Bacon's Rebellion

The Phasing and Clustering Debate in Albemarle County

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

A fascinating debate over growth management is playing out in Albemarle County. The Board of Supervisors is considering two new ordinances — phasing and clustering — designed to protect 95 percent of the county acreage designated as rural. A number of farmers and small property owners vehemently criticized the proposals in a hearing yesterday, arguing that the restrictions would confiscate much of the value of their land. The Charlottesville Daily Progress describes the ordinances this way:

To slow such development, phasing would allow two subdivision rights on each parcel every 10 years. To reduce any impact on natural resources, clustering would entail grouping small parcels together and leaving a large preservation tract undeveloped. The Planning Commission has recommended that the two ideas be used together to achieve both of those goals.

Albemarle County is a beautiful place, and I am sympathetic to the desire to protect it from development. But I’m not convinced that these ordinances are the best way to do it. Phasing development over years and decades would slow growth, but in doing so, it would guarantee that growth took the form of small, piecemeal projects. Large, well-financed developers would steer clear, effectively precluding any comprehensive, well-planned development. Growth would be scattered, disconnected and low density — in a word, it would be sprawl.

The clustering idea can be charitably described only as “less bad.” Clustering development in compact areas makes sense on the micro scale. But in the larger, Albemarle-wide context, it won’t make much difference. Instead of 10-acre lots smeared across the countryside, we’ll see compact little subdivisions strewn across the countryside. Such a development pattern still will put stress on local road networks and the delivery of county infrastructure and services.

The only way to “save” the countryside without ruining it is to allow already-developed portions of Albemarle County, particularly along U.S. 29 north of Charlottesville, to evolve into a more urban settlement pattern, and thus accommodate a larger population. If the county also allowed for the expansion of urban enclaves (the pattern and density of small towns) in places like Crozet and Scottsville, there would be little demand to build scattered subdivisions in the countryside… and no need for landowners to feel like their property rights were being violated.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

Comments

17 responses to “The Phasing and Clustering Debate in Albemarle County”

  1. Waldo Jaquith Avatar
    Waldo Jaquith

    This approach has come by way of cooperation between the pro- and anti-growth forces. It’s kind of like two warring nations each agreeing to kill 10% of their population: the kind of cooperation that perhaps we could do without.

    The hope for preservationists is that this is just a chance to move the ball forward, and that in just a few years it can be amended to severely restrict development in rural areas. The idea being to keep rural areas rural and to let the growth happen in our urban areas, by way of building up.

    Preservationist — I could myself among them — are right to be optimistic about being able to enact stronger restrictions before long. Just a couple of nights ago the BoS had an amazing discussion about growth in which the strongest pro-growth members, after seeing a new proposal, voted against it, saying that it turns out there is such a thing as too much growth.

    Amazing.

  2. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    eYes, but saving the countryside that way still doesn’t adress the farmer’s problems. Their (potential) land value is still confiscated. Some of these people may have been hanging on by their fingernails for years, trading farm losses now for future appreciation, or planning for their children, who may not be interested in farming. Under this (new) plan all of their long standing plans are moot and valueless.

    It is not bad enough to confiscate their land value, this is messing with their lives. At least the phasing aspect gives them something they can plan on. If I know I can build one house every ten years, that is better than being shut out entirely so that I can be “saved”.

    If I put money in the bank, then I have saved that money. Later, if I choose, I can spend the money. In this case, I would be forced to put money in the bank, and then told that I cannot spend it. I’m not sure I see the difference between that and having the money stolen.

    To put it another way, the people who are doing the saving, are saving other people’s money. But since they “own the bank” saving other people’s money benefits the bank at no cost to themselves.

    Either way, it is crooked.

    If the county wants to save the land (and make the developed areas much more valuable in the process) then they should raise the money and buy the land most worth saving. If they think they can’t afford that, then the price of salvation is too high: face up to it. There is no reason to think they can do it for free, and certainly no reason to think that a subset of the county’s residents can afford to pay a price that the county as a whole cannot.

    This is a blatant transfer of wealth from those that have land to those that have homes, and it is mob rule because those with the homes have far more votes. It is Loudoun County all over again.

    It is also a perfect example of setting yourself up to fail. If the owners are vehement now, just wait 20 years, and then watch the pendulum swing.

  3. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Another cheer for Ray Hyde’s position. I wish that the growth could be limited as Jim Bacon suggested along Rte 29 and in the villes to be come more urban. I wish it would just magically happen that way. I wish…

    The County’s slow growth “phasing would allow two subdivision rights on each parcel every 10 years” just screws with the land owners.

    The County could use its power to make permanent the zoning that doesn’t allow new subdivisions. That is legal. It means some property owners can’t develop to the full potential of their property. Call it ‘no growth’ outside of urbanized zoned places.

    Frankly, I don’t see anything legitimate – as in principled – other than ‘free growth – no limits’ and ‘no growth – more urbanization’. Probably my limited understanding of this shortens my vision.

    My parents moved to Loudon from Arlington in 1976 when the city limits were small and no new development was allowed with less than a 10 acre mini-estate. They built in a tiny development within the city limits of Leesburg right on Rte 7. I don’t know when the floodgates were opened, or why.

  4. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Actually, I would rather have Albemarles proposed plan than Fauquier’s actual plan, which is do nothing, ever, unless you are willing to do 50 acre lots, pay a hundred thousand dollar proffer, and give away half your land.

    Under the Albemarle plan I could, say, build one house on a half acre lot (or less, if they are really clustered) every five years. Yes, the end result would be another 170 acres of suburban sprawl – in 1700 years! Give me a break. I’ll be dead by the time I get four houses built, but at least I can plan for my heirs.

    Of course a bunch of other people would be doing it, too, so the total result is a lot worse. On the other hand a bunch of other people are doing it and competing with each other for location and price. Some will succeed and some won’t. The ones that don’t may be able to stay in farming because now they have new sources for jobs, and new sources for farm sales.

    If you want to allow me one house every five years, it is not much, but it is something I can plan on. the other option is to allow me nothing, ever, in which case I am likely to be highly agitated. It might be legal to make permanent the zoning that allows for no new subdivision. The question is whether it is ethical and moral to create two classes of citizens based on location.

    The class that happens to live where growth and congestion is “desired” enjoys increasing wealth due to the increasing demand for limited resources. Meanwhile, those that hold 95% of the resources are prohibited from using them. This both removes competition from and subsidizes those who own the places where congestion is wanted.

    Maybe sprawl is subsidized, but turning that condition on its head is no answer either.

  5. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    Has anyone bothered to ask those living in the the “already developed areas” of [fill-in the blank] whether they are interested in having their community turned into an urban area? It seems “we” are willing to give some “veto” rights to those living in or near rural areas against those who would develop the rural area, but not to those who live in more developed, but probably, still suburban or semi-suburban areas against those who would turn these communities into urban-style communities.

    Why is there a difference? Why is preserving a rural lifestyle seemingly more important than preserving a suburban lifestyle?

    Development is a clash between property rights. On one side is the right of a landowner to change the nature of his/her land through development without regard to, or with minimum regard to, the rights of neighbors to preserve the status quo. On the other side is the right of another landowner to preserve the basic nature of his/her property and neighborhood through limiting or conditioning the development rights of others. Reasonable people can argue where to draw the line, but the line should not be drawn in different places simply because one person lives in a rural area and another lives in a suburban or even urban area.

  6. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Right on!

    Somewhere there must be an optimum balance in dendity, congestion, and costs of providing public transit.

    No one, so far as I know has ever tried to figure it out. Shouldn’t be too hard to measure a few hundred communities and draw some conclusions as to what works and what doesn’t.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    One thing I don’t understand – I live in a exurban county – personally, I would much, much, MUCH rather see 10 acre minimums for lots than either scattered dense enclaves OR forbidding subdivision of farms and larger parcels.

    In NoVA and areas around bigger cities, it may make sense to cluster everyone together and keep farms in hundreds of acres. In more rural areas, it makes it impossible for normal (non-rich) people to enjoy the reasons that people WANT to live in these more rural counties – the ability to buy enough land to have a horse, or a hobby farm, or raise hunting dogs, or raise your own organic vegetables.

    These counties have pretty much zip for infrastructure and services – people are on well and septic, the fire department is volunteer.

    Does someone want to explain to me why 10 lot subdivisions – which those of us LIVING here actually love and cherish – are a bad thing? And don’t preach to me about the costs of providing non-existent county services, or non-existent traffic on roads that can easily handle parcels of that size. It’s the clumped together areas that have traffic issues.

  8. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Yeah, I have mixed emotions on that. The people with ten and twenty acres and even some with up to fifty acres are my best customers, and for all the reasons you state.

    From an environmental standpoint, ten acre lots are a disaster, especially when they are ten acre lawns, or five acres of lawn and five acres of heavily compacted dry horse paddock. However, it is possible to have a low impact home.

    Open space has some need to be contiguous. Some animals need a lot of space. I don’t know at what level the housing becomes so sparse it no longer matters.

    I’m with you on the cost of providing non existent services.

    One of the reasons clumped together areas have traffic issues is because of all those that arrive from non-clumped areas. In that respect we may not be paying enough for the services we get. On the other hand, those ten acre lots are paying a lot of tax on land that needs no services.

    I suspect the run-off from a ten acre lot is more or less the same, with or without a house on it. Can’t say the same for a half acre lot. etc. etc.

    I don’t know the answers, and I suspect no one does. I suspect that rising fuel costs will eventually change our habits, but I don’t know if it will be for the better or for the worse.

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I seriously dispute that ten acre lots are a “disaster.”

    In fact, I don’t think they are even a net negative.

    Folks on these mini-farms are on well and septic. No one with an ounce of sense puts five acres into real lawn when you’re dependent on well water. Most of these mini-farms are in pasture or woodland – which is the usage we’re saying we want.

    If it’s multiple large lots, they are contiguous open acreage.

    Besides bears, what animals needs tons of acres of woodlands? The animals I know of that are pressured are lacking farmland edges – monarch butterflies and meadow birds, for example – mini farms provide that farmland edges, which is being lost as more and more farm acreage is no longer farmed.

    Clumped areas of housing aren’t getting traffic from non-clumped areas. Putting housing and services nearby (groceries, etc) may make sense. Putting a clumped batch of houses out in the country doesn’t make any kind of sense I can see.

    What I see is an apparently arbitrary choice, to make it impossible for folks to keep horses or have a small farm – only the mega rich will get to enjoy country living. That’s wrong.

  10. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    There is nothing wrong with 10-acre lots, as long as the people living on them are willing to pay the location-variable costs of where they live (water and sewer just for starters, but other utilities, roads and government services.)

    What’s wrong, to my way of thinking, is when local governments REQUIRE 10-acre lots across large swaths of territory, making it impossible for anyone to develop most compact, connected settlement patterns.

  11. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I agree it is possible to have a low impact home on a large lot. But I also see many people who are usning the land badly: huge lawns and bad horse paddocks are just two examples.

    Jim is technically right, they should pay their location variable costs, and so should everyone else. I suspect that the location variable costs for urban areas are much higher precisely because meny of those areas exurban spaces get almost no services.

    Roads, yes. Longer School bus and electrical lines, yes. But when a big snowstorm comes, who gets their power lines and roads cleaned up first? I’m not convinced that if we ever figure out how to allocate the costs that rural people will pay more.

    Jim is right. Large lot requirements and other onerous regulations make it impossible to develop compact patterns. They also make it impossible for people who want to build AND to conserve land to do so.

    I’m not so convinced that even if it was more possible to build more compact stttlements that the builders would find much of a market, for all the reasons stated by anonymous.

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Out of curiosity, where, in the entire state, is county water and sewer available for 10 acre lots? Is there anywhere? I’ve never even heard of such a thing, much less actually seen it.

    The 10-acre and larger lots I’ve seen are on private well and septic. The homeowner pays for the well. The homeowner pays for the septic. The government is NOT paying for it. The government even charges for the inspection and permit – that isn’t free, it’s a fee-based service.

    As far as other location-variable costs, most mini-farms, unless planning got involved in requiring VDOT-grade subdivision roads, either use existing roads or have private gravel roads that dump into existing roads.

    There ARE no other utilities most places where you can have a 10+ acre lot.

    No gas unless you privately contract with a propane (not natural gas) company to deliver. No trash pickup, unless you privately contract with a private trash company. Better have a pickup to haul to the transfer station.

    No cable, you have to get a satellite dish. No high speed internet, call Hughesnet and get a satellite dish.

    There ARE no government services to speak of. Fire department and rescue squad are volunteer. Police coverage is minimal and you better be prepared to wait.

    What distance-related services are we talking about? The only one I can come up with are school buses, and I see no problem whatsoever with charging a premium for outlying school bus ridership (assuming it’s legal to do so.)

    IMHO it makes sense for exurban and rural counties to require 10 (or more) acre lots across the wide swaths of territory where they don’t WANT compact development – the rural preservation areas.

    It keeps the rural character, and it pushes the compact development back toward the city, where it makes sense. It also disincentives the idea of moving further out just to save $ – if you have to buy a large lot, you probably actually want to be in the country.

    IMHO the questions are more WHERE to require bigger lot sizes and, also, doesnt there have to be a better way than living further out for people who are only looking for cheaper housing?

    Areas like NoVa have more people, and more and more people moving in, than they have places to put them. Much less affordable places. Someone on another thread mentioned population growth – with current immigration and demographic trends, we just about at a US population of 300 million – but we’re looking at 400 million in the 2040’s.

    Where do we put everyone? I don’t want to live like Tokyo and Singapore. Do we really want to grow that fast?

  13. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Well, for me, a ten acre lot requirement would be a 500% improvement: at present my lot requirement is 50 acres. If I had a cholice of being offered 5 ten-acre lots or 5 one-acre lots and 45 acres held in reserve, I’d choose the latter. But a fifty acre lot requirement is whacko. You can’t get the value for the land in those lot sizes and it amounts to a give-away. I’d take the cluster and keep the land in reserve. You could still give riding privileges etc. with the smaller lots, and you could provide a horse facility on the remainder of the farm, at ental prices instead of sale prices.

    But if you drive through ana rea of ten acre homes and a rural area, there is a huge difference. Otherwise, I agree with Anonymous.

    I basically get six sevices from the county. Police and fire/rescue, but don’t hold your breath waiting for service. My deed is recorded. And the county offers a convenience site where I can take (some, but not all) of my trash. And the Johnsongrass committee sends me a nastygram every year.

    Oh, and there is the community development office whose job it is to tell me that I cannot develop.

    I have yet to have the county actually offer any agricultural help.

    It isn’t a question of whether we are going to have growth, or how much, it is a question of how we will accomodate what is happening to us. Thousands of jurisdictions across the country have some kind of “growth management” regulations, most of which boil down to NIMBY.

    That isn’t growth management, it is denial.

  14. Jim Patrick Avatar
    Jim Patrick

    Anonymous said Out of curiosity, where, in the entire state, is county water and sewer available for 10 acre lots? Is there anywhere?

    Over 50 Virginia counties –about half of them rural— have sewer authorities; others get service from urban extensions.

    Volunteer emergency services cost taxes; they’re all directly and indirectly subsidized. VES’s are still a tremendous savings in personnel, avoiding about $0.5 million (2000 figure) per emergency vehicle.

    The whining about law enforcement is tedious. LE costs money; more houses means more people means more officers. Duh. Oh, and 10a. lots (as compared to 1a. lots) is about 15 times more mileage.

    Solid waste disposal costs are primarily disposal (landfill) costs, with volumes rising 10-15% per year and DEQ requirements adding 5% per year over inflation.

    Before running on again, look over your county’s budget, an outline of it here at the Auditor of Public Accounts (XLS file).

    Anonymous ignores the change from a community of volunteerism, self-sufficiency, and sustainability that is tax revenue neutral (or positive) and produces wealth. The ‘farmette’ model is demands services, is dependent, tax-revenue negative, and draws down the local economy.

    Notwithstanding Ray Hyde’s two mysterious ‘Colorado professors’, housing costs more in services than it pays in tax; and dispersal (large lots) raises service costs higher.

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    50 Virginia counties may have well and septic. I don’t know of ANY of them that offer well and septic on large lot subdivisions. I recently looked in no less than 12 Virginia counties for a small farm – I did not see a single large lot (10 acres or more) on county water and septic.

    Most counties have well and septic, if available at all, for commercial and high density residential ONLY.

    Check the facts.

    10 acres lots are not 15 times more mileage for law enforcement vehicles. The dispersal pastterns of patrolling and enforcemnt cover distances for law enforcement vehicles – take an operations research class if you need to understand this better. 10 acre lots, dispersed along current patrol routes, are distance neutral. They’re not driving down your driveway.

    The farmette model is based on volunteerism, is tax reveue positive, and is a net benefit to the economy. Stating your prejudices does not give facts, which your post is notably short on, as well as inaccurate about the well and septic. Farmettes demand minimal services and are given minimal services. FACT, not prejudice.

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Sigh. Correction to note above –

    I meant public water and sewer is not available via the counties, not well and septic, which private waste disposal is what is normally used.

    No county I know of offers public water and sewer to large lot subdivisions.

    All of the ones I have ever seen are on private well and septic, not county water and sewer. I have yet to see even one 10 acre lot on county water and sewer.

    My apologies on posting before coffee.

  17. Lonnie Avatar
    Lonnie

    Sorry Ray, as someone who grew up here (and who’s parents still live here too), I can’t sympathize with any “farmer” who wants to sell off his land to a megadeveloper. There are still ways to make a profit, but you have to be creative.

    After all, what’s the point of having a rural designation if it isn’t actually rural anymore? My family have been farmers for hundreds of years, and still own our family farms. I am appalled to see the farm bureau and others supporting developers who wish to eliminate farmland. I think these folks in the rural areas need to decide… are they farmers or land prospectors? If you’ve given up on farming, don’t call yourself a farmer. If these folks are actually farmers then these ordinaces are a benefit, and privide many great incentives. Keep in mind, down-zoning and removal of the farm-use tax credit are options on the table if this proposal fails… would you rather that instead?

    As to loss on an investment, should I ask to be reimbursed if I buy stock in Philip Morris and people decide to stop smoking, or if an indoor smoking ordinance hurts the value of my stock? It’s part of the game. Diversify or die – its how the world works. That’s how my family has survived, not by selling out to McMansion developers.

    Now all this said, I think it’d be great if the county could offer some really nice incentive packages along with this. I also think the county and city can do mor eto support farmers, through tax breaks and by granting a permanant spot to the City market(s).

    Lastly, keep in mind, in other areas oridinances like this have increased the value of land. That’s just simple supply and demand. For those who can stand to wait with the market, these development restrictions can only raise the value of land. So… even those land prospectors can come out ahead with a little bit of patience.

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT