There are two weeks to go until the end of 2023 and tonight is expected to be the final vote on a new zoning code for the City of Charlottesville. Most editions of Charlottesville Community Engagement seek to cover multiple stories but thankfully the format is flexible enough to have at least one more edition that seeks to document the process by which a generational change has been made. I’m Sean Tubbs, looking forward to the new set of stories.
On today’s edition:
Charlottesville City Council held one more work session to go over final tweaks in the Development Code
Charlottesville Mayor Lloyd Snook announces opposition to restricting development rights in certain neighborhoods but is out-voted four to one on two key provisions
Snook picks up two other votes to place a 5,000 square foot cap on building space in Residential-A districts
A full list of all of the various items up for a vote tonight
First shout-out: ReLeaf Cville
In today’s first subscriber supported public service announcement: ReLeaf Cville exists to reverse a worrying trend. Since 2004, Charlottesville’s Tree Canopy has declined from 50 percent to 38 percent. Two-thirds of the city’s neighborhoods are below 40 percent. ReLeaf Cville aims to change that through a series of tree plantings, preservation efforts, and education campaigns.
ReLeaf is a public / private partnership between the city tree Commission, the Nature Conservancy, City of Promise, Charlottesville Area Tree Stewards, and the Van Yahres Tree Company. Their efforts are funded through donations so consider making yours today!
Charlottesville City Council holds final deliberations on Development Code
Charlottesville City Council will vote tonight on a new zoning code that will change the rules for what can get built inside city limits. That’s after a nearly three hour work session on December 14 where they decided last minute items.
The first was a quick one. When the first module of the new zoning code was released in February, one initial recommendation was to eliminate homestays as an allowable use in residential neighborhoods but that was quickly removed.
“And we realized that in order to do so, we do actually have to add two more districts where that would be allowed,” said James Freas, the city’s director of Neighborhood Development Services.
Council quickly agreed.
“And we’re gotten one done in less than five minutes,” Freas said.
“Less than three!” said City Councilor Brian Pinkston.
The next item took a little more time to resolve and built off a conversation at the end of the December 13 work session. To follow the conversation, you have to go back to the agenda packet for that meeting beginning on page 5.
“We had proposed some alternative language relative to the issues of differentiation of renter and ownership in terms of the level of affordability and the level of [Area Median Income] allowed and you guys had begun to discuss that,” Freas said.
Four out of five Councilors support fewer development rights for some neighborhoods
After a long pause as Councilors tried to remember where they had left off, Charlottesville Mayor Lloyd Snook steered the conversation by saying he would not support one of two new districts proposed after the Planning Commission held their public hearing on September 14.
“I will be voting against any inclusion of [Residential Core Neighborhood A] at this time and the reason for it is because I don’t think it will work,” Snook said.
The Residential Core Neighborhood A (RN-A) district would apply to some but not all areas depicted in the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map as “Sensitive Communities.” Unlike the Residential-A district, lots zoned RN-A would only be allowed to contain one structure per lot as a base. Council discussed the matter on November 13, as I reported.
Snook had not been persuaded that limiting development rights would work.
“Basically when I ask what will stop gentrification, what will stop displacement, the only zoning answer that has ever been given to me is to aggressively build middle-income housing and correspondingly to prohibit large-scale luxury development in at-risk neighborhoods,” Snook said.
Snook said non-zoning tools include continued expansion of property tax relief as well as a new kind of housing stabilization voucher for low-income households. He cited a 2014 article on the website Shelterforce titled 7 Policies that Could Prevent Gentrification.
“The practical effect of RN-A zoning would be to hold down the supply of units in the RN-A neighborhood and therefore necessarily would drive the price of those units up which is likely to create more gentrification pressures than fewer gentrification pressures,” Snook said.
Snook said people he’s talked to in the affected neighborhoods want to maximize the worth of their property.
City Councilor Brian Pinkston said he was interested in the email chain that had taken place throughout the day, an email chain that likely is available through the Freedom of Information Act. Pinkston played debate moderator and asked one of his fellow Councilors to weigh in.
“You obviously made some good points,” Pinkston said. “I would be interested in the email exchange I saw today, I’d be interested in the counterargument from the other end of the dais, from Councilor Payne, if you wouldn’t mind making your case.”
Councilor Michael Payne said he disagreed with Snook and that he had laid out many reasons in the email exchange including a citation of the RKG “rate of change” report that offered an analytical prediction of what might happen to the property market.
“There are areas of the city where turnover will be greater,” Payne said. “[Residential-B] and [Residential-C] are the biggest difference in the price that a developer but still in [Residential-A] there will be an increase in the price that a developer is willing to pay for a lot which will have implications for maintenance of affordable housing.”
Vice Mayor Juandiego Wade responded as well.
“You know, it’s one of those things that we just don’t know exactly, you know,” Wade said. “You know, we can’t tell the future but I do believe keeping it as the RN-A zoning will be the best approach. And in particular, you know, I was kind of on the fence but once I heard from some community leaders in Fifeville and in Tenth and Page, community leaders are saying that they support this, and I’m supporting it as well.”
Pinkston said he would continue to support it as well.
“I think that this concept has been part and parcel of the overall framework for two years,” Pinkston said.
Councilor Leah Puryear also supported the change.
“It is very clear that you can up zone at any time but you can’t downzone and if the residents of the neighborhoods are saying they would like things to remain R-NA, then I think we need to follow what the residents are requesting,” Puryear said.
With Snook’s outvoted 4-1, Council then discussed the boundaries of the RN-A and some additions.
A quick aside. A look at the map shows that 7 ½ Street is within this boundary. On December 1, 609 7 ½ Street sold for $540,000, or 8.96 percent over the 2023 assessment.
But what about the Meadows? One person from that neighborhood appeared at the December 5 public hearing to ask not to be included in the RN-A district.
“That’s an area that to be honest I need to get to know better,” Wade said. “I don’t have a lot of contacts in that community and when trusted residents of the area came and said, you know, we don’t want this now, I would have to trust their judgment on it.”
Payne wanted the RN-A area to be expanded to areas in Belmont because they been in the Future Land Use Map as Sensitive Communities but other Councilors declined.
“There’s been pretty steady… representation from groups like [Coalition for Low-Income Housing] and [Public Housing Association of Residents] and People’s Coalition for the core neighborhoods that we’re showing now on the map so I’m comfortable with that but I’m not comfortable with the two other areas right now,” Pinkston said.
Council also confirmed that they will only allow one additional unit in RN-A if an existing structure is kept and not the two additional units the Planning Commission had sought.
Council agree to last-minute changes to affordability provisions
Another item resolved dealt with the period of affordability for rental and sale prices for units that are built to satisfy requirements in the new zoning, as well as targeted income for affordability.
“Zoning does not as a general rule differentiate between rental and ownership,” Freas said. “In fact, zoning is supposed to deal with buildings and land use. It’s not supposed to deal with ownership or who is in the building or who lives there, who owns it, their status of ownership.”
The original proposal for the affordable dwelling unit ordinance was to have rental units provided at a price point for households and individuals at 60 percent of the area median income for a period of 99 years. For-sale units would have be targeted at 80 percent of AMI with affordability only guaranteed for the first owner with a right of first refusal to the city or non-profit developers. This was a consensus proposal supported by the Housing Advisory Committee.
However, Council will vote on a final draft where there would be no distinction between rental and sales units under the inclusionary zoning. Another new detail is that units in residential districts built under the bonus provisions for affordability would be at 80 percent of AMI for a period of 30 years.
City Attorney Jacob Stroman said the change would be more legally defensible. Outside Counsel Sharon Pandak agreed.
“The ordinance is far more defensible if you’re not making a distinction based on who owns the property and that’s the fundamental problem with the HAC proposal,” Pandak said.
Council agreed to the change, though Payne said the new proposal was much weaker. Puryear also supported the HAC proposal, but the staff suggestion moved forward on an informal 3-2 straw poll.
Second shout-out: What was SCROOGE? Cvillepedia knows!
In today’s second subscriber supported public service announcement? By the late 1970’s, Mr. Charles Langham of Charlottesville had grown tired of the commercialism of Christmas. To remind people of the joys that can come from a less materialistic time with friends and family. Langham formed a group called the Society to Curtail Ridiculous Outrageous & Ostentatious Gift Exchanges, or SCROOGE. Folk artist Frances Brand found this interesting, so she painted him as one of her “Firsts” series.
That painting and dozens of others are now under the stewardship of the Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society. Many of these images have been uploaded to cvillepedia, an online community encyclopedia updated and expanded by volunteers like myself. Cvillepedia is now under the stewardship of the Jefferson Madison Regional Library. There’s so much more to be added and volunteers can learn about the community by doing research. If you’re interested, take a look at the homepage and sign up for an account!
Snook persuades two colleagues to add reduction in maximum square footage allowed in R-A
The staff report for the December 14 work session did not include another piece of information relevant to the discussion. Earlier in the day, Mayor Snook sent around another item he wanted to bring up.
“I wanted to raise again the question of having some gross floor area limit at least in [Residential-A],” Snook said. “At the last meeting when we talked about this, at least three of you said something to the effect of ‘I wasn’t on Council when that was discussed’ and I’m simply reminding folks that it doesn’t really matter because quite frankly you’re bound by the [Comprehensive Plan] and the comp plan says we want to have house-sized units in General Residential.”
Snook sought a 4,500 square foot limit for buildings in Residential-A.
Council had had the same discussion on November 13, as I wrote about at the time. The conversation this time took over forty-five minutes off the clock and Snook persisted in his objections.
Council considered a 5,000 square foot limit of total building space for a lot. Pinkston said he could support that as a compromise.
“So where did we get 5,000 square feet from?” Wade asked.
“We just randomly picked it,” Puryear said.
“I started with 4,500 and said I’m willing to go to 5,000,” Snook said.
NDS Director James Freas said he has worked in communities with such a cap but he had concerns.
“Obviously it’s doable [but] it raises all sorts of administrative issues,” Freas said.
Freas said one of them is the need to verify the existing square footage, as well as additional inspections to ensure buildings don’t exceed the cap.
Councilor Michael Payne did not support the limit and said introducing it so late would not be a good way of doing public policy.
“And this is a very substantial change to a large zoning district, R-A, and to make a decision of that consequence without understanding more having through through what the implications are, I don’t feel comfortable doing that myself,” Payne said. “It may be allowed but it doesn’t seem wise or advisable at least to me.”
Vice Mayor Wade could not support the limit either. Puryear said she could support it and Pinkston was the third vote.
“What I would propose is 5,000 square feet gross floor area for the sum total of all of the units on the lot where what is to be included is occupiable, habitable spaces, including basements, including attached garages,” Pinkston said.
The exact language is included in the packet for tonight’s meeting. Take a look here.
Councilor Payne repeated a concern that the process seemed off.
“I don’t understand the full implications of this which I find to be a difficult position to be in,” Payne said.
Council selects August 18, 2023 for cut-off date for new zoning
The final item dealt with what to do with site plans that were submitted under the existing zoning.
“The key decision to make is with regard to what the cut-off for the submission date of those site plans,” Freas said.
The first option for Council was August 18, 2023, which was the date that the draft Development Code was advertised for public hearing before the Planning Commission. The second is November 21, which was the advertisement date for the Council public hearing. The third would be December 18, the day of presumptive adoption.
Staff recommended August 18, 2023.
The Disposition of Pending Projects resolution would also require any projects with vested rights to get site plan approval by July 1, 2025. This would also place a limit of three comment rounds. (read the resolution)
A final list of materials:
To prepare you for this evening, here’s a full list of the items on the Council agenda tonight:
A full list of changes that have been made since the November 7, 2023 draft
Maps of zoning changes made since the November 7, 2023 draft including the change of a mobile home park in the Belmont neighborhood park from RX-3 to Residential-B as well as removal of Residiential-B from a stretch of Chesapeake Avenue.
Reading material:
County approves $725,000 in carryover requests, Heather Michon, Fluvanna Review, December 14, 2023
Albemarle announces who will replace Katrina Callsen on school board, Jason Armesto, Charlottesville Daily Progress (paywall), December 15, 2023
'A really good start': Albemarle's microtransit service posts strong ridership numbers, Jason Armesto, Charlottesville Daily Progress (paywall), December 17, 2023
Charlottesville unveils new office to achieve ambitious climate goals, Jason Armesto, Charlottesville Daily Progress (paywall), December 17, 2023
Concluding thoughts for #616
A lot of work has gone into covering the creation of the Development Code over the past three and a half years of this newsletter. I’ve prioritized this aspect of local government because otherwise I would not know the details. And neither would you. I’m fairly certain that no one else has covered the details so extensively, and I continue to plan to cover whatever changes happen as a result of the new rules.
Town Crier Productions exists to communicate these details, in the three and a half years of business, I think I may be getting somewhere. I measure this in terms of whether or not I have revenue coming in, and that’s perhaps where you come in. Without paid subscriptions, I could not do this work. Substack makes it easy to support my work through either a $5 a month, $50 a year, or $200 a year subscription.
And another great thing is that Ting will match that initial payment! We’ve had that partnership now for over two and a half years, and I’m grateful.
If you sign up for Ting at this link and enter the promo code COMMUNITY, you’ll get:
Free installation
A second month for free
A $75 gift card to the Downtown Mall
Share this post