staff, or the public, one wonders how closely anyone is really reading the document.

Before port supporters jump for joy or port naysayers weigh in on the quantity of surveys or question the methodology of the process, let’s discuss what the survey is and what it isn’t. First, a little background. As some port district members are aware, the port comprehensive plan is a strategic roadmap that the port staff and commission periodically update in order to fulfill the mission of the port and adjust direction and focus as the community, economy and demographics shift over time. It is an ongoing process with continual updates as needed. Think of it like a ship adjusting its rudder to steer its course safely and efficiently through the channel of a river. That said, the recent survey results, announced yesterday, are an important part of this information gathering process. However, the survey itself is just one of the tools and outreach efforts the port uses to gather citizen input. To be sure, citizen input is always welcome and necessary as part of the public process. That’s one reason for creating this blog! However, gathering citizen input, on any subject is an ongoing process. Often citizens will communicate via e-mail, letters, verbal conversations, meetings, interviews, focus groups, public forums, community group presentations, bi-weekly commission meetings, phone calls, open houses, particularly when there is an issue or a concern. Rest assured that there will be more surveys and research efforts designed to encourage and solicit citizen input, since it is a never ending process. It requires a constant effort to reach out to local citizens–as most politicians know. Consider the recent election results: of the 23,000 registered voters in the port district, only 43 percent of voters participated, approximately 8,500 people voted in the port district races. The voter turnout percentages closely match the rest of Clark County and the State of Washington.  While we may not be able to solve the problem of voter apathy or the general decline of citizens engaged in the public process, we are using new tools and techniques to encourage and strengthen the public process, through surveys, open houses and public meetings. And we will continue to do so. Your feedback, as always, is welcomed and encouraged! Now, if you want to see the full results of the community survey, click on the port Web site at www.portcw.com and follow the links! If you would like to comment, do it right here!

Next Tuesday, the Whatcom County Council will be holding a public hearing regarding proposed changes to its urban growth areas (UGAs).  The current proposal eliminates much of the existing Ferndale and Blaine UGAs and also removes portions of the Bellingham and Lynden UGAs.

Advocates for reducing the size of UGAs throughout Whatcom County do so on the basis of limiting and/or halting “sprawl.”  Although the term “sprawl” often gets bandied about in land use discussions, the term is rarely used correctly.

Sprawl is often used as a catch-all term to encompass any type of development outside of an established neighborhood.  Washington’s Growth Management Act, however, refers to “sprawl” as the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development.  Thus, sprawl is not development in or expansion of an urban growth area per se.

Cities, especially Bellingham, have had a difficult time promoting the infilling and densification of existing neighborhoods.  As a consequence, denser development has occurred at the edges of cities and outside of city limits and within adjacent urban growth areas.

Development at the edge of a city or within its urban growth area is not “sprawl” if the development is urban in nature.   Residential development at more than 4 units per acre and/or commercial or mixed use development adequately served by utilities and transportation facilities are examples of urban types of development.

In preventing “sprawl” counties must consider what in fact causes low density development in rural areas and whether reducing UGAs encourages or discourages further development in rural areas.  In other words, those concerned about sprawl should consider the ramifications of shrinking urban growth areas to such an extent that lack of land availability leads to low density development in rural areas – “sprawl.”

As part of his 2010 Budget Presentation, Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike has proposed establishment of an Office of Economic Development & Business Relations within the City’s Planning and Community Development department.   The Mayor’s proposal includes a business hot line and collaboration with local businesses to promote economic development.

The Mayor’s emphasis on business development is laudable.  For progress to be made in this area, however, the City also needs to consider how its comprehensive planning and land use policies encourage or discourage business development in Bellingham.

Next year, the City will be starting the review process for the update of its Comprehensive Plan. The City’s Comprehensive Plan is  a guide for the physical economic, and social development of the city.   In the past, comprehensive planning has tended to focus on land use policies, preservation of neighborhood character, and accommodation of future population growth.   Although these are critical issues that need to be addressed, historically, little attention has  focused on economic development.

Over the past few years, Bellingham  has seen a number of local businesses move to Ferndale and elsewhere in Whatcom County.  The  loss of these businesses results in the loss of city revenues and job opportunities.  In order to reverse this trend, a lot of hard work will need to go into balancing community planning and economic development goals.

As part of its Comprehensive Plan update, the City should focus on economic development planning in addition to and in conjunction with  land use, environmental, transportation, and capital facilities planning. Given the current recession and city budgetary woes, economic development planning is critical to achieve community sustainability.

For more information on the Comprehensive Plan update, see the City of Bellingham Planning Commission website for meeting times and planning schedules.

Recently, I brought up the form-based zoning included in the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan and it occurred to me that, while it has been around for a little while, most people have never heard of it and know relatively little about it. Before we talk about form-based zoning though, lets talk about conventional zoning.

Most people have heard about conventional zoning. In conventional zoning, each area of the city is defined as either Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, or Government. These categories or broken down further based usually on building size and use. For example, a simplified definition of each zoning district in Norfolk is shown below:

Residence Districts.   (du=Dwelling Unit)

• R-1 One-Family District: 25,000 sq. ft./du* (1.74 du/acre)
• R-2 One-Family District: 20,000 sq. ft./du (2.18 du/acre)
• R-3 One-Family District: 15,000 sq. ft./du (2.90 du/acre)
• R-4 One-Family District: 12,000 sq. ft./du (3.63 du/acre)
• R-5 One-Family District: 10,000 sq. ft./du (4.36 du/acre)
• R-6 One-Family District: 7,500 sq. ft./du (5.81 du/acre)
• R-7 One-Family District: 6,000 sq. ft./du (7.26 du/acre)
• R-8 One-Family District: 5,000 sq. ft./du (8.71 du/acre)
• R-9 One-Family District: 4,000 sq. ft./du (10.89 du/acre)
• R-10 Townhouse District: 2,000 sq. ft./du (21.78 du/acre)
• R-11 Moderate Density Multiple-Family District: 2,900 sq. ft./du (15.02 du/acre)
• R-12 Medium Density Multiple-Family District: 2,200 sq. ft./du (19.80 du/acre)
• R-13 Moderately High Density Multiple-Family District: 1,800 sq. ft./du (24.20 du/acre)
• R-14 High Density Multiple-Family District: 1,333 sq. ft./du (32.67 du/acre)
• R-15 High Density Multiple-Family District: 1,000 sq. ft./du (43.56 du/acre)

Office and Business/Commerce Districts.

• O-1 Office District
• BC-1 Business and Commerce Park District
• BC-2 Business and Commerce Park District

Commercial Districts.

• C-1 Limited Commercial District
• C-2 Corridor Commercial District
• C-3 Retail Center District
• C-4 Large Scale Commercial District

Industrial Districts.

• I-1 Limited Industrial District
• I-2 Light Industrial District
• I-3 General Industrial District
• I-4 Waterfront Industrial District
• I-5 Deep Waterfront Industrial District

Downtown Districts.

• D-1 Downtown Waterfront District
• D-2 Downtown Regional Center District
• D-3 Freemason/Granby Conservation and Mixed Use District
• D-4 Downtown Cultural and Convention Center District

Historic and Cultural Conservation Districts.

• Ghent Historic and Cultural Conservation Districts (HC-G1 and HC-G2)
• West Freemason Historic and Cultural Conservation Districts (HC-WF1 and HC-WF2)
• Hodges House Historic and Cultural Conservation District (HC-HH)
• East Freemason Historic and Cultural Conservation District (HC-EF)

Special purpose districts.

• Institutional Districts (IN)
• Manufactured Home Park District (MHP)
• General Airport District (GA)
• Open Space Preservation District (OSP)
• Military Installation District (MI)
• University Village District (UV)

Overlay Districts.

• Airport Safety Overlay District (ASO)
• Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay District (CBPAO)
• Flood Plain/Coastal Hazard District (FPCHO)
• Historic Overlay District (HO)
• Downtown Historic Overlay District (HO-D)
• Pedestrian Commercial Overlay District (PCO)
• Residential Compatibility Overlay District (RCO)
• Institutional Residential Impact Overlay District (IRIO)
• Bay Front Residential Parking Overlay District (BFRPO)
• Localized Alternative Sign Overlay District (LASO)
• Norfolk International Airport Localized Alternative Sign Overlay District (NIA-LASO)
• Alternative Siting Residential Overlay District (ASRO)
• Janaf Shopping Center Localized Alternative Sign Overlay District (JANAF-LASO)
• Bayfront Residential Siting Overlay District
• Pedestrian Commercial Overlay District–Colley Avenue (PCO-COLLEY)
• Pedestrian Commercial Overlay District–21st Street (PCO-21st ST)
• Palace Shops Localized Alternative Sign Overlay District
• Military Circle Localized Alternative Sign Overlay District
• Pedestrian Commercial Overlay District–Riverview (PCO-Riverview)
• Military Crossing Localized Sign Overlay District
• Nauticus Localized Sign Overlay District
• Park Place Residential Overlay District
• MacArthur Center Localized Alternative Sign Overlay District
• Localized Alternative Sign Overlay District for the Waterside
• Roosevelt Gardens Localized Sign Overlay District
• Pedestrian Commercial Overlay District–35th Street (PCO-35th)
• Medical Center Sign Overlay District
• Pedestrian Commercial Overlay District–Five Points (PCO 5 PTS)
• Super K-Mart Localized Alternative Sign Overlay District (Super K-mart LASO)
• Kimnach Ford Localized Sign Overlay District (Ford-LASO)
• West Church Street Overlay District
• Picadilly Mews Siting Overlay District
• Ocean View Residential Siting Overlay District
• Best Square Sign Overlay District
• Lafayette Boulevard Pedestrian Commercial and Residential Overlay District (PCRO-Lafayette Boulevard)
• Green Gifford Localized Sign Overlay District (Green Gifford-LASO)

Look overly complicated and confusing? Try building something and following the rules of each district. Better yet, try building something that spans lots of different zones, which would require council approval for rezoning. I live in a house zoned R-8. According to this zone, my lot should be a certain size and their are requirements to keep me from building to the edge of the lot. It also prohibits me from opening, say, a convenience store on the lot next door to me. This, by its very nature, is designed to keep uses separate. How can you walk to your destinations when they are required to be separate? These zoning codes a designed to increase the ability of the city to predict and manage automobile traffic patterns. Think about that. These codes are designed to prevent effective non-motorized travel. These codes are intended to benefit automobile drivers and promote a suburban, car-centric lifestyle.

Think about what you would call a ‘vibrant’ city or area. Downtown Norfolk? Town Center? The Oceanfront? New York City? San Francisco? Chances are, that no matter what area you picked, there is a lot of foot traffic. That said, it would also be fair to say that foot traffic equals vibrancy. It can also be said that most people agree that vibrancy is a good common goal. Nobody, not even the staunchest suburbanite, likes to be in an area with zero human interaction. Now think about the area that you picked. Why is there heavy foot traffic? Even if you picked MacArthur Center or Lynnhaven Mall, the reason there are people walking around is because everything is close together and because there are other people. Now, think about this. If Lynnhaven Mall required each store to be a minimum of 100 feet apart, would you still go? Or would it no longer be comfortable and convenient? That is what conventional zoning does. It forces you apart.

Form-Based Zoning on the other hand, is designed to keep you together. It is thoughtfully structured to allow only structures that are slightly denser than what is currently there, thereby creating an environment of steadily increasing density. It also allows for mixed use. The higher density a mixed use development is, the more likely that it will succeed of its own accord. Form-Based Zoning actually encourages mixed use. If you could walk everywhere you need to shop at and all you neighbors did the same, wouldn’t you?

Now, keeping in mind the conventional zoning, such as Norfolk’s, here is the basics for the Form-Based Zoning code that was recently adopted for Miami, Florida:

Notice how much simpler it is. The actual written code would include things such as height requirements/restrictions and building placement but it would be much more flexible. We should encourage Norfolk and even Chesapeake to adopt a form-based code. In addition to fostering higher density, mixed use developments, the form-based code make mass transit possible and gets people to walk/bike instead of drive, therefore lessening the amount of traffic on the roads without building more of them. Looking at it from a business point of view, localities that stick to form based codes tend not waste developers’ money. The developer can plan a building and already know what the city wants without having to go through lengthy meetings with a planning department. Finally, from a municipal standpoint, the city spends less time and money regulating and more time enjoying what it really wanted the whole time: strong developments that don’t take a toll on city resources. Please encourage your councilmen/women to look at and approve a form-based code.

If you would like to learn more about form-based codes, please visit http://www.formbasedcodes.org/

If you would like to see the specifics of a community that has already started the switch to a Form-Based Code, visit http://www.miami21.org, which is the main page for Miami’s Comprehensive Plan update process.

An Important Message for all James City County Citizens:

The JCC Comp Plan enters final phases of approval with a public hearing on Nov. 10.

The Board of Supervisors will begin consideration of the Comprehensive Plan on Tuesday November 10, 2009, with a work session at 4:00 PM followed by a public hearing at 7:00 PM in Building F at the County Complex on Mounts Bay Road.  The Board has a tentative second work session set for Tuesday November 17, 2009 at 4:00 PM, followed by a final vote on the plan during the regular meeting on Tuesday November 24, 2009 at 7:00 PM.

This is your last opportunity to weigh in on the plans for growth and development plans for James City County.

Active Williamsburg Alliance has participated in the public input phase on transportation. The language in the proposed JCC Comp Plan includes considerable emphasis on a multi-modal transportation system, highlighting the need for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and further development of the Greenway Master Plan.  These are the right strategies.  Now it’s time to make sure the County follows through on its plan.

While reviewing the Final Draft of the City of Virginia Beach’s Comprehensive Plan, my initial reaction was a positive one. A number of their so-called “Strategic Growth Areas” (SGA) were planned to have increased density with a focus on mixed use and mass transit. They even discussed a switch to the use of Form-Based Zoning in the SGAs. Unfortunately, they failed to follow through on their own recommendations. They start out with comments such as, “Instead of relying on the remaining inventory of underdeveloped land to absorb growth, the City carefully defined areas planned to accommodate and absorb urban growth called ‘Strategic Growth Areas.’” Then they define characteristics of the ‘Urban Area’ in the SGAs. Among these characteristics are “higher density residential uses” and “absence of single-family detached units.” This is interesting, mainly because in the first SGA defined in the plan, Burton Station, has the Planning Department making this very contradictory recommendation: “Respect and retain the existing houses in the neighborhood along Burton Station Road and maintain the low density character of this neighborhood.” (Emphasis added) Now, I understand the need to respect the people that live there, but the majority of this SGA is industrial. The small amount of land that has potential to be redeveloped is made up of a trailer park, woods, fields, and mud holes. In fact, aside from the trailer park, there is no technical ‘neighborhood’ in existence here. It is no more than a rural road with fewer than 20 homes and approximately 30 residents.

View Larger Map

Does this mean the city wants to maintain the trailer park? Yeah, right. According to the actual Burton Station plan from the Planning Department, even the options that keep it low density force the residents to move. In fact, according to the Burton Station plan, the City of Virginia Beach would work to reconfigure the Lake Wright golf course (City of Norfolk property) into the Burton Station area and then create a golf course community around it. How is a golf course community fit in with their Urban vision?

Overall, I applaud their effort and most of their plan. The new form-based zoning code will certainly curb sprawl as long as the city sticks to it. Sticking to it is going to require increasing density as density increases. In fact, if Virginia Beach can stick to this way of zoning, they will be catering less to suburbanism than Norfolk. Norfolk still has the older, suburban zoning, which is completely contrary to urban density. Good job Virginia Beach and keep up the good work.

As part of the development of a Comprehensive Plan, the Village of Holley, will be holding a Public Information Meeting on Wednesday November 18^th from 7:00 to 9:00 pm in the Holley Elementary School Cafeteria. The purpose of the meeting is to introduce the public to the Comprehensive Plan project, including the results of the recent community survey along with other information collected to date.  The meeting will be interactive, allowing residents to help shape the vision and goals for the future of Holley. The Village recognizes the need for a comprehensive and strategic approach to the complex issues we face in the 21^st Century.  As a small town, we need to be able to effectively leverage our assets and embrace opportunities for improving the quality of life of our citizens.

The Plan, to be completed over the course of the next year, will create a vision and framework of policies,  objectives, and strategies that will help guide decision-making in the Village over the next 10 to 15 years.  Topics to be addressed in the Plan include, but are not limited to, Main Street revitalization, tourism and economic development, recreation, public infrastructure, and community resources.  The Village has contracted with Bergmann Associates, a firm specializing in community planning in Upstate New York, to assist in the development of the Comprehensive Plan.

If you know of a treasure that needs to be unburied, contact me at Theresa@tothewhitelight.com. Or, if you ever thought to yourself, “I wish my customers knew…”, visit www.tothewhitelight.com to find out how I can help.

By. Kara Pennella, Greene County Field Officer

             The Greene County Planning Commission recently held a lengthy worksession on its revised Comprehensive Plan. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Engineer Chuck Proctor was there to provide input on transportation in the proposed growth area. The Planning Commission revisited three specific areas of the county that the Board of Supervisors highlighted during their joint meeting earlier this month.

             The Planning Commission first discussed the area southwest of Route 33 between Routes 633 and 743. This property was added by amendment to the 2003 Growth Area and has been removed from the proposed Growth Area for the new Comprehensive Plan. The land on the opposite side of Route 33 remains in the Growth Area. 

            C. Proctor expressed concern over the number of access points on Route 33. He noted that since there are already full access points at 633 and 743 it would be difficult to put in another full access entrance to the property under the new regulations. A parallel road would be required between Route 633 and 743. Because this area has not been studied previously VDOT was unsure exactly where the road would go and what impact it might have on traffic on Route 33. Commenting on the property itself, C. Proctor noted “It’s a nice piece of property. I hate to see it developed.” He pointed out that this was the only large scale pastoral view from Route 33 in between Stanardsville and Ruckersville. He also expressed concern that including the land in the growth area at this time would detract from density in the rest of the growth area. However, he did note that the potential for a parallel road could have some positive aspects.  [Editor's note - Is this comment  "I'd hate to see this developed" appropriate for the role of the VDOT Engineer? - nw]

             The second issue the Planning Commission asked for VDOT’s feedback on was expanding the growth area north up Route 29 to include the Highland’s Golf Park and some other lots already zoned B-3 and M-1.

             VDOT had concerns over including this area because the only access for these lots is Route 29. C. Proctor noted that there is no way to put a parallel road on the west side of 29. This would create a situation similar to Route 29 south of the Route 33 intersection.

             The third area the Planning Commission addressed is located east of Ruckersville from Route 616 stretching north to Route 33. Part of the land in this area has been zoned Senior Residential. There is also a section of land between the proposed growth area and the Senior Residential lots that was discussed. Concerns have been raised at both the Planning Commission level and the Board level that exclusion of the Senior Residential lots will make it more difficult to get access to water and sewer and move forward with the projects.

            Several new roads were recommended in this area as part of the Multimodal Corridor Study. If those roads were built there would be sufficient access for this area. Since this area was included in the Corridor Study, VDOT did not have much input on including this land in the Growth Area.

            The Planning Commission discussed all of these areas and comments at length. No consensus was reached. Since two Commissioners were not at the meeting, the Commission agreed to revisit this subject.

             The next portion of the meeting focused on the Chapters in the Comprehensive Plan. Each of the Commissioners present provided some brief comments and edits on the Chapters. The Chapters are available on the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Website. The public may also submit comments on the site.

             Finally, the Planning Commission began to tackle preferred density and zoning designations for area located within the growth area. A rough sketch of the area discussed will be presented for further revision at the next workshop.

             The Planning Commission will continue to discuss the Comprehensive Plan at their next regular meeting.

By. Kara Pennella, Greene County Field Officer

             The Greene County Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission met in a joint session on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 to review the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Bill Wanner of Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission presented a summary of the plan to both the Board and the Commission. J. Frydl, Chairman of the Planning Commission also provided an overview of the process that the Commission used to come up with the proposed smaller growth area.

             J. Frydl outlined the factors that went into creating the new growth area. First, the Commission looked at the preferred scenario created in the Multimodal Corridor Study (101 page PDF) Workshops and the water/sewer service area boundaries. They then tried to establish hard boundaries that followed property lines or other natural boundaries. Some properties were removed from the growth area because the Commission felt that the appropriate density had already been reached.  

           J. Frydl noted that there has already been some feedback from the public.  There have been some concerns from the public over removing property zoned Senior Residential because it might cause some issues moving forward with those projects. There have also been lots of comments about property on the southwest side of Route 33 and the PC is working to determine what, if any, of the property should be included in the growth area.

             The Board of Supervisors also provided comments on the draft plan. C. Schmitt had some questions regarding areas where the water and sewer boundaries did not match the proposed growth area. He noted the water and sewer service area was in the process of being reduced. C. Schmitt also expressed concern over making Stanardsville an Urban Development Area. He felt UDA’s required such a high density that Stanardsville might loose the village feel that residents sought.  J. Allen was generally happy with the plan but felt that there were a few properties that were taken out of the growth area that should be put back in. B. Peyton noted he would like to see property on the southwest side of 33 put back in the growth area. S. Catalano listed several areas that he would like the PC to revisit for possible inclusion in the growth area including the southwest side of Route 33 and some lots which have already been rezoned B-3.

             The Board and Commission briefly discussed the timeline for completion of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff indicated that the Board would likely not hold public hearings and vote on the plan until after the beginning of the New Year due to the reduced number of meetings for the holidays.

“Change is hard because people overestimate the value of what they have—
and underestimate the value of what they may gain by giving that up.”
— James Belasco and Ralph Stayer Flight of the Buffalo (1994)

At one time or another, change makes everyone uncomfortable. We often resist change as we overestimate the value and comfort of the familiar and underestimate the opportunities gained by embracing change. It is fear of the unknown that prevents many of us from venturing beyond what we feel comfortable. In fact, it would seem many would prefer a world of stability and continuity even if it has not worked for years, rather than face the uncertainly of change – even if change has the potential for greatly improving quality of life.

Take for instance, the Village of Holley. While it is less than ten miles beyond a bustling Brockport, many drive through this charming village without ever stopping as they travel west down Route 31 towards Albion. A small bedroom community in Orleans County, Holley has many vacant storefronts and an aging infrastructure. Many residents are apathetic and do not see or appreciate their many assets, or their potential. Yet Holley has so many “hidden treasures” – friendly people, a scenic canal park, and a breathtaking waterfall. What’s more, Holley is not only abundant in beautiful architecture, but rich in history too as part of the Erie Canalway.

Holley’s origin is much like many small towns. Originally, covered with a forest of hemlock trees, it was once a place where wild animals roamed through the thick underbrush of shrubs and plants. In fact, back in 1802, travelers reported the trees were so thick that even with the brightest sunshine above, you stood in wooded darkness!

Then one day, New York State made a decision to construct a canal spanning from Albany to Buffalo. From then on, everything changed. Cheap, fertile land available for purchase enticed early settlers to venture beyond their comfort zones and into this vast wilderness. By clearing many trees to make room for the settlers, much light shined on an area once filled with darkness.

Two of Holley’s earliest settlers in 1812 were William Rice and Stephen Lewis. Entrepreneurs, they envisioned moneymaking opportunities and began making plans for this future canal town. One such man was John Reed, who in 1814, discovered a “salt lick” and began boiling salt – a necessity back then to preserve food.

The next pioneer in Holley was Aerovester Hamlin – a man who had big dreams for the village. A visionary, Mr. Hamlin saw Holley’s great potential even when others didn’t and purchased 100 acres of land. In 1822, he had the land surveyed and laid out, with streets radiating from the central square. Soon after Mr. Hamlin erected a warehouse and created a post office. Unfortunately, he overextended his finances and in 1828, Mr. Hamlin sold his holdings, with Hiram Frisbie and James Seymour purchasing most land and improvements known then and now as the Public Square.

Once construction of the Erie Canal began, many workers selected Holley – a new and growing settlement as their permanent home upon the canal’s completion in 1825. Soon Holley began to attract many settlers and businesses; its rich soil planted with vegetable crops and orchards and its abundant harvest shipped on the Erie Canal.

In many ways, this essay serves as a history lesson. It’s also a remarkable story about one small town’s transformation from wooded darkness to the light of a new and growing settlement. History is now repeating itself with Holley once again experiencing darkness; a different kind of darkness that is just as thick and just as dark as an overabundance of hemlock trees. This darkness is apathy; an apathy that has spread not only among many of our residents, but also among some our local business owners too.

Still… we do have a chance to write another remarkable chapter to our village’s story. There are many … myself included… who embrace change and believe change will improve the quality of life of every Holley resident. The new chapter begins right now as Holley is on the verge of another transformation…. the likes of which not seen since the construction of the Erie Canal. It has its beginning with the development of a Comprehensive Master Plan, defining Holley’s vision in four key areas over the next ten years: Infrastructure, Neighborhood & Historic Preservation, Economic Development, and Tourism & Recreation.

To ensure Holley preserves it charm along side progress, I am asking for your support. Change will breathe new life into Holley. Such a transformation though will not come about by the actions of a few; it will require a great deal of hard work and restoration by everyone in the community. There are many great storefronts that must be restored; many codes that must be revised and enforced; many businesses and industries that must be developed; many misguided who must be redirected; and a community of people who must work together for the greater good. While it’s a big dream… much like the one our ancestors had…its realization is possible. We only need to look to Angelica NY as a source of inspiration and a community revitalized in the face of hardship.

Like many of my readers, I am proud to be a resident of Holley with its many possibilities and opportunities. A long time ago, many settled here in search of a better life, each bringing with them the best they could offer to their community. This is the foundation on which Holley was established. I say to those who remain cloaked in darkness from a pain long past, let’s not live in the past. Don’t let apathy stand in the way of progress and growth. Our village and our people have so much potential, so many hidden treasures waiting for the day they can be unburied for all to see in the brilliant sunlight. Let’s move Holley out of darkness and into the light; let’s transform Holley from a place many drive through to one many never want to leave. I’m ready to stand tall and embrace our community’s transformation. Are you?

Vision of Holley

If you know of a treasure that needs to be unburied, contact me at Theresa@tothewhitelight.com. Or, if you ever thought to yourself, “I wish my customers knew…”, visit www.tothewhitelight.com to find out how I can help.

A community survey was distributed in September to solicit resident’s input on a wide range of topics, including infrastructure (water, electric, sidewalks, etc.), neighborhood and historic preservation, economic development, tourism & recreation, and more. All are being considered and addressed in the Village’s Comprehensive Plan.  This is your chance for your voice to be heard and to be part of the solution. Your participation in this process is vital in ensuring the Plan’s direction reflects your ideas and opinions as to how you want Holley to look and feel 10 years from now. For a copy of this survey, go to http://www.villageofholley.org then print and return the survey to the Village Office, 72 Public Square, Holley NY 14470.

Note: While surveys were due by Sept 23, the Village is still accepting surveys during the compilation period.

For all those who have already participated in the survey, thank you so very much. We’ve received a great response thus far. Finally… this is not your only chance for your voice to be heard. There will be several opportunities coming up for you to express your concerns. So speak up Holley!.

If you know of a treasure that needs to be unburied, contact me at Theresa@tothewhitelight.com. Or, if you ever thought to yourself, “I wish my customers knew…”, visit www.tothewhitelight.com to find out how I can help.

This week, both the Whatcom County Council and Planning Commission will be considering proposed changes to the County’s Urban Growth Areas.  As discussed in my prior post on this issue, a joint hearing was held by the Council and Planning Commission with regard to the County Executive’s UGA Proposal.

The small cities (i.e. Lynden, Blaine, Ferndale, etc.) are unhappy with the County Executive’s Proposal.  The Executive’s Proposal calls for significantly decreasing the size of Blaine and Ferndale’s UGAs and  also runs counter to Lynden’s desire to increase the size of its UGA.

Bellingham’s City Council initially requested that its UGA be neither increased or decreased in size.  The Executive, however, proposes to reduce Bellingham’s UGA by removing the Geneva and Hillsdale areas.  The Executive also proposes to remove the Yew Street area from Bellingham’s UGA and place it in “reserve.”  Bellingham has decided not to oppose this Proposal.  The City’s letter to the Executive can be found here.

Taking areas out of a UGA and placing them in reserve status is legally questionable.  The purpose of creating UGAs is to provide for predictabilty and certainty with regard to accommodation of future population growth.  Designating areas as “reserve”, in contrast, does not create any certainty or predictability as to whether these areas will be developed at urban levels of growth during the 20 year planning period.

To further complicate matters both the City and the Bellingham School District have made significant infrastructure investments in the Yew Street Area in reliance on the current zoning and UGA designation of the area.  Additionally, as I discussed in my last post, it is less from certain that removing lands from city jurisdiction will accomplish the desired goals of protecting either the Lake Whatcom or Lake Padden watersheds.

In decreasing the size of UGAs throughout the County, it is unclear whether the Executive’s Proposal will direct growth to Bellingham or the small cities, or whether people will continue to seek housing in unincorporated Whatcom County.  This is an important policy issue that the Council and Commission will be considering over the next few weeks.  More information can be found on the County’s website.

Attention James City County Residents! The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 6:30 PM in the Board Room of Building F at the County Complex on Mounts Bay Road.  This will probably be the only opportunity for public comment before the Planning Commission.  As currently planned, once the public hearing is closed on September 30th, the Planning Commission will discuss and vote on the Comp Plan at its regular meeting on October 7, 2009 … without the opportunity for additional public comment before the vote.  If you care about the future of your community, you need to be at the September 30th public hearing to voice your concerns.

The materials for the Planning Commission’s public hearing on the 2009 Draft Comprehensive Plan are now available online. Please contact the Planning Division at (757)253-6685 or planning@james-city.va.us for more information.

The Bellingham City Council will be holding a public hearing on Sept. 21 to consider exceptions to its big box ban.  As I discussed in an earlier post, the Planning Commission held a hearing on this issue earlier this summer.

In a close 3-2 vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a new ordinance that would allow exceptions to the 90,000 square foot size limit for retail establishments in Bellingham.  The new ordinance would allow these larger stores in certain areas of the Guide Meridian/Cordata Neighborhood and Meridian Neighborhood, namely the area between Bellis Fair and  Walmart as well as along Bakerview where  Fred Meyer is located.

As demonstrated by the Planning Commission vote, this is a controversial issue in Bellingham.  On one side of the issue are those who see these larger retail stores as essential to the economic welfare of the City as well as an affordable shopping option in these economic hard times.  On the other side of the issue are those who want to see a more pedestrian friendly, environmentally oriented city with more urban village types of  development.

Staff has attempted to bring both sides together by proposing a new set of green factor landscaping requirements, which are  primarily aimed at reducing impervious surfaces, for retail uses that are larger than 90,000 square feet.

Using building size to drive planning decisions leads to the situation that we are now faced with – a zoning regulation aimed at a few specific business with unintended citywide economic and planning consequences.  Planners have a number of tools to ensure that development is well suited to a particular area or neighborhood, including  landscaping requirements, impervious surface regulations, traffic concurrency, public amenities,  design regulations, etc.   These elements are equal to if not more important than building size in planning for an area and thus building size alone should not necessarily control development.

It should be an interesting hearing as Council members will need to reconsider both the economic and planning impacts of the existing big box moratorium.  The economy looks a lot different than when the ordinance was originally passed in February of 2007.  The question is, is whether the Council’s position is any different.

Whatcom County Executive Pete Kremen recently released his recommendation for the sizing of the County’s urban growth areas (UGAs).  There are 10 UGAs in Whatcom County, 7 of these areas include cities (Bellingham, Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, Lynden, Nooksack, Sumas) and 3 of the UGAs are unincorporated areas (Birch Bay, Cherry Point, Columbia Valley).

The Executive has recommended that all of the UGAs be decreased in size.  Blaine and Ferndale in particular, are proposed to have a significant amount of land removed from their UGAs.

The Executive’s stated rationale for decreasing the size of the UGAs is to preserve resource and rural ands and promote infill.    On the other side of the debate, however, are cities like Ferndale who advocate for a larger UGA to ensure that the city has sufficient land to attract jobs and an economic base to support existing residential development.

The Executive has similarly recommended reducing Bellingham’s UGA.   The Executive proposed to remove areas surrounding the Lake Whatcom and Lake Padden watersheds as well as require Bellingham to develop a plan to accommodate more infill.

A problem with this proposal is that arguably Bellingham is in a better position to manage and regulate the sensitive areas around Lake Padden and Lake Whatcom and to determine whether and what kind of development should occur in these areas.  Additionally, as demonstrated by the debates over the City’s infill toolkit, established neighborhoods within Bellingham have repeatedly shown an unwillingness to increase densities and accommodate additional growth.

The Executive’s UGA recommendations are wide ranging and of long term importance with regard to comprehensive planning throughout the County.  A public hearing will be held on the Executive’s proposal on September 17th.

By. Neil Williamson

 Albemarle County is going to some effort to get the public reengaged in their Places29 Master Planning exercise.  Thus it was with great surprise that the Free Enterprise Forum discovered a significant component of the master plan is unavailable to the public – Appendix 2 – Implementation and project descriptions.

This is just the latest interesting twists in finding “public” information about Places29.  If you are looking for the technical memorandum that back up the report, you will not find them anywhere on the Albemarle County site, you must know to look on the subcontractor Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission site. 

It is in Appendix 2 that people begin to get an understanding of the actual scope of the changes being proposed.  While the larger document speaks of limiting access to US 29, Appendix 2 includes maps that show how challenged the movements from US 29 will be.

Here is a link to one of the ”unavailable” projects.  Project Number 22 (of 58) from Appendix 2 page A2-29: 2009_08_31_09_50_45 

As one reviews the project sheet, one can much better understand the verbiage “construct jug handle road and cosolidate access on the east side of US 29 between Timberwood Blvd. and Airport Road.” 

While supressing my conspiracy theorist paranoia, I wondered why would Albemarle County choose not to make Appendix 2 readily available to the public?  Clearly each project has been presented to the Planning Commission and is a part of the public record (if you know where to look). 

After taking a good hard look at just at Project Number 22 [of 58] here are a few musings regarding why the appendix may have been recused from public view:

• Could it be that the planners would rather discuss the plan from 30,000 feet rather than be challenged by the Forest Lakes residents that will have tortured access to Hollymead Town Center? 
• Perhaps, the planners would prefer not to discuss how southbound travelers seeking to get to the airport will need to turn right on a new “circulator road” north of the intersection with Airport Road; while northbound airport traffic will divert through Forest Lakes to reach the terminal.  
• Is it possible the Planners not wish to discuss the volume of traffic that will be channeled through existing neighborhoods based on Airport Road/US29  new “jug handle” alignment?

 The Free Enterprise Forum calls on Albemarle County to place Appendix 2 on the Places29 website to better allow the public to understand the Places29 plan. 

Further, we encourage the public to attend the public information sessions scheduled for September 8^th4 pm – 5:45 at the Albemarle County Office Building 2^nd floor and September 10^th4:30 pm – 6:30 pm at the Hollymead Fire Station.

The Planning Commission Public Hearing on Places29 is not yet finalized but an October 13^th hearing is anticipated.

Whatcom County Staff has just published a new round of rural element update changes.    The most recent updates can be found on the County’s website.  In reaction to public testimony from property owners, Staff has expanded some rural center and rural business areas, which will allow for a number of existing businesses to continue to operate in compliance with the proposed zoning regulations.

Specifically, Staff has designated Type I LAMIRDs along the Guide Meridian with a rural type of general commercial zoning.  Also in other areas, including the Birch Bay-Lynden I-5 area,Type III LAMIRDs have been designated with a rural industrial/manufacturing zoning designation.

Although further work needs to be done on building size limitations, setbacks, buffers, and other development regulations, the most recent changes are a big improvement over what was originally proposed.   The new LAMIRD designations will allow many existing businesses in the rural areas to continue to operate in compliance with existing zoning regulations.  By designating these areas as LAMIRDs the County also achieves a limitation on expansion of these areas further into rural Whatcom Couny.

Other areas, including the more densely developed residential areas of the County are still proposed to be rezoned to R10.  The Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on the latest Rural Element revisions on September 8.

Annexation is the method by which a city expands its boundaries.  In Washington, only property that is located within a city’s urban growth area can be annexed to that City (see my prior posts regarding how urban growth areas are established).

The most frequently used method of annexation is known as the 75% petition annexation method.  Under this method, which is used by the City of Bellingham, annexations are initiated when owners of at least 10% of the acreage within the annexation area submit a petition to the city council.  The city council then decides whether to initiate the annexation, modify the geographical area, or reject the annexation.  If the annexation is initiated then initiating parties must circulate another petition, which must be signed by owners representing at least 75% of the assessed valuation within the annexation area.

Once this 75% petition is submitted and determined to be legally sufficient, the annexation is reviewed by the Boundary Review Board (BRB).   During the 45 day BRB Review period other affected jurisdictions and agencies (i.e. the county in which the annexation is located, fire districts, school districts, etc.) and other property owners may request a hearing on the annexation before the BRB.

If no hearing is requested before the BRB then the city council holds a public hearing on the proposed annexation and makes a final decision thereafter.  Once annexed the subject property will be incorporated in the city limits and will obtain necessary services (water, sewer, fire, shools, etc.) from city departments.

Future posts will address the pros and cons of annexation.  But, in brief, the major benefit of annexation is that it allows a city to exert control over planning and zoning for the area.  By annexing undeveloped areas, cities can require master planning and ensure logical and orderly growth.

The way a community regulates its growth is inextricably linked with bicycle access. (Imagine how different Newton would be if Route 9 didn’t cut such a bike-unfriendly swath through it, or if Chestnut Hill Mall were genuinely bike and pedestrian accessible, or if Needham Street were a tree-lined boulevard with a green-line spur!)

Bike-friendly is community friendly.

A number of current and pending projects offer opportunities (or, if we ignore them, barriers) to bike-friendly development:

• Chestnut Hill Square
• Riverside
• Needham Street

Guidance on good planning (pretty close to Complete Streets, pedestrian and bike-friendly, public-transportation-friendly) is already in place in Newton in the recently approved Comprehensive Plan (just scroll down a little and click on “Final Comprehensive Plan” to download the PDF.) Unfortunately, though much of the plan is very progressive and forward-looking, very little of the plan has become policy. Judging by how hard it is to find the plan on the City of Newton website (in a long list of reports on the Planning Department’s page), there is a good chance the aims of the plan are elsewhere buried as well. It’s up to the residents of Newton to make sure the City doesn’t lose sight of the Comprehensive Plan as it chases short term gains in development money.

The Comprehensive Plan suggests a development planning process in which Newton would set the rules of development, and developers’ plans would need to be transparent, instead of the current process, where meetings that are convened by aldermen for public “input,” are controlled by developers. Residents and abutters attend a meeting hoping to hear development plans, and what they get instead is vague development marketing, without any pushback from elected officials. The message is clear: developers run development in Newton. Residents have little input, and elected officials seem to take a passive role. A much better process is outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, but so far, nobody with any power or vision has tried to make that process into a set of policies.