The Purcellville Town Council has a meeting Tuesday, November 10th and will be discussing and possibly voting on the zoning district use changes being proposed.
I have struggled with this one specifically since the intent has been to simplify the code. I agree with removing duplicative terms and uses and perhaps condensing districts and truly simplifying the code. Simplify means to reduce and yet many uses are being added to areas where they currently are not an allowable use. Some are by-right and others by SUP (Special Use Permit). By-Right refers to projects that are permitted under current zoning and do not require any legislative action by the Council. They are approved administratively and do not require public hearings.
Some of these uses have been rejected by residents and the planning commission during recent applications submitted to the town (Catoctin Towne Center). In a town as small as Purcellville, many uses will have a significant impact. I have read comments that we need to remove SUPs because they cost too much for applicants, which can be $2K. While that is understandable, who does that benefit the most? The applicant, but it denies the primary stakeholders (residents) in our town say in our planning process. Who is asking for this removal? The developers and their land use attorneys. That is a small price to pay to make sure that residents are protected, and the assets of our town are as well.
How does this protect us? If a drive-thru establishment is by-right and it is built and causes traffic back-ups and more traffic on a particular road, the town will have to pay to mitigate this issue. If a large residential development is built by-right and creates traffic or generates more students than projected, we are all forced to pay to reduce this problem. Both area high schools will be over capacity the year after next.
The developer of by-right uses is not obligated in any way to produce a proffer to the town. A proffer is an offer by a landowner during the rezoning process to perform an act or donate money, product, or services to justify the propriety of a proposed rezoning. Our town debt is nearly at its max, and we can't afford to reduce or negate our ability to negotiate proffers from potential development. One of my colleagues stated that these proffers are minuscule. However, I object to this statement especially when the Catoctin Creek Apartment developer was willing to proffer $1Million for a 20-acre development.
Some of my colleagues argue that we need these developments to equalize our water/sewer rates or tax rates. If growth paid for itself, the County would not be at its debt max and neither would the town. It is a fools game to think that growth is going to reduce any costs to residents. All development comes with a price tag, via increased police, fire/rescue, utility maintenance, etc.
For a few decades, city planners have swapped long-term obligations for short-term cash, expanding at an unsustainable rate and developing land they could never afford to maintain.
For example, a street section is in need of repair or resurfacing, which will consist of milling up and replacing the asphalt. The development along the road has stagnated in favor of new growth on the periphery of town. Because of this, over the estimated life of the new street, the town may expect to collect a total of $27/foot for road repairs. The cost for repairs will run between $80 and $100 per foot.
I have been reading a blog called Strong Towns for quite some time. They advocate for a change of thinking in how we develop and to shed the "dead ideas" of the suburban era, including these:
- That local governments can grow without considering the public’s return on investment. Being blind to the financial productivity of our places has led to inefficient use of public infrastructure investments and allowed local governments to assume overwhelming, long-term financial obligations for maintaining infrastructure.
- That local budget problems can be solved by creating more growth. More growth in the same unproductive pattern will only increase our economic problems. What is needed is an approach that improves our use of existing infrastructure investments.
- That attracting a large employer is the key to local economic prosperity. In an age of globalization, this strategy may provide short-term gains for some local governments, but it is ultimately a race to the financial bottom.
- That property owners can develop their property as they see fit while at the same time obligating the public to maintain the new infrastructure.This type of indirect subsidy creates enormous long-term financial obligations for taxpayers, increasing local taxes and reducing local competitiveness.
Their recommendations include:
- A stop to infrastructure projects that expand a community’s long-term maintenance obligations.
- A full accounting of all short and long-term financial obligations local governments have assumed for maintaining infrastructure.
- The adoption of strategies to improve the public’s return on investment and improve the use of existing infrastructure.
- Significant changes in the standard engineering approach to road and street design, shifting emphasis away from increasing automobile-oriented mobility and toward increasing pedestrian mobility within neighborhoods while eliminating accesses and intersections along auto corridors.
Under the current pattern of growth, the only way to pay for projects is with more growth. That is the definition of a Ponzi scheme.