The Fluvanna Review stated that I was "the only citizen to speak who did not oppose the development." I would say that this is a correct statement. I would also point out that I never stated that I was in favor of the development. Rather, I had some questions that I wanted to direct to the Board of Supervisors regarding the principles that were in play regarding this developments approval. From the first time that I have been involved with anything regarding Fluvanna, my intention has been to ensure that Fluvanna is placed in the best light possible in order to attract the activity that we desire in the county so that we can properly fund the services that we desire for our citizens and children. To be positive about Fluvanna. Frankly, the message out of Fluvanna over the past years had not been positive and that needed to change and it is changing. Great things are happening in this County and we need to keep the ball rolling. Do we have problems, sure. But so does every single jurisdiction in our immediate area.
There are many things about this Development that I will be interested in seeing how they play out. Let me explain. The scope and size and timing of the development may not be right at this time. Now may not be the time to add 300 new homes to the Fluvanna Landscape. But the overall message that the approval sent regarding Fluvanna being Open for Business spoke volumes.
Message? Yes, Message. What message did it send, or should I say messages...
- Fluvanna County does what it says it is going to do.
- Owners Property Rights Matter.
- Prove it before you build??? Not here.
- County Involvement and participation is not just a part time venture
- The future development of Zion Crossroads in Fluvanna was tied to this approval.
- Fluvanna County does what it says it is going to do.
People do business with business and entities that do what they say they are going to do and that do not go back on what they said they are going to do.
Let's go back in time and see how this property, that I referred to as Fill in the Blank Ridge (Walker/Poplar Ridge) got to this point.
A land owner had a dream. A dream of building a Golf Course in Fluvanna County. A Golf Course that would be draw visitors to the area. The owners built the golf course, had the best intentions and it did not succeed economically. Rivanna Resort it was called. In all of this, sometime during the process and over the years, this property that is adjacent to Camp Friendship was envisioned to be a Resort. With 200+ houses scattered throughout the Resort acreage and a cluster hotel/condo development support nearly 100 more units to be located on the site. This rezoning request was presented to the county and the request was approved for the 300 plus units. R-3 Zoning was approved. After all, the County's Comprehensive Plan called for growth and development to occur at some point in the County in certain area. The location of the Rivanna Resort fell within one of those area. The vision of the County in 25, 50, 100 years, as approved by the county was for there to be growth and development in that specific location. What would or could be better? A resort, 300+ units. R-3 was approved. A zoning designation that would allow for the desired density that the owner desired and then some.
Was a resort development approved? Yes AND potentially more. What was actually approved was R-3 zoning. With that acreage, the R-3 approval, the parcel of land was set for nearly 1000 units or more, just by doing the math of the number of acres divided by 3, minus any common areas and roads. That is what R-3 allowed. The owners were happy, the community was happy, the Resort might survive and even thrive. And then the economy turned, the bubble burst, the music for the musical chairs game stopped, and the game was over. The Resort was not developed. The dreams faded away. The property was financially in trouble. Investors acquired the property.
So what did the investor acquire? A Resort? Yes and No. They acquired a parcel of property with the zoning rights that convey with the property.
I speak to land owners all over the area on a weekly basis, along with a number that own property in Fluvanna County and in every single conversation, I find the owner of the property using the following term: By-Right. The conversation goes something like this. "We own 100 acres, and it is only one tax ID now, but By-Right, we can divide it into 4 parcels. Make sure that you let potential buyers know that."
You see, buyer don't just buy dirt. And they are not just limited to building exactly what their neighbor has next door. They are buying the dirt, and the rights that convey with that parcel. The rights to divide, the rights to develop, the rights to place it into a conservation easement if it is the right type of property. They buy the bundle.
Fill in the Blank Ridge was and is no different.
The County had given these rights, consistent with its Comprehensive Plan, consist with the vision of the County. They did so in 2008.
And they didn't say during this vote, sure you have these rights, but we are not going to let you exercise these rights - Just Kidding.
You see, a number of the properties that are in the Comprehensive Plan growth areas that should be developed in the Zion Crossroads area are not currently zoned for the potential use that would match or mirror the types of development that has occurred on the Louisa Side of Zion Crossroads. Many of the parcels are zoned A-1 / Agricultural. They are not zoned for the development of a Restaurant or Hotel or Home Depot or Target or any other type of commercial venture that you can think of. Forget water and the lack of availability for a second and just deal with the parcel. The current zoning attached to the parcels as I write this is not consistent with development. This is where the Comprehensive Plan comes in. It indicated that these areas could be rezoned for these commercial uses. The Comprehensive Plan also does not call for these types of Developments in areas that the County envisions remaining rural in nature, like a majority of the Southern Portion of the County, particularly along the Route 6 Corridor.
The county has a vision that in the best judgment of those involved with the process, will allow for the development to occur on our one major off ramp from the Interstate Highway so that we can potentially thrive and not just become like the forgotten Radiator Springs in the children's movie Cars. Radiator Springs was passed by when the interstate took another route and dried up. Comprehensive Plans are development and implemented and followed and adjusted to ensure that an area does not get left behind.
So, the County indicates that this is a growth area. And they a land owner tries to make the change and the county says, nah - we were just kidding, we don't do what we say. That is a bad message to send to potential developers that will just move along to the next county or locale that will do what they say.
You see. The same process will need to be followed to change the A-1's in Zion to Commercial or Industrial to change our Counties tax base.
If a property owner does not wish to do so, they have every right in the world not to sell. The have every right to not allow their property to be developed. They have every right to sell to someone else that promises to not develop. They can hold tight like the lovable old man in the touching movie UP! The man that refused to sell to the developers because the house meant so much to himself and the memory of his wife. No matter how much money they waved at him, it was within his rights to refuse. Might this "devalue" the property, perhaps. That is their right. They might see this as the highest and best use of the property.
It is also within their rights to see the properties highest and best use to be developed to its fullest potential and seek to have the zoning changed in a matter consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
And a county or locale, in good faith, will usually work with the land owner to facilitate the change to support of vision of the future of the area. If they don't, then they will quickly develop a reputation of being an area that is difficult to work with. An area that doesn't do what they say they are going to do.
- Owners Property Rights Matter.
The rights of the individual property owner matter.
And many of these rights end and are transferred to the new owner when the property is sold.
In recent years there has been a show on HGTV that has played off of this. Former home owners are invited back into their former homes 1 to 2 to 3 years after they sold it to the new owners so that they can see the changes that the new owners have made to the property. The initial appeal and shock value of the show was the negative reactions that a majority of the old owners had to the changes. The contrast was that the viewer got to see the before and after photos. While the former owner was lamenting with statements like "how could they have done that?" or "why did they remove that?", the viewer was seeing that the shag carpet was finally removed and the wood paneling in the basement replaced and the updates were mostly needed and enhanced. Yet the former owners complained about that had been done to "their" property. All of this while the fact remained, it was not their property any more.
A little more than 7% of the acreage in Fluvanna County is under some form of conservation easement. These owners have taken steps to ensure that, even after the transfer of the property, that they uses of the property are defined and potentially restricted (or enhanced) for the future owners.
During the recent public hearing for the Fill in the Blank / Poplar Ridge approval, 1500+ signatures were presented in opposition to the development. I must admit that I never saw the petition nor was presented with the petition to sign. I say this because I do not know the language that was used in the petition. I imagine that is was something along the line of - I opposed Poplar Ridge. I get that and I applaud those that organized to attempt to get their point across. What I don't know is, would those that signed the petition do so if it also meant that they were going to give up their own personal property rights? Would they agree to not pursue the full rights on their own properties, including seeking to place it under conservation easements or to seek zoning changes in line with the Comprehensive Plan or to seek Special Use Permits potentially allowed under the zoning ordinance that was previously approved for the parcel?
Previously approved! In 2008. The owner of the parcel in question already had R-3 approval for the parcel for a mix of homes and condos/apartments.
Were those that were signing the petition stating that they were ok with condos and apartments? That they were ok with houses located along the river? That was previously approved. Maybe so, or did they just not want to have any further development in Fluvanna? A blanket statement would not cover every reason. But the message sent, was, that property rights matters.
- Prove it before you build??? Not here.
At the previous Board of Supervisors Meeting held on July 16th 2014, SUP 14-03/Jeff & Gayle Stoneman, Commercial Kennel – was brought before the board for approval. This item was discussed and a Public Hearing held AFTER the proposed action on the Poplar Ridge was deferred and 98% of the courthouse cleared out and left. A kennel in Palmyra nearer to the historic district than Poplar Ridge. So why do I bring this up? I bring it up to highlight the inconsistencies in the approval process followed by some of the Board members or member.
4 Citizens spoke out at the Public Hearing.
- Frank Gallo, Palmyra District – addressed the Board in regards to additional conditions for this request for waste pick up and vaccination requirements, Carol Parson, Cunningham District – addressed the Board in regards to concern about noise of a gun club as an adjoining property owner, Marvin Moss, Columbia District – addressed the Board in regards to this property being A-1 zoning, doesn’t feel this parcel shouldn’t be A-1, Robert Earl, Cunningham District – addressed the Board in regards to planning process of Special Use Permits.
Two major concerns came up - Noise and Waste.
The Supervisors asked about noise. The property owner stated that the dogs would be mostly kept inside. The Supervisors asked about waste. The process to handle the waste was explained by the property owner. A few conditions were put onto the SUP and it was approved 5 to Zero.
Thankfully the owner was not asked to build the building and put 30-50 dogs in the building and measure sound levels before the approval was granted at the owners expense. Imagine that. That owners would have to make investments and proves that the proposal worked before getting approval.
Yet that is exactly what was being requested in the case of Poplar Ridge. Prove it. Drill test wells, build drain fields. Did they actually want the system to be built and run for a couple of years before a house was built, at the land owners expense? Again, back to Zion Crossroads. Are we going to require a hotel to build the infrastructure first before they are approved or are we going to say, I see that you are going to follow the same procedures that you used in building other properties of this nature and that you are going to submit yourselves to the test requirements of the state agencies that are tasked to oversee and approve such projects and take the risk at that point that, if you are not approved, you cannot build. Barking Noise and Waste - We will take your word for it.
- County involvement and participation is not just a part time venture
As I stated in my remarks during the public hearing, It would have been nice to see that many people stick around at the last meeting in July rather than leave immediately following the deferral or to be at the early portion of the last meeting when the topic that was up for discussion and approval was School Safety and the need for an additional Safety Resource Officer for the Schools. (SRO). This same disinterest was shown in the most recent budget season.
- The future development of Zion Crossroads in Fluvanna was tied to this approval.
I could go on regarding how important I feel that this message was. I am not a writer. I am a citizen that wants to see Fluvanna develop into and continue to be a great place to raise families and enjoy life. I want to see it become a viable choice for those that want to invest to build businesses that create jobs in this area. As I have said publicly over a dozen times at Board Meetings, I will sell a home or property anywhere in the Charlottesville Area, I just hope a majority of them are in Fluvanna County in the months and years to come.
The Counties Comprehensive Plan is alive and well, and if it needs to be adjusted than we all need to be involved in the process to help shape the future of Fluvanna. We are open for Business in areas that are included in the Comprehensive Plane and We are open for those that want to invest in a slice of heaven and protect it for generations to come in areas included in the Comprehensive Plan. We are open. What a great message.
Comments(0)