By Right or By Wrong?
The Page County Planning Commission is ready to consider changes to the zoning ordinance called the “By Right Subdivision” laws. On August 28, the Planning Commission watched a presentation by our county planner, Kevin Henry, about the consequences of our current By Right subdivision ordinance (county code 100). The problem, according to Mr. Henry’s presentation, is that the county’s code has a loophole. Some time ago, the county passed laws that you could only subdivide your land a limited number of times per so many years. The intention of that law, I can only infer from the presentation, was to slow growth and chase away developers. But there are two loopholes in the county code.
The first loophole is that after you subdivide once, the newly platted land becomes its own “parent tract” and it can subdivide again. This allows the land to be divided into more and more pieces, more quickly than the county intended.
The second loophole is that families can subdivide the land for their own use, and then the new family member can sell off the land.
I’m somewhat confused about what the rules are. As I get more into this, I’ll look up the codes and figure out the point better. As soon as I do, I’ll post them here.
Why is this a problem? Mr. Henry showed that a plot of land could then be fully developed within, say, a ten year period, but the streets would be all private roads, not state roads, and they wouldn’t follow the rules of the Virginia Dept of Transportation, and they wouldn’t be well maintained. Plus, the lot sizes would be all different, and in many cases there would be problems with septic fields for one piece of land actually being on somebody else’s property . The privately owned roads would then cause problems for snow removal, emergency services, fire trucks, etc. Plus, the county would not get a chance to get a developer to offer “proffers” for the development, and services required by the people who live there would not get paid for by the developers of the property.
On top of all that, when a person gets permission for the new plat (and these permission requests are coming into the county office about 1 every 3 days), they don’t have to show the surrounding land on their plat. That means they can get permission for a plat, but when the new owner tries to get a building permit, the county might have to say, “no, this is not a buildable lot because it’s next to a chicken farm and you need a 300 foot setback”. And then the new owner would be mad at the county instead of being mad at the person who sold him an unbuildable lot.
The Board of Supervisors has asked the Planning Commission to take an action to “fix” this ordinance within 100 days.
The Planning Commission set up a subcommittee to look into this and report back. The subcommittee consists of Planning Commissioners: Hammel, Short, DeSerio and one private citizen, Mr. John Sylvester. Another private citizen will be asked to join the committee.
My opinion:
On the one hand, we say we “don’t want developers”.
On the other hand, our County Planner points out that developers bring proffers for payment for roads, new schools, and other payments for services the county needs. Without them, we get development with scraggly roads, people stuck with no access, people with no septic fields on their land, etc. And, the county is left having to raise property taxes because they couldn’t squeeze some bucks out of the developers.
My personal opinion is:
Page County people LIKE scraggly roads with no access.
I personally see absolutely nothing wrong with a development where all the lots are different sizes, all the houses are different styles, and some people have to expect that if it snows, they’re stuck inside until it melts.
And if you lived where I live (and I know many of you do live in places like I live) you have absolutely no expectation that a fire truck or an Emergency Medical Technician would ever be able to show up in time when you need them. Not due to any fault of theirs, but just because they can’t get here that easily. An example: I tried to get somebody to deliver firewood, and they told me there was a $10 surcharge per truckload, just for the inconvenience of driving down my road.
So on the one hand, we have a Board of Supervisors who turns down Danny Comer’s request to build a duplex on his own land, because it’s “spot zoning”, considers giving the airplane owners a break and letting the airport grow so that the Learjets can come in, and wants to change the By Right subdivision ordinance so we won’t have all these unmaintained dirt roads.
And on the other hand, we have nearly universal agreement in the county that nobody wants the Big Bad Developers (hereafter referred to as The Wolves) to come in and turn our beautiful land into Warrenton.
I have to say, I think if you asked the citizens of the county if we should pass laws to prevent people from cutting up their land and selling it whatever way they want, to whomever they want, so that there would be better emergency access for services, the chances are the vote would come out to say, “Keep your emergency services. Let us alone.”
Because, you see, that’s what makes Page Page. We have our Supervisors saying, “we want to maintain the rural nature of the county.”
That’s what the rural nature is. Dirt roads. Poor access. Nothing standard.
I don’t think we can have both. What will it be, Supervisors? Learjets and Planned Subdivisions? Or Country Living?
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Anyone need a Learjet?
The Board of Supervisors held a special meeting on 28 August to hold a public hearing on a proposed change in the property tax rate for aircraft kept at the Cavern’s airport. The change would reduce the tax rate from $3.90 per $100 of depreciated value of an aircraft to $.50 per $100 of the current blue book value of an aircraft.
According to Powell Markowitz (Airport Commission) a reduction in the tax rate on aircraft would attract more people and businesses to keep their aircraft in the county. If I understood correctly, the net effect would be to provide more tax revenue in the long run. To be sure, Mr. Markowitz and his associates have clearly done their homework (Lots of numbers and supporting rationale.) The proposed reduction in the tax rate is reasonably consistent with the tax rates levied by other counties within the state. The rates vary from pennies on the dollar to rates slightly above the rate proposed for Page County. The basis for aircraft valuation varies from county to county. The proposed use of blue book value for aircraft kept in Page County seems to be reasonably consistent with how other counties operate. The long term promise from the airport folks is there will be offsetting revenue accruing to the county by virtue of having more taxable aircraft kept in the county (taxed at a relatively constant value (i.e. blue book vs. a declining value based on a straight line depreciation). In addition, it was suggested additional revenues would accrue to the county based on some unspecified increase in better paying jobs in support of the airport operations and some unspecified increase in tax revenue due to more unspecified businesses wanting to come to the county.
The improvement and expansion of the airport would be funded, I assume over time, by Federal grants (95%), State grants (3%), Luray (1%) and Page County (1%). At present, the airport folks have obtained a state grant to begin the process in the amount of $500,000. If I understood correctly, it would be used to add 30 T Hangars. Apparently, there are approximately 15 people with aircraft waiting in the wings, so to speak, for these hangers with promises for more.
One citizen, John Rogerson, spoke at the public hearing. The essence of his concerns seemed to reflect skepticism mostly about the promises offered as part of the rationale for reducing the tax rate in that it benefited the wealthy aircraft owners and would cost the county more money in the future. I believe he was referring to the 1% contribution by both the town and county to support the development of the airport. In terms of real dollars, it is unclear what that cost would be. As a practical matter, I share some of Mr. Rogerson’s concerns. If we build it, will they come?
The airport folks are asking the county to take what I would call a business risk by making an investment. The investment would be a short term loss of some tax revenue with the promise of a long term return on that investment of higher tax revenues and possibly the creation of a few new jobs. Mr. Cubbage asked when the county might expect to begin realizing the promised returns. Mr. Markowitz suggested that it would certainly begin within a year.
Mr. LaFrance offered a very astute observation. If I understood correctly, it would seem the county has to come to grips with what it really wants the county to look like down the road. Should the county strive to maintain its rural character or should it really look to the future and support economic growth opportunities? I gathered the real decision is a tough one. Certainly anything that increases tax revenues and adds jobs to the economy is desirable. The decision would boil down to “at what cost,” not only in terms of financial support but at some compromise with maintaining the rural character of the county. I do not envy the Board having to make this particular decision.
The issue will be offered for vote at the next regular session of the Board of Supervisors.
I have attempted to capture the essence of the hearing. If I have misrepresented anything, comments and corrections are welcomed.
According to Powell Markowitz (Airport Commission) a reduction in the tax rate on aircraft would attract more people and businesses to keep their aircraft in the county. If I understood correctly, the net effect would be to provide more tax revenue in the long run. To be sure, Mr. Markowitz and his associates have clearly done their homework (Lots of numbers and supporting rationale.) The proposed reduction in the tax rate is reasonably consistent with the tax rates levied by other counties within the state. The rates vary from pennies on the dollar to rates slightly above the rate proposed for Page County. The basis for aircraft valuation varies from county to county. The proposed use of blue book value for aircraft kept in Page County seems to be reasonably consistent with how other counties operate. The long term promise from the airport folks is there will be offsetting revenue accruing to the county by virtue of having more taxable aircraft kept in the county (taxed at a relatively constant value (i.e. blue book vs. a declining value based on a straight line depreciation). In addition, it was suggested additional revenues would accrue to the county based on some unspecified increase in better paying jobs in support of the airport operations and some unspecified increase in tax revenue due to more unspecified businesses wanting to come to the county.
The improvement and expansion of the airport would be funded, I assume over time, by Federal grants (95%), State grants (3%), Luray (1%) and Page County (1%). At present, the airport folks have obtained a state grant to begin the process in the amount of $500,000. If I understood correctly, it would be used to add 30 T Hangars. Apparently, there are approximately 15 people with aircraft waiting in the wings, so to speak, for these hangers with promises for more.
One citizen, John Rogerson, spoke at the public hearing. The essence of his concerns seemed to reflect skepticism mostly about the promises offered as part of the rationale for reducing the tax rate in that it benefited the wealthy aircraft owners and would cost the county more money in the future. I believe he was referring to the 1% contribution by both the town and county to support the development of the airport. In terms of real dollars, it is unclear what that cost would be. As a practical matter, I share some of Mr. Rogerson’s concerns. If we build it, will they come?
The airport folks are asking the county to take what I would call a business risk by making an investment. The investment would be a short term loss of some tax revenue with the promise of a long term return on that investment of higher tax revenues and possibly the creation of a few new jobs. Mr. Cubbage asked when the county might expect to begin realizing the promised returns. Mr. Markowitz suggested that it would certainly begin within a year.
Mr. LaFrance offered a very astute observation. If I understood correctly, it would seem the county has to come to grips with what it really wants the county to look like down the road. Should the county strive to maintain its rural character or should it really look to the future and support economic growth opportunities? I gathered the real decision is a tough one. Certainly anything that increases tax revenues and adds jobs to the economy is desirable. The decision would boil down to “at what cost,” not only in terms of financial support but at some compromise with maintaining the rural character of the county. I do not envy the Board having to make this particular decision.
The issue will be offered for vote at the next regular session of the Board of Supervisors.
I have attempted to capture the essence of the hearing. If I have misrepresented anything, comments and corrections are welcomed.
Monday, August 27, 2007
PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
WHO: Page County
Planning Department
WHAT: Planning staff will review current issues in the Subdivision Code followed by an open session for citizen comments.
WHEN: September 5th- 7:00 P.M.
Luray Elementary School
September 6th- 7:00 P.M.
Shenandoah Elementary School
Refreshments will be available. Questions or concerns, contact Page County Planning Department, 540-743-4142
_______________________________________________
This meeting is a great step toward getting people involved before laws are changed that impact their property. If you have any possible involvement with land that has been zoned for a subdivision, or you think you may want to in the future, I urge you to go to these meetings to find out what the county planners are thinking about the future of laws that could impact you!
Now is the time to get involved before things go too far down a road that you might not like.
WHO: Page County
Planning Department
WHAT: Planning staff will review current issues in the Subdivision Code followed by an open session for citizen comments.
WHEN: September 5th- 7:00 P.M.
Luray Elementary School
September 6th- 7:00 P.M.
Shenandoah Elementary School
Refreshments will be available. Questions or concerns, contact Page County Planning Department, 540-743-4142
_______________________________________________
This meeting is a great step toward getting people involved before laws are changed that impact their property. If you have any possible involvement with land that has been zoned for a subdivision, or you think you may want to in the future, I urge you to go to these meetings to find out what the county planners are thinking about the future of laws that could impact you!
Now is the time to get involved before things go too far down a road that you might not like.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Tuesday night at the County
Here is what happened at the Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, August 21, 2007. These are the combined notes of a group of citizens who attended. They are not minutes of the meeting. They are just citizen notes, provided here so that Page County citizens who might find they want to do something or get involved with any of this, have a chance to do so while it is still possible.
The meeting went from 7 p.m. to about 10 p.m. The topics covered were:
- A permit to put a light on a cell phone tower
- An ordinance to allow people to get business licenses if they work out of their homes
- Motor vehicle licenses
- Transferring land
- An ordinance to make a person pay for the use of emergency services if they are incurred while that person is committing a crime (ie drunk driving)
- A presentation about the status of broadband Internet access in the county
- A shameful turndown of Danny Comer’s rezoning request (editorial comment to follow)
- A resolution to declare the county in a state of Agricultural Emergency because of the drought (I take it this is in preparation to ask the state for money)
- An ordinance to start collecting real estate taxes as soon as an Occupancy Permit is issued (meaning, they didn’t hear Charlie two weeks ago when he told them people don’t get occupancy permits around here )
- A contract for Northwestern Community Services
- Some 911 address changes
- Some inaudible and impossible to follow changes to the budget that’s unreadable in the first place
- Some additions to the Capital Improvements Wish List
- Some new citizen members of the Water Quality committee
- A vacancy on the Planning Commission in District 2
- An approval to move forward with the pond at the end of the runway at the airport (more editorial comments to follow)
- A fire training center in Stanley
- A resolution (non binding) to tell illegal immigrants to get out of Page County
- Approval to pay a consultant to help build a Land Use Map (but just phase 1, the map, not the rezoning rewrite) -- this one is going to have its own Blog
I’m going to put this entire citizen’s report in one Blog here. If a topic gets significant comments, I’ll open up its own Blog.
I’m also going to make a special Blog for Rezoning, since that’s a hot button.
A. Special Use Permit: Shenandoah Mobile Company.
The special use permit allows the placement of a warning light at the top of an existing communications tower. The tower is located in an area frequently used by Medevac helicopters and presents hazard to public safety. Under current county ordinance, a light is only permitted if required by the Federal Communications commission. This requires an exception to county ordinance. In the interest of safety the waiver was approved. The special use permit was approved with certain restrictions, most notably that the light be red from dusk to dawn and white at all other times. The waiver and special use permit were both approved.
B. Ordinance Amendment to Home Occupations
This ordinance amendment has been percolating for a couple of months. It will allow certain small home businesses to operate without obtaining a special use permit. The intent is to encourage virtual businesses in the county. The biggest concern was the potential for excess traffic created by delivery trucks (UPS). It would seem there is really no way to enforce any restrictions that might be applied. Apparently the business licensing process will provide some sort of control. It wasn’t clear but I guess the business licensing process will react if there are a lot of complaints about too many trucks coming and going. The change was approved by the Board.
C. Ordinance Amendment to the Motor Vehicle License.
When the requirement to purchase a county decal for motor vehicles was eliminated the language that replaced it to continue to collect revenue on vehicles was a little muddled leaving some question as to exactly what constituted a taxable vehicle. This change defines a taxable vehicle as one that is licensed and on the road. An exception for disabled veterans was provided for in the amendment. This amendment was approved.
D. Transfer of Real Estate to the Economic Development Authority.
This provides for the transfer of ownership of real estate within the Luray town limits to the county’s Economic Development Authority. If I understood correctly, this property is adjacent to existing industrial park owned by the county and completes the transfer of ownership of property contiguous to the existing property. This action was approved.
E. Ordinance to Permit Reimbursement to the County for the Costs of Response by
Law Enforcement, Firefighting, Rescue & Emergency Services for Criminal Violations.
This ordinance provides for the ability of the aforementioned county functions to collect reasonable cost of response to situations where a criminal act has taken place. I understand this to mean that if a drunk has a car accident and is found guilty of DWI the cost associated with police and EMS response will be reimbursable to the county by the perpetrator. Makes sense to me! This action was approved.
Presentations.
Bluebird Presentation – Phase I Final Report.
The county, through the Economic Development Authority, has hired a consultant to pursue the potential for extending the availability of broadband internet (high speed) access throughout the county. The term Bluebird has been applied to the project. During Phase I, the consulting firm performed assessed the need for broadband internet access as well as for broadband education development.
The presentation provided a lot of numbers developed by the consultants based on citizen response to questionnaires. I assume if anyone is interested they can obtain a copy of the report or at least read it in the county administrator’s office. The bottom line is county citizens seem to want to proceed with creating the availability of broadband internet access to expand educational and business opportunities with the provision that its cost be reasonable.
The report also provided an assessment of the need for developing educational opportunities for potential broadband users. There are a number of educational partners including James Madison, Lord Fairfax Community College, PRISM (don’t know what the acronym stands for). I gather the long range view is to provide a pathway from tech training to higher education on computer/internet technology for educational and business purposes. Other educational opportunities exist with the Shenandoah Community Computer Center and the Page Workforce Job Center. I gather that these organizations tend to provide more hands on training to develop skills in specific software application use.
There is enough county interest to continue pursuit of expanding broadband internet access but to do so will require some investment spending. It wasn’t clear to me if the county will be willing to foot the bill. If I understood correctly, the state has expressed interest in using Page County as a pilot project for modeling rural broadband access. I assume that means they will provide funding for this purpose.
SWBA/IPV6 Presentation.
The Bluebird project will eventually dovetail into the existing but limited broadband access capabilities with in the county. I missed exactly what the acronyms stand for but the there is an entity in Shenandoah that operates as a wireless broadband authority (SWBA?). It was created under a grant and provides access to the Shenandoah area. Once the grant is ended, it will be able to expand into other parts of the county. If I understood correctly, funding to expand the capability will come from the state. The capability will have to provide an open network so that any service provider can use it. It will necessitate having a few more communication towers in the county. The I PV6 reference is to the next generation of internet technology. I am not too sure what that means at this time but I would surmise that it will be incorporated into what I hope will develop into the availability of broadband internet access throughout the county.
Public Comments on the Agenda Items.
There weren’t any!
Action Matters.
F. Rezoning Request – Danny Comer
This request provided for the rezoning of about three acres of agriculture use to residential use to build a duplex dwelling. What transpired between the Planning Commission being opposed to doing this but somehow it was sent forward to the Board for approval. The county’s concern is that this would be viewed as “spot development” and would therefore be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan (protect rural environment) and set a precedent. This could lead to future conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. The fact that the proposed dwelling would be a duplex did not help the matter. Mr. Cubbage did not see a problem and asked that the rezoning be approved. The property is in his district. Mr. Shanks added that if the “vision” of the county is to ultimately consider that general area for residential use, then perhaps it would not be considered “spot development.” The rezoning request was disapproved (Supervisors Strickler and Cubbage voted to approve it.)
G. Resolution to Declare an Agricultural Emergency.
Mr. Whittle from the Virginia Cooperative Extension asked for a resolution to be sent to the Governor’s office to declare Page County in the state of agricultural disaster due to the effects of drought conditions during the summer. In view of the recent rain, it seemed that calling the situation an emergency was a little strange. Nevertheless, the drought has had a negative impact on the agricultural community. I gathered that the ultimate intent was to get on record with the state with the county’s problem. At some later date, depending on what Mother Nature does, it would be in place to enable the county to obtain emergency relief such as low interest loans. The implementation of a resolution was approved.
Mr. Whittle introduced a new county agent with a specialty in Food, Nutrition and Health. I didn’t hear her name very clearly but it sounded like Britney Wilkins. She will cover Page as well as neighboring counties.
H. Ordinance to Amend Article XIV of the County Code Pertaining to Real Estate Taxes.
The intent of this ordinance change is to provide for prorating real estate taxes to collect revenues on homes that obtain occupancy permits during a given calendar year. Essentially this would mean if an occupancy permit is issued in October, the homeowners tax bill for the next year would be adjusted to collect taxes accruing through the remainder of the tax year during which the occupancy permit is issued.
This was approved unanimously.
I. Northwestern Community Services Performance Contract.
Don’t have a clue what this was all about but it was approved.
J. Proposed Address Changes.
Due to some inconsistencies in county address designations there was a need to change the addresses (and create street names?) for a few folks to facilitate 911 Emergency Services responses. The homeowners were all notified and I assume in agreement with the changes.
The changes were approved.
K. Budget Changes.
Since I didn’t have a copy of the proposed changes, it was difficult to follow exactly what Mr. Belton was proposing to change. I gather one of the items was to “earmark” some excess funds from the School Board for use in funding items for the new schools that are not currently funded. The rest was somewhat inaudible. It would be helpful to citizens if there is a PP slide showing the budget changes. Anyway, the proposed changes were approved.
L. Appointment of Committee to Review EMS Revenue Recovery.
Members to the committee were nominated. I didn’t catch all the names but Mr. Shifflet and Supervisor Strickler will be on the committee. Its estimated time to perform the action is 6-12 months. They would like it to be shorter to accommodate next year’s budget process but it would seem unlikely that it will occur any more quickly.
The nominations were approved.
Adoption of Capital Improvements Plan.
I have no idea what the Capital Improvement Plan proposes to do from one day to the next. It is a document that serves as a planning tool. Its adoption does not constitute approval of any future capital improvement projects. It seems to represent a moving wish list.
Anyway, it was adopted.
M. Board, Commission & Committee Appointments.
There are three openings of the Water Quality Advisory Committee. Supervisor Strickler recommended appointment of a lady from Shenandoah. I couldn’t quite hear the name but it sounded like Alice Pence. Supervisor Hoke recommended Neil McHenry. Apparently, Chris Anderson has identified yet another nominee to recommend. The two initial nominees were approved, I guess with a future draft choice to be named later.
This is where my head went as numb as my butt….
I think I heard there is a vacancy on the Economic Development Authority.
The resignation of one of the Planning Commissioners was announced although I did not hear who it was.
N. Consent Agenda.
Approved.
Old Business.
Luray Landing Easement Proposal.
The location of a storm water management pond is at issue here. In moving forward with the easement proposal, the county wants to ensure that it will be in compliance with FAA requirements as well as staying in good standing with the DEQ. The intent here is make sure whatever happens will be in compliance with appropriate county ordinances as well as FAA requirement so as not to jeopardize obtaining future FAA grants.
The only real issue seems to be who will have permanent maintenance responsibility for the retention pond. To leave it with a homeowner’s association could lead to problems since they tend to disappear or may not be able to afford the necessary maintenance requirements. The question is “Once the developer is gone, who will have the ball?”
It seemed that all of the Supervisors were in agreement to move forward under the above guidelines.
One additional note is that Congress did not budget much, if anything, for acquisition of land under FAA grants this year. I gathered the airport folks will have to wait until sometime in the future to offer to buy property for airport expansion.
Fire Training Center.
Mr. Shifflet proposed moving forward with using the property near Stanley for a new low impact fire training center to better serve the people of the county. Most of cost would be paid through grants but I gathered there might be some county money involved as well in FY 10 ($474K is in CIP) Mr. Cubbage suggested that the Board take a look at the property. They plan to do that before the special meeting of the Board next Tuesday. Supervisor Strickler expressed her concern that the county make sure it does not take on a liability when others use the facility. I assume this will require some sort of indemnification agreement with other users.
O. Proposed Resolution for Illegal Immigrants.
Mr. Hoke proposed a resolution to prevent illegal immigrants from taking advantage of county taxpayers. Mr. Shanks prepared a draft that was subsequently amended by the county staff folks. The essence of the resolution is to provide an incentive to become a legal citizen and provide a disincentive to remaining illegal. The ultimate intent is to forward the resolution to the federal and state level to encourage them to act on illegal immigration issues.
The resolution as amend was approved.
P. Contract for the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite.
The intention of this for quite a while has been to hire someone named Dr. Michael Chandler from Charlottesville to completely rewrite all our zoning ordinances. The problem was -- there was only $25,000 budgeted for it in the Planning Commission budget, and there was another $40,000 budgeted in the Planning staff budget (this is what makes the budget so hard to read. Different pieces are in different pots). The consultant is ready to go -- but $65,000 is not the number he wants to do the job. The question was, should they go ahead and spend the more money he wanted. I couldn't tell how much more he wanted, but I will FOIA that soon. It was a lot more.
Mr. LaFrance said he didn't think it would ultimately be productive to rewrite all our zoning ordinances in one big consultant inspired push, because the citizens would push back on that, and it would turn out to be something that ultimately couldn't get passed and implemented. So in the end it would be a waste of money. John Rust didn't agree.
Kevin Henry pointed out that they do have more than enough money budgeted to just hire the consultant to do the Land Use Map, which is the Phase 1 portion. That if they just approved the Land Use Map, which is needed before any zoning decisions can be made anyway, they don't have to make a decision about further use of the consultant after that, and they would have a Land Use Map that could guide zoning decisions in the future, whatever path they chose to take. He also pointed out that the consultants plan included plenty of public involvement and public meetings, so that this would be something the citizens would be fully informed and participate in.
Carol Lee wanted to be sure that any contract we made with Chandler would ensure that we actually got a good percentage of Chandler himself, not junior staff.
Somebody, I think it was Mr. LaFrance, said maybe if we had a good Land Use Map, then issues like Mr. Comer's request could have a solid basis to be either approved or disapproved, and we wouldn't have the issue of dragging somebody along for months and then disapproving them in the end.
They voted to approve going ahead with the consultant for Phase 1 only, the Land Use Map.
I (Alice) will FOIA all information regarding Chandler's contract and keep this issue out in front as much as possible. This also will tie in to the By Rights Subdivision zoning change which is going to the Planning Commission on Aug 28. We will have separate Blogs for all zoning issues.
So that's what happened in three hours on a Tuesday night. If you see anything of interest to your life, push the link that says "Post a Comment" and Blog!
The meeting went from 7 p.m. to about 10 p.m. The topics covered were:
- A permit to put a light on a cell phone tower
- An ordinance to allow people to get business licenses if they work out of their homes
- Motor vehicle licenses
- Transferring land
- An ordinance to make a person pay for the use of emergency services if they are incurred while that person is committing a crime (ie drunk driving)
- A presentation about the status of broadband Internet access in the county
- A shameful turndown of Danny Comer’s rezoning request (editorial comment to follow)
- A resolution to declare the county in a state of Agricultural Emergency because of the drought (I take it this is in preparation to ask the state for money)
- An ordinance to start collecting real estate taxes as soon as an Occupancy Permit is issued (meaning, they didn’t hear Charlie two weeks ago when he told them people don’t get occupancy permits around here )
- A contract for Northwestern Community Services
- Some 911 address changes
- Some inaudible and impossible to follow changes to the budget that’s unreadable in the first place
- Some additions to the Capital Improvements Wish List
- Some new citizen members of the Water Quality committee
- A vacancy on the Planning Commission in District 2
- An approval to move forward with the pond at the end of the runway at the airport (more editorial comments to follow)
- A fire training center in Stanley
- A resolution (non binding) to tell illegal immigrants to get out of Page County
- Approval to pay a consultant to help build a Land Use Map (but just phase 1, the map, not the rezoning rewrite) -- this one is going to have its own Blog
I’m going to put this entire citizen’s report in one Blog here. If a topic gets significant comments, I’ll open up its own Blog.
I’m also going to make a special Blog for Rezoning, since that’s a hot button.
A. Special Use Permit: Shenandoah Mobile Company.
The special use permit allows the placement of a warning light at the top of an existing communications tower. The tower is located in an area frequently used by Medevac helicopters and presents hazard to public safety. Under current county ordinance, a light is only permitted if required by the Federal Communications commission. This requires an exception to county ordinance. In the interest of safety the waiver was approved. The special use permit was approved with certain restrictions, most notably that the light be red from dusk to dawn and white at all other times. The waiver and special use permit were both approved.
B. Ordinance Amendment to Home Occupations
This ordinance amendment has been percolating for a couple of months. It will allow certain small home businesses to operate without obtaining a special use permit. The intent is to encourage virtual businesses in the county. The biggest concern was the potential for excess traffic created by delivery trucks (UPS). It would seem there is really no way to enforce any restrictions that might be applied. Apparently the business licensing process will provide some sort of control. It wasn’t clear but I guess the business licensing process will react if there are a lot of complaints about too many trucks coming and going. The change was approved by the Board.
C. Ordinance Amendment to the Motor Vehicle License.
When the requirement to purchase a county decal for motor vehicles was eliminated the language that replaced it to continue to collect revenue on vehicles was a little muddled leaving some question as to exactly what constituted a taxable vehicle. This change defines a taxable vehicle as one that is licensed and on the road. An exception for disabled veterans was provided for in the amendment. This amendment was approved.
D. Transfer of Real Estate to the Economic Development Authority.
This provides for the transfer of ownership of real estate within the Luray town limits to the county’s Economic Development Authority. If I understood correctly, this property is adjacent to existing industrial park owned by the county and completes the transfer of ownership of property contiguous to the existing property. This action was approved.
E. Ordinance to Permit Reimbursement to the County for the Costs of Response by
Law Enforcement, Firefighting, Rescue & Emergency Services for Criminal Violations.
This ordinance provides for the ability of the aforementioned county functions to collect reasonable cost of response to situations where a criminal act has taken place. I understand this to mean that if a drunk has a car accident and is found guilty of DWI the cost associated with police and EMS response will be reimbursable to the county by the perpetrator. Makes sense to me! This action was approved.
Presentations.
Bluebird Presentation – Phase I Final Report.
The county, through the Economic Development Authority, has hired a consultant to pursue the potential for extending the availability of broadband internet (high speed) access throughout the county. The term Bluebird has been applied to the project. During Phase I, the consulting firm performed assessed the need for broadband internet access as well as for broadband education development.
The presentation provided a lot of numbers developed by the consultants based on citizen response to questionnaires. I assume if anyone is interested they can obtain a copy of the report or at least read it in the county administrator’s office. The bottom line is county citizens seem to want to proceed with creating the availability of broadband internet access to expand educational and business opportunities with the provision that its cost be reasonable.
The report also provided an assessment of the need for developing educational opportunities for potential broadband users. There are a number of educational partners including James Madison, Lord Fairfax Community College, PRISM (don’t know what the acronym stands for). I gather the long range view is to provide a pathway from tech training to higher education on computer/internet technology for educational and business purposes. Other educational opportunities exist with the Shenandoah Community Computer Center and the Page Workforce Job Center. I gather that these organizations tend to provide more hands on training to develop skills in specific software application use.
There is enough county interest to continue pursuit of expanding broadband internet access but to do so will require some investment spending. It wasn’t clear to me if the county will be willing to foot the bill. If I understood correctly, the state has expressed interest in using Page County as a pilot project for modeling rural broadband access. I assume that means they will provide funding for this purpose.
SWBA/IPV6 Presentation.
The Bluebird project will eventually dovetail into the existing but limited broadband access capabilities with in the county. I missed exactly what the acronyms stand for but the there is an entity in Shenandoah that operates as a wireless broadband authority (SWBA?). It was created under a grant and provides access to the Shenandoah area. Once the grant is ended, it will be able to expand into other parts of the county. If I understood correctly, funding to expand the capability will come from the state. The capability will have to provide an open network so that any service provider can use it. It will necessitate having a few more communication towers in the county. The I PV6 reference is to the next generation of internet technology. I am not too sure what that means at this time but I would surmise that it will be incorporated into what I hope will develop into the availability of broadband internet access throughout the county.
Public Comments on the Agenda Items.
There weren’t any!
Action Matters.
F. Rezoning Request – Danny Comer
This request provided for the rezoning of about three acres of agriculture use to residential use to build a duplex dwelling. What transpired between the Planning Commission being opposed to doing this but somehow it was sent forward to the Board for approval. The county’s concern is that this would be viewed as “spot development” and would therefore be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan (protect rural environment) and set a precedent. This could lead to future conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. The fact that the proposed dwelling would be a duplex did not help the matter. Mr. Cubbage did not see a problem and asked that the rezoning be approved. The property is in his district. Mr. Shanks added that if the “vision” of the county is to ultimately consider that general area for residential use, then perhaps it would not be considered “spot development.” The rezoning request was disapproved (Supervisors Strickler and Cubbage voted to approve it.)
G. Resolution to Declare an Agricultural Emergency.
Mr. Whittle from the Virginia Cooperative Extension asked for a resolution to be sent to the Governor’s office to declare Page County in the state of agricultural disaster due to the effects of drought conditions during the summer. In view of the recent rain, it seemed that calling the situation an emergency was a little strange. Nevertheless, the drought has had a negative impact on the agricultural community. I gathered that the ultimate intent was to get on record with the state with the county’s problem. At some later date, depending on what Mother Nature does, it would be in place to enable the county to obtain emergency relief such as low interest loans. The implementation of a resolution was approved.
Mr. Whittle introduced a new county agent with a specialty in Food, Nutrition and Health. I didn’t hear her name very clearly but it sounded like Britney Wilkins. She will cover Page as well as neighboring counties.
H. Ordinance to Amend Article XIV of the County Code Pertaining to Real Estate Taxes.
The intent of this ordinance change is to provide for prorating real estate taxes to collect revenues on homes that obtain occupancy permits during a given calendar year. Essentially this would mean if an occupancy permit is issued in October, the homeowners tax bill for the next year would be adjusted to collect taxes accruing through the remainder of the tax year during which the occupancy permit is issued.
This was approved unanimously.
I. Northwestern Community Services Performance Contract.
Don’t have a clue what this was all about but it was approved.
J. Proposed Address Changes.
Due to some inconsistencies in county address designations there was a need to change the addresses (and create street names?) for a few folks to facilitate 911 Emergency Services responses. The homeowners were all notified and I assume in agreement with the changes.
The changes were approved.
K. Budget Changes.
Since I didn’t have a copy of the proposed changes, it was difficult to follow exactly what Mr. Belton was proposing to change. I gather one of the items was to “earmark” some excess funds from the School Board for use in funding items for the new schools that are not currently funded. The rest was somewhat inaudible. It would be helpful to citizens if there is a PP slide showing the budget changes. Anyway, the proposed changes were approved.
L. Appointment of Committee to Review EMS Revenue Recovery.
Members to the committee were nominated. I didn’t catch all the names but Mr. Shifflet and Supervisor Strickler will be on the committee. Its estimated time to perform the action is 6-12 months. They would like it to be shorter to accommodate next year’s budget process but it would seem unlikely that it will occur any more quickly.
The nominations were approved.
Adoption of Capital Improvements Plan.
I have no idea what the Capital Improvement Plan proposes to do from one day to the next. It is a document that serves as a planning tool. Its adoption does not constitute approval of any future capital improvement projects. It seems to represent a moving wish list.
Anyway, it was adopted.
M. Board, Commission & Committee Appointments.
There are three openings of the Water Quality Advisory Committee. Supervisor Strickler recommended appointment of a lady from Shenandoah. I couldn’t quite hear the name but it sounded like Alice Pence. Supervisor Hoke recommended Neil McHenry. Apparently, Chris Anderson has identified yet another nominee to recommend. The two initial nominees were approved, I guess with a future draft choice to be named later.
This is where my head went as numb as my butt….
I think I heard there is a vacancy on the Economic Development Authority.
The resignation of one of the Planning Commissioners was announced although I did not hear who it was.
N. Consent Agenda.
Approved.
Old Business.
Luray Landing Easement Proposal.
The location of a storm water management pond is at issue here. In moving forward with the easement proposal, the county wants to ensure that it will be in compliance with FAA requirements as well as staying in good standing with the DEQ. The intent here is make sure whatever happens will be in compliance with appropriate county ordinances as well as FAA requirement so as not to jeopardize obtaining future FAA grants.
The only real issue seems to be who will have permanent maintenance responsibility for the retention pond. To leave it with a homeowner’s association could lead to problems since they tend to disappear or may not be able to afford the necessary maintenance requirements. The question is “Once the developer is gone, who will have the ball?”
It seemed that all of the Supervisors were in agreement to move forward under the above guidelines.
One additional note is that Congress did not budget much, if anything, for acquisition of land under FAA grants this year. I gathered the airport folks will have to wait until sometime in the future to offer to buy property for airport expansion.
Fire Training Center.
Mr. Shifflet proposed moving forward with using the property near Stanley for a new low impact fire training center to better serve the people of the county. Most of cost would be paid through grants but I gathered there might be some county money involved as well in FY 10 ($474K is in CIP) Mr. Cubbage suggested that the Board take a look at the property. They plan to do that before the special meeting of the Board next Tuesday. Supervisor Strickler expressed her concern that the county make sure it does not take on a liability when others use the facility. I assume this will require some sort of indemnification agreement with other users.
O. Proposed Resolution for Illegal Immigrants.
Mr. Hoke proposed a resolution to prevent illegal immigrants from taking advantage of county taxpayers. Mr. Shanks prepared a draft that was subsequently amended by the county staff folks. The essence of the resolution is to provide an incentive to become a legal citizen and provide a disincentive to remaining illegal. The ultimate intent is to forward the resolution to the federal and state level to encourage them to act on illegal immigration issues.
The resolution as amend was approved.
P. Contract for the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite.
The intention of this for quite a while has been to hire someone named Dr. Michael Chandler from Charlottesville to completely rewrite all our zoning ordinances. The problem was -- there was only $25,000 budgeted for it in the Planning Commission budget, and there was another $40,000 budgeted in the Planning staff budget (this is what makes the budget so hard to read. Different pieces are in different pots). The consultant is ready to go -- but $65,000 is not the number he wants to do the job. The question was, should they go ahead and spend the more money he wanted. I couldn't tell how much more he wanted, but I will FOIA that soon. It was a lot more.
Mr. LaFrance said he didn't think it would ultimately be productive to rewrite all our zoning ordinances in one big consultant inspired push, because the citizens would push back on that, and it would turn out to be something that ultimately couldn't get passed and implemented. So in the end it would be a waste of money. John Rust didn't agree.
Kevin Henry pointed out that they do have more than enough money budgeted to just hire the consultant to do the Land Use Map, which is the Phase 1 portion. That if they just approved the Land Use Map, which is needed before any zoning decisions can be made anyway, they don't have to make a decision about further use of the consultant after that, and they would have a Land Use Map that could guide zoning decisions in the future, whatever path they chose to take. He also pointed out that the consultants plan included plenty of public involvement and public meetings, so that this would be something the citizens would be fully informed and participate in.
Carol Lee wanted to be sure that any contract we made with Chandler would ensure that we actually got a good percentage of Chandler himself, not junior staff.
Somebody, I think it was Mr. LaFrance, said maybe if we had a good Land Use Map, then issues like Mr. Comer's request could have a solid basis to be either approved or disapproved, and we wouldn't have the issue of dragging somebody along for months and then disapproving them in the end.
They voted to approve going ahead with the consultant for Phase 1 only, the Land Use Map.
I (Alice) will FOIA all information regarding Chandler's contract and keep this issue out in front as much as possible. This also will tie in to the By Rights Subdivision zoning change which is going to the Planning Commission on Aug 28. We will have separate Blogs for all zoning issues.
So that's what happened in three hours on a Tuesday night. If you see anything of interest to your life, push the link that says "Post a Comment" and Blog!
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
It's Official!
There is an immediate opening on the Planning Commission for a new member from District 2. This is not a rumor!
You must be a resident of District 2, and if observation serves well, preference will be given to a Republican member of the Rotary Club.
Members of the Planning Commission don't get paid, or at least they don't get paid anything worth mentioning. But, they get to decide things like whether or not Danny Comer can build a house on his lot, whether Brenda Jolly can open a pet grooming business, and whether there can be a light on the cell phone tower so the helicopters don't hit it.
Also, they are deeply involved in the rezoning process which is trying very hard to occur.
If you are willing to get involved and volunteer for this critical and important position, please call Supervisor John Rust and tell him you want to be considered. His phone number is 743-5316 or email yogilura@shentel.net
Also, you might want to let me know about your interest. Research@PageCountyWatch.org
Alice
You must be a resident of District 2, and if observation serves well, preference will be given to a Republican member of the Rotary Club.
Members of the Planning Commission don't get paid, or at least they don't get paid anything worth mentioning. But, they get to decide things like whether or not Danny Comer can build a house on his lot, whether Brenda Jolly can open a pet grooming business, and whether there can be a light on the cell phone tower so the helicopters don't hit it.
Also, they are deeply involved in the rezoning process which is trying very hard to occur.
If you are willing to get involved and volunteer for this critical and important position, please call Supervisor John Rust and tell him you want to be considered. His phone number is 743-5316 or email yogilura@shentel.net
Also, you might want to let me know about your interest. Research@PageCountyWatch.org
Alice
Monday, August 13, 2007
Meeting calendar
Alert! Tonight's meeting, August 13, of the Planning Commission work session is cancelled, according to the county website at http://www.pagecounty.virginia.gov
Don't know why. But if you were planning to attend, why not spend the evening blogging instead? Just read through and push the link that says "Post a Comment" at the end of each blog.
Next important meetings:
Monday, Aug 20, 7 pm Luray Courthouse. The Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee of the Planning Commission. Citizens are invited to attend and participate in this important process of continually updating the Comprehensive Plan.
Tuesday, Aug 21, 6:30 p.m., Luray Courthouse. The Board of Supervisors public hearing. Note the early time. Come early to get PASTRIES!!! The Supervisors will be honoring and acknowledging the sheriff's office for their accreditation.
Tuesday, Aug 28, 7 p.m. Luray Courthouse, Planning Commission public hearing. This is when we are looking to hear about the zoning committee. This is a "don't miss" night.
Mark your calendars! Come to the meetings! There are nuggets of Fun hidden in each one!
Don't know why. But if you were planning to attend, why not spend the evening blogging instead? Just read through and push the link that says "Post a Comment" at the end of each blog.
Next important meetings:
Monday, Aug 20, 7 pm Luray Courthouse. The Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee of the Planning Commission. Citizens are invited to attend and participate in this important process of continually updating the Comprehensive Plan.
Tuesday, Aug 21, 6:30 p.m., Luray Courthouse. The Board of Supervisors public hearing. Note the early time. Come early to get PASTRIES!!! The Supervisors will be honoring and acknowledging the sheriff's office for their accreditation.
Tuesday, Aug 28, 7 p.m. Luray Courthouse, Planning Commission public hearing. This is when we are looking to hear about the zoning committee. This is a "don't miss" night.
Mark your calendars! Come to the meetings! There are nuggets of Fun hidden in each one!
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
A Very Long Night
The Board of Supervisors Work Session of August 7, 2007. Here’s what happened.
These are my notes, the notes of one citizen who attended. They are not minutes of the meeting. I post them here, because if you wait for the official minutes to come out, it will be October, and then if there were anything discussed that you wanted to take action about, it will be too late. If anyone was there and had a different take on what happened, just hit the Comments button and add your two cents.
This meeting started at 5:30, and when I left at 9:45, it was still going strong. I missed the part about the landfill monthly update, the emergency management services at the end, and I missed Mark Belton’s update on the Capital Improvement Projects. On top of that, there was a closed session at the end, so the Supervisors themselves must have been there very late.
Topics covered before I gave up and went home were:
- The Airport
- VDOT’s rules for business entrances
- Prorating the real estate tax
- Resource officers in the schools
- School Construction and Funds
- By-right subdivisions
I’m going to post each of these as a separate Blog topic, so the comments don’t get confused between topics. Select a topic from the list at the left. Push the Comments button to continue the conversation. These topics will be filed under the label “The County’s Business” for future reference.
These are my notes, the notes of one citizen who attended. They are not minutes of the meeting. I post them here, because if you wait for the official minutes to come out, it will be October, and then if there were anything discussed that you wanted to take action about, it will be too late. If anyone was there and had a different take on what happened, just hit the Comments button and add your two cents.
This meeting started at 5:30, and when I left at 9:45, it was still going strong. I missed the part about the landfill monthly update, the emergency management services at the end, and I missed Mark Belton’s update on the Capital Improvement Projects. On top of that, there was a closed session at the end, so the Supervisors themselves must have been there very late.
Topics covered before I gave up and went home were:
- The Airport
- VDOT’s rules for business entrances
- Prorating the real estate tax
- Resource officers in the schools
- School Construction and Funds
- By-right subdivisions
I’m going to post each of these as a separate Blog topic, so the comments don’t get confused between topics. Select a topic from the list at the left. Push the Comments button to continue the conversation. These topics will be filed under the label “The County’s Business” for future reference.
The Airport
Topic 1: The Airport – Aug 7 Work Session
These are my notes, the notes of one citizen who attended. They are not minutes of the meeting. I post them here, because if you wait for the official minutes to come out, it will be October, and then if there were anything discussed that you wanted to take action about, it will be too late. If anyone was there and had a different take on what happened, just hit the Comments button and add your two cents.
1. Property tax reduction on aircraft.
The first issue for the airport was the reduction of the property tax on aircraft from $3.90 to 50 cents. A committee had been appointed previously to study this. The recommendation from the Airport Commission was that the tax had to be reduced in order to attract people to park their planes at our airport, because the surrounding counties had a low tax or no tax. The committee concluded that we needed to change our formula on how to calculate the value of the airplane. We had previously been depreciating the airplane quickly, just as we do on cars. By changing our assessment of a plane’s value to something like it’s “Blue Book” equivalent value, we could get the same total revenue at a 50 cent tax rate as we currently do at $3.90. This total is something in the area of $11,000 in tax revenue, so it’s not a big part of the county budget. The compelling reason to do this is to attract more aircraft to be parked there, so we can justify building more hangars, extending the runway, and upgrading the overall airport. The key to our reason for doing this is that we can get grant money for all of it, and having a bigger and nicer airport makes the community more attractive to business.
If the Supervisors turn down this request to reduce the property tax rate, it is the same as saying they don’t want the airport to attract more planes, and then it won’t need more hangars, or be in a good position to get the grant money.
Regarding the extension of the runway and the people who have received letters that the airport wants to buy their land: This topic wasn’t brought up at the meeting, but I asked Powell Markowitz to explain it. He said some people have received letters, but there is no invocation of eminent domain in this process. He said the airport was negotiating in good faith, with multiple independent assessors to determine the value, and that they would negotiate the purchases, not force the sales.
As far as the extension of the runway in the north direction, that is a long term plan, not expected until 2014 or later. If you have received a letter asking to buy your land, that's exactly what it is. A request. The County Supervisors have not been involved in this. It is not an eminent domain situation.
The Supervisors decided to call a special public hearing to consider the question of whether to reduce the property tax on aircraft (and remember the comments were that this is pretty nearly the same as considering whether to expand the airport). So if this is an important issue to YOU, you have to attend the public hearing and make your voice known. There will be a teeny, tiny notice in the classifieds section of the Page News when this is scheduled. Or, you can keep watching this website, and sign yourself up to receive notices from NewsList@PageCountyWatch.org and I’ll let you know when it’s scheduled.
Alice’s Opinion (which falls under the category “Everybody has one”)
This is a perfect example of the process by which the county (perhaps all counties, but definitely this county) operates. The question is never put to the citizens, “Do you want to have an expanded airport, with both the consequences and the benefits of such?”. There is no public debate, answering the questions posted in the comments section of the Blog, “Taking Land Again”. Nobody poses the big questions: what are the benefits, what are the consequences, what is the big picture. From what I heard, I doubt that the county supervisors are even AWARE that citizens received letters from the Airport Commission notifying them that the airport intended to buy their land. It surely didn’t come up at any Supervisors meeting in the last six months. Now, the thing is, if the airport intends to buy your land, and you don’t want to sell, what will happen? Either you will eventually decide that they are making an offer you can’t refuse, or they will eventually decide they can solve their problem by buying somebody else’s land, and your house will be sitting there surrounded by an airport, deteriorating in market value with every takeoff and landing. So in truth, if your house is next to an airport, and the airport wants to expand, you might as well start looking for a better place to live. These are not eminent domain “takings”. They’re going to negotiate with you in good faith. But there is no doubt, your bargaining position is considerably weak.
But back to the big picture. From what I’ve seen, the county isn’t going to hold a public meeting to discuss the wisdom of expanding the airport. That’s something that should have been done in the Comprehensive Plan, but wasn’t, because of the previously examined glaring deficiencies of such plan. (See this Blog in June and July) Rather than open debate on the big picture, the county is going to post a small notice in the Classifieds that invites citizens to a public hearing on whether or not we should lower the property tax rate on aircraft.
It doesn’t say, “Should we or should we not expand the airport, and here are the downsides and the upsides.”
It says, “Should we lower the property tax rate on aircraft?” Citizens see it, but they don’t understand the implications of the question, so they don’t show up at the meeting.
The answer to should we lower the property tax rate on aircraft is: Do we or do we not want to expand the airport? If we do, then yes, we should lower the property tax rate on aircraft. That we want to expand the airport is taken as a “given” by the Supervisors, but never posed as a question or a debate to the people.
As a result, citizens don’t understand the implications of the question asked, so it becomes difficult to have a researched, intelligent, and thoughtful comment to add at the public hearing. Our public hearings then become a forum for a handful of frustrated people, who wonder why the Supervisors don’t pay any attention to them.
So my opinion is: Yes, we should expand the airport, and we need to lower the property tax rate on aircraft in order to do that. But my opinion is based on my desire to see more business come to the county, and a totally unproven and unstudied bias, based on subjective and unfounded feelings that a bigger airport would be an attraction for business. Your opinion might be different from mine, and neither of us can point to any set of facts or studies to say anything either way.
And why don’t we ever have that public debate? Because we didn’t open up the development of our Comprehensive Plan to a large group of people, with diverse viewpoints, and we didn’t have the public debates about the big picture that a Comprehensive Plan requires. We didn’t develop a Land Use Map, like the Virginia Code requires, and now we’re faced with making every decision out of context.
That’s Alice’s Opinion, for what one citizen’s opinion is worth.
2. Luray Landing’s storm drain proposal
Now, the other airport issue discussed was the Luray Landing plan to put a dry pond at the end of the airport runway, in the no-fly zone. The Airport Commission wants them to put it somewhere else, and the issue here was that there is disorganization in the discussion process. There is the Developer of Luray Landing, who needs to coordinate this stuff with the Airport Commission, the Town of Luray, Page County, and the various state and federal agencies who are concerned about storm water management and airports. What really came out is that there are too many people involved who aren’t all in the same room at the same time. The resolution on this was to direct the developer to coordinate with Mark Belton and come to an agreement with the Airport Commission.
Alice’s Opinion on this is: Who is going to buy a house crammed into a subdivision stuck between Wal-Mart and an airport, when there is all this beautiful land out here that you can quick grab while the By-Right subdivisions are still legal? See the Blog on By-Right Subdivisions, coming later.
These are my notes, the notes of one citizen who attended. They are not minutes of the meeting. I post them here, because if you wait for the official minutes to come out, it will be October, and then if there were anything discussed that you wanted to take action about, it will be too late. If anyone was there and had a different take on what happened, just hit the Comments button and add your two cents.
1. Property tax reduction on aircraft.
The first issue for the airport was the reduction of the property tax on aircraft from $3.90 to 50 cents. A committee had been appointed previously to study this. The recommendation from the Airport Commission was that the tax had to be reduced in order to attract people to park their planes at our airport, because the surrounding counties had a low tax or no tax. The committee concluded that we needed to change our formula on how to calculate the value of the airplane. We had previously been depreciating the airplane quickly, just as we do on cars. By changing our assessment of a plane’s value to something like it’s “Blue Book” equivalent value, we could get the same total revenue at a 50 cent tax rate as we currently do at $3.90. This total is something in the area of $11,000 in tax revenue, so it’s not a big part of the county budget. The compelling reason to do this is to attract more aircraft to be parked there, so we can justify building more hangars, extending the runway, and upgrading the overall airport. The key to our reason for doing this is that we can get grant money for all of it, and having a bigger and nicer airport makes the community more attractive to business.
If the Supervisors turn down this request to reduce the property tax rate, it is the same as saying they don’t want the airport to attract more planes, and then it won’t need more hangars, or be in a good position to get the grant money.
Regarding the extension of the runway and the people who have received letters that the airport wants to buy their land: This topic wasn’t brought up at the meeting, but I asked Powell Markowitz to explain it. He said some people have received letters, but there is no invocation of eminent domain in this process. He said the airport was negotiating in good faith, with multiple independent assessors to determine the value, and that they would negotiate the purchases, not force the sales.
As far as the extension of the runway in the north direction, that is a long term plan, not expected until 2014 or later. If you have received a letter asking to buy your land, that's exactly what it is. A request. The County Supervisors have not been involved in this. It is not an eminent domain situation.
The Supervisors decided to call a special public hearing to consider the question of whether to reduce the property tax on aircraft (and remember the comments were that this is pretty nearly the same as considering whether to expand the airport). So if this is an important issue to YOU, you have to attend the public hearing and make your voice known. There will be a teeny, tiny notice in the classifieds section of the Page News when this is scheduled. Or, you can keep watching this website, and sign yourself up to receive notices from NewsList@PageCountyWatch.org and I’ll let you know when it’s scheduled.
Alice’s Opinion (which falls under the category “Everybody has one”)
This is a perfect example of the process by which the county (perhaps all counties, but definitely this county) operates. The question is never put to the citizens, “Do you want to have an expanded airport, with both the consequences and the benefits of such?”. There is no public debate, answering the questions posted in the comments section of the Blog, “Taking Land Again”. Nobody poses the big questions: what are the benefits, what are the consequences, what is the big picture. From what I heard, I doubt that the county supervisors are even AWARE that citizens received letters from the Airport Commission notifying them that the airport intended to buy their land. It surely didn’t come up at any Supervisors meeting in the last six months. Now, the thing is, if the airport intends to buy your land, and you don’t want to sell, what will happen? Either you will eventually decide that they are making an offer you can’t refuse, or they will eventually decide they can solve their problem by buying somebody else’s land, and your house will be sitting there surrounded by an airport, deteriorating in market value with every takeoff and landing. So in truth, if your house is next to an airport, and the airport wants to expand, you might as well start looking for a better place to live. These are not eminent domain “takings”. They’re going to negotiate with you in good faith. But there is no doubt, your bargaining position is considerably weak.
But back to the big picture. From what I’ve seen, the county isn’t going to hold a public meeting to discuss the wisdom of expanding the airport. That’s something that should have been done in the Comprehensive Plan, but wasn’t, because of the previously examined glaring deficiencies of such plan. (See this Blog in June and July) Rather than open debate on the big picture, the county is going to post a small notice in the Classifieds that invites citizens to a public hearing on whether or not we should lower the property tax rate on aircraft.
It doesn’t say, “Should we or should we not expand the airport, and here are the downsides and the upsides.”
It says, “Should we lower the property tax rate on aircraft?” Citizens see it, but they don’t understand the implications of the question, so they don’t show up at the meeting.
The answer to should we lower the property tax rate on aircraft is: Do we or do we not want to expand the airport? If we do, then yes, we should lower the property tax rate on aircraft. That we want to expand the airport is taken as a “given” by the Supervisors, but never posed as a question or a debate to the people.
As a result, citizens don’t understand the implications of the question asked, so it becomes difficult to have a researched, intelligent, and thoughtful comment to add at the public hearing. Our public hearings then become a forum for a handful of frustrated people, who wonder why the Supervisors don’t pay any attention to them.
So my opinion is: Yes, we should expand the airport, and we need to lower the property tax rate on aircraft in order to do that. But my opinion is based on my desire to see more business come to the county, and a totally unproven and unstudied bias, based on subjective and unfounded feelings that a bigger airport would be an attraction for business. Your opinion might be different from mine, and neither of us can point to any set of facts or studies to say anything either way.
And why don’t we ever have that public debate? Because we didn’t open up the development of our Comprehensive Plan to a large group of people, with diverse viewpoints, and we didn’t have the public debates about the big picture that a Comprehensive Plan requires. We didn’t develop a Land Use Map, like the Virginia Code requires, and now we’re faced with making every decision out of context.
That’s Alice’s Opinion, for what one citizen’s opinion is worth.
2. Luray Landing’s storm drain proposal
Now, the other airport issue discussed was the Luray Landing plan to put a dry pond at the end of the airport runway, in the no-fly zone. The Airport Commission wants them to put it somewhere else, and the issue here was that there is disorganization in the discussion process. There is the Developer of Luray Landing, who needs to coordinate this stuff with the Airport Commission, the Town of Luray, Page County, and the various state and federal agencies who are concerned about storm water management and airports. What really came out is that there are too many people involved who aren’t all in the same room at the same time. The resolution on this was to direct the developer to coordinate with Mark Belton and come to an agreement with the Airport Commission.
Alice’s Opinion on this is: Who is going to buy a house crammed into a subdivision stuck between Wal-Mart and an airport, when there is all this beautiful land out here that you can quick grab while the By-Right subdivisions are still legal? See the Blog on By-Right Subdivisions, coming later.
VDOT and Business Entrances
Topic 2: VDOT’s rules for business entrances - August 7 Work Session
These are my notes, the notes of one citizen who attended. They are not minutes of the meeting. I post them here, because if you wait for the official minutes to come out, it will be October, and then if there were anything discussed that you wanted to take action about, it will be too late. If anyone was there and had a different take on what happened, just hit the Comments button and add your two cents.
Jeff Lineberry from VDOT was invited to talk to the Supervisors. The topic was: can VDOT please identify what is a requirement, versus what is an “aspiration” when they review business licenses. The problem that is arising is that it is Page County’s policy to withhold a business license until VDOT approves the application. But, VDOT is coming back with comments of things that would be “nice to have” instead of just things that are required by law. So somebody applies for a business license, and VDOT says, “Gee, it sure would be great if you would move that electric pole so it won’t line up with all the other electric poles on that section of the road”, and then Page County holds up the business license and won’t let the guy operate. Then it takes forty phone calls while everybody tries to figure out whether it’s a Virginia LAW to move the electric pole or not.
The conclusion of this was that VDOT will answer more directly, maybe.
Don’t even Comment on this, I can’t take it.
These are my notes, the notes of one citizen who attended. They are not minutes of the meeting. I post them here, because if you wait for the official minutes to come out, it will be October, and then if there were anything discussed that you wanted to take action about, it will be too late. If anyone was there and had a different take on what happened, just hit the Comments button and add your two cents.
Jeff Lineberry from VDOT was invited to talk to the Supervisors. The topic was: can VDOT please identify what is a requirement, versus what is an “aspiration” when they review business licenses. The problem that is arising is that it is Page County’s policy to withhold a business license until VDOT approves the application. But, VDOT is coming back with comments of things that would be “nice to have” instead of just things that are required by law. So somebody applies for a business license, and VDOT says, “Gee, it sure would be great if you would move that electric pole so it won’t line up with all the other electric poles on that section of the road”, and then Page County holds up the business license and won’t let the guy operate. Then it takes forty phone calls while everybody tries to figure out whether it’s a Virginia LAW to move the electric pole or not.
The conclusion of this was that VDOT will answer more directly, maybe.
Don’t even Comment on this, I can’t take it.
Real Estate Taxes
Topic 3: Prorating Real Estate Taxes – August 7 Work Session
These are my notes, the notes of one citizen who attended. They are not minutes of the meeting. I post them here, because if you wait for the official minutes to come out, it will be October, and then if there were anything discussed that you wanted to take action about, it will be too late. If anyone was there and had a different take on what happened, just hit the Comments button and add your two cents.
Charlie Campbell was asked a few sessions back to come up with a plan to start collecting real estate taxes when the building is finished, instead of waiting until January of the next year. Charlie presented that he would need more staff to do that because he would have to send people out to the field to see if buildings were actually finished. So the Board asked him why he couldn’t just trigger the tax collection from something normally in the building process, like an Occupancy Certificate. And Charlie said (I’m paraphrasing here, Charlie didn’t exactly say this): “Not all that many people actually get Occupancy Certificates” That was the IDEA of what Charlie said, it’s not what he said.
This caused a realization on the part of the Board, I think, that there was a bigger problem at work.
Anyhow, the Board emphasized that they hadn’t intended to cause so much more work for the department that new staff would have to be hired for this task.
These are my notes, the notes of one citizen who attended. They are not minutes of the meeting. I post them here, because if you wait for the official minutes to come out, it will be October, and then if there were anything discussed that you wanted to take action about, it will be too late. If anyone was there and had a different take on what happened, just hit the Comments button and add your two cents.
Charlie Campbell was asked a few sessions back to come up with a plan to start collecting real estate taxes when the building is finished, instead of waiting until January of the next year. Charlie presented that he would need more staff to do that because he would have to send people out to the field to see if buildings were actually finished. So the Board asked him why he couldn’t just trigger the tax collection from something normally in the building process, like an Occupancy Certificate. And Charlie said (I’m paraphrasing here, Charlie didn’t exactly say this): “Not all that many people actually get Occupancy Certificates” That was the IDEA of what Charlie said, it’s not what he said.
This caused a realization on the part of the Board, I think, that there was a bigger problem at work.
Anyhow, the Board emphasized that they hadn’t intended to cause so much more work for the department that new staff would have to be hired for this task.
Resource Officers in the Schools
Topic 4: Resource Officers in the Schools – August 7 Work Session
These are my notes, the notes of one citizen who attended. They are not minutes of the meeting. I post them here, because if you wait for the official minutes to come out, it will be October, and then if there were anything discussed that you wanted to take action about, it will be too late. If anyone was there and had a different take on what happened, just hit the Comments button and add your two cents.
There was a petition circulated where hundreds of citizens asked for resource officers in the schools. Dr. Randy Thomas presented that the schools didn’t have an immediate problem, that there were some resource officers there now. He said he thought officers in the school were a good thing, and it would be nice to have more of them. Their value, in addition to being available for problems, also existed in making the students feel more safe, getting them to feel like officers were helpful to them, and keeping some students from being bullied. Bullying in the schools is often the problem, and many of the problems in the news were about students who felt bullied. In the new plan, when the new schools are built, and there is less overcrowding, it will be possible to have everyone in one building and a lockdown can occur when there is any threat. This will be the effective security measure. Chairman LaFrance and Supervisor Cubbage said they don’t think the citizens who asked for this understand the tax implications of it. I think the conclusion of this was that the appropriate number of resource officers would have to be included in the personnel forecasts and budgeted, but I’m not sure exactly how it turned out.
These are my notes, the notes of one citizen who attended. They are not minutes of the meeting. I post them here, because if you wait for the official minutes to come out, it will be October, and then if there were anything discussed that you wanted to take action about, it will be too late. If anyone was there and had a different take on what happened, just hit the Comments button and add your two cents.
There was a petition circulated where hundreds of citizens asked for resource officers in the schools. Dr. Randy Thomas presented that the schools didn’t have an immediate problem, that there were some resource officers there now. He said he thought officers in the school were a good thing, and it would be nice to have more of them. Their value, in addition to being available for problems, also existed in making the students feel more safe, getting them to feel like officers were helpful to them, and keeping some students from being bullied. Bullying in the schools is often the problem, and many of the problems in the news were about students who felt bullied. In the new plan, when the new schools are built, and there is less overcrowding, it will be possible to have everyone in one building and a lockdown can occur when there is any threat. This will be the effective security measure. Chairman LaFrance and Supervisor Cubbage said they don’t think the citizens who asked for this understand the tax implications of it. I think the conclusion of this was that the appropriate number of resource officers would have to be included in the personnel forecasts and budgeted, but I’m not sure exactly how it turned out.
Schools and Money
Topic 5: School Construction and Carryover Funding – Aug 7 Work Session
These are my notes, the notes of one citizen who attended. They are not minutes of the meeting. I post them here, because if you wait for the official minutes to come out, it will be October, and then if there were anything discussed that you wanted to take action about, it will be too late. If anyone was there and had a different take on what happened, just hit the Comments button and add your two cents.
Dr. Thomas reported that the school construction has begun on both high schools. All is well. Everything is on budget.
This is the part I didn’t follow very well. Furniture for the new schools wasn’t included in the operating budget? I might be wrong about that, I couldn’t follow it. There was a grant given, but they didn’t spend it all, and the fiscal year ended in June, so they were giving it back to the county, but they wanted to make sure the county didn’t spend it on something else, like they did the last time this happened.
So the School Board was asking the county to put their leftover grant money aside so it can be used for the purpose it was intended, but just not this year. And they wanted to make sure this money didn’t get “disappeared” into some other category.
That’s what I understood from what I heard, but I was confused.
Alice
These are my notes, the notes of one citizen who attended. They are not minutes of the meeting. I post them here, because if you wait for the official minutes to come out, it will be October, and then if there were anything discussed that you wanted to take action about, it will be too late. If anyone was there and had a different take on what happened, just hit the Comments button and add your two cents.
Dr. Thomas reported that the school construction has begun on both high schools. All is well. Everything is on budget.
This is the part I didn’t follow very well. Furniture for the new schools wasn’t included in the operating budget? I might be wrong about that, I couldn’t follow it. There was a grant given, but they didn’t spend it all, and the fiscal year ended in June, so they were giving it back to the county, but they wanted to make sure the county didn’t spend it on something else, like they did the last time this happened.
So the School Board was asking the county to put their leftover grant money aside so it can be used for the purpose it was intended, but just not this year. And they wanted to make sure this money didn’t get “disappeared” into some other category.
That’s what I understood from what I heard, but I was confused.
Alice
By-Right Subdivisions
Topic 6: By-Right Subdivisions – Aug 7 Work Session
These are my notes, the notes of one citizen who attended. They are not minutes of the meeting. I post them here, because if you wait for the official minutes to come out, it will be October, and then if there were anything discussed that you wanted to take action about, it will be too late. If anyone was there and had a different take on what happened, just hit the Comments button and add your two cents.
County Planner, Kevin Henry, gave a very impressive presentation on By-Right subdivisions. He said there were 74 of them approved this year, and they were receiving an application about once every three days, partly because people are thinking they need to act now before the zoning ordinances are rewritten. He showed how doing things through this means often causes us to have a hodge-podge of lots of varying sizes, set up at varying times, and many times the drainfields for the septic systems don’t end up on the lots themselves. So people are buying lots that end up having septic fields on somebody else’s land. He said that by the way the code is written, they lose the identity of the “parent tract” and then the intent of the law to keep areas from being developed quickly, gets defeated. Also, the breaking up of land this way causes private right-of-ways instead of state roads, and then we end up with 510 private right-of-ways, which are hard to handle by emergency services. He was asking the Board to task the Planning Commission to take an action within the next 100 days to solve this problem.
In the discussion that followed, some Board members, specifically John Rust, said this needed to be handled in the context of the big, overall zoning ordinance rewrite, and others, specifically Tommy LaFrance, said we couldn’t risk waiting for that to happen, because it would be such a long and difficult road to get the overall big picture solved, that we would risk not getting anything done on this immediate problem. The resolution was that they voted to go ahead and task the Planning Commission to solve this immediately.
These are my notes, the notes of one citizen who attended. They are not minutes of the meeting. I post them here, because if you wait for the official minutes to come out, it will be October, and then if there were anything discussed that you wanted to take action about, it will be too late. If anyone was there and had a different take on what happened, just hit the Comments button and add your two cents.
County Planner, Kevin Henry, gave a very impressive presentation on By-Right subdivisions. He said there were 74 of them approved this year, and they were receiving an application about once every three days, partly because people are thinking they need to act now before the zoning ordinances are rewritten. He showed how doing things through this means often causes us to have a hodge-podge of lots of varying sizes, set up at varying times, and many times the drainfields for the septic systems don’t end up on the lots themselves. So people are buying lots that end up having septic fields on somebody else’s land. He said that by the way the code is written, they lose the identity of the “parent tract” and then the intent of the law to keep areas from being developed quickly, gets defeated. Also, the breaking up of land this way causes private right-of-ways instead of state roads, and then we end up with 510 private right-of-ways, which are hard to handle by emergency services. He was asking the Board to task the Planning Commission to take an action within the next 100 days to solve this problem.
In the discussion that followed, some Board members, specifically John Rust, said this needed to be handled in the context of the big, overall zoning ordinance rewrite, and others, specifically Tommy LaFrance, said we couldn’t risk waiting for that to happen, because it would be such a long and difficult road to get the overall big picture solved, that we would risk not getting anything done on this immediate problem. The resolution was that they voted to go ahead and task the Planning Commission to solve this immediately.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Taking land again?
There was a comment just posted to the June 5 blog here, called "Note from the June 5 meeting". The comment said that the airport wanted someone's land, and they were just going to take it, by offering fair market value, whether the people wanted to sell it or not. Is that right? The justification would be that the airport is good for the economy of the county.
Can they do that?
I don't know if they can. Does someone out there know? Please, whomever knows about this, look into it and post here what is going on.
Alice
Can they do that?
I don't know if they can. Does someone out there know? Please, whomever knows about this, look into it and post here what is going on.
Alice
Friday, August 3, 2007
Mark your Calendars
Upcoming events in the county government:
Tuesday, Aug 7, Board of Supervisors work session, 7 pm, Luray Courthouse
Monday, Aug 13, Planning Commission work session, 7 pm, Luray Courthouse
Monday, Aug 20, Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee, 7 pm, Luray Courthouse
Tuesday, Aug 21, Board of Supervisors public hearing, 7 pm, Luray Courthouse
Tuesday, Aug 28, Planning Commission public hearing, 7 pm, Luray Courthouse
Agendas for these events are usually posted on the county website at http://www.pagecounty.virginia.gov but they don't get posted until the day of the meeting.
I don't know of any particular controversial topics that are on the agendas for these meetings, but things can come up that are not on the agenda.
If you can go, think of it as "dinner and a show". Go out with your spouse, later go to the county meeting, and then post to this website your view of what happened, by pushing the Comments button here.
Tuesday, Aug 7, Board of Supervisors work session, 7 pm, Luray Courthouse
Monday, Aug 13, Planning Commission work session, 7 pm, Luray Courthouse
Monday, Aug 20, Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee, 7 pm, Luray Courthouse
Tuesday, Aug 21, Board of Supervisors public hearing, 7 pm, Luray Courthouse
Tuesday, Aug 28, Planning Commission public hearing, 7 pm, Luray Courthouse
Agendas for these events are usually posted on the county website at http://www.pagecounty.virginia.gov but they don't get posted until the day of the meeting.
I don't know of any particular controversial topics that are on the agendas for these meetings, but things can come up that are not on the agenda.
If you can go, think of it as "dinner and a show". Go out with your spouse, later go to the county meeting, and then post to this website your view of what happened, by pushing the Comments button here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
