JCC Begins Effort to Align Rules with County's Future Development

By Desiree Parker Wednesday, August 11, 2010

At their joint work session Wednesday to kick off an ordinance update, James City County supervisors and planning commissioners gave staff some broad suggestions, including ideas on sustainability, workforce housing and how to preserve rural lands.

The update comes on the heels of the recent Comprehensive Plan adoption, and is an effort to align ordinances with objectives in the plan. Wednesday’s meeting was the start of the update process, and included discussions on: sustainable development goals and ideas; wireless communications; residential housing (to include ideas on encouraging workforce housing and infill development as well as site design improvements); rural lands (including a focus on the residential aspect and transfer of development rights); multiple use districts; and subdivision ordinances.

Planning commissioners had less to say at the meeting than supervisors, whose views often differed on some of the most contentious issues.

When it came to discussions on sustainable building and how that might figure into future ordinance changes, supervisors seemed to agree that green building is a good idea; they just didn’t agree on the best way to encourage it.

Chairman Jim Kennedy, who initiated the county’s green Building Round Table and supports the idea of sustainable building, said he wanted these principles to be incorporated using “a carrot, not a stick,” and said, “I want choices for what that carrot will be.”

Staff was looking for specific ideas to incorporate into ordinances, such as perhaps adding language that would include having LEED certification or something similar for buildings over 10,000 square feet.

County Administrator Robert Middaugh asked supervisors whether they wanted to offer incentives for green building, or whether they wanted to make it mandatory, which the board couldn’t quite agree on.

Kennedy pointed out that green building wasn’t always more costly, but supervisor Bruce Goodson argued if it were cheaper, everyone would do it and it wouldn’t need to be mandatory. Goodson was concerned about the additional costs to businesses.

Supervisor Jim Icenhour, though, felt that incentives might be good for smaller buildings but that he felt incorporating sustainable building designs should be mandatory.

Workforce housing has been a hot-button issue for supervisors, and the discussion Wednesday on the topic reflected this.

Kennedy told staff he wanted answers to a variety of questions, including a good working definition of workforce housing, how it might affect schools, and how the county could require it, and where to put this type of housing when no one seemed to want it in their neighborhood.

He also said in his opinion, workforce housing meant middle-class housing in the $150,000 to $250,000 range.

Icehnour thought including workforce housing as a percentage of most new developments might be a good way to integrate lower- and higher- income housing.

Supervisor Mary Jones said she felt a balance of housing types was important, while Supervisor John McGlennon argued that the future county workforce growth would primarily be in service jobs which would likely mean subsidized apartments or townhomes at a lower cost than Kennedy’s assessment.

Preserving rural lands has also long divided the board, and at the joint meeting they began discussions on the issue (which they’ll devote an entire work session to later in the year).

Discussion centered on the idea of transfer of development rights, which would in essence allow developers to have higher density in some areas if an equal density were removed (preserved from development) in the county’s rural lands.
Kennedy is a proponent of the idea, which he likes because it preserves land but also helps landowners in rural areas, who consider land “their bank.” He said property owners didn’t like the idea of the county telling them they couldn’t use their land in certain ways unless they could be compensated for it.

McGlennon argued that rural lands should be purchased with the county’s purchase of development rights fund, because residents voted to use this money to reduce the total amount of developable land in the county, not just shuffle it around.

Finally, supervisors discussed the new economic opportunity (EO) land designation outlined in the comp plan. This zone is currently planned only for the Hunt Farm area where the Pottery Factory is located. This designation allows for higher density and is meant to encourage a major economic driver, like a research and development center or a new tourist attraction, possibly.
Staff said the area was modeled after developments like Short Pump and Oyster Point. The EO idea will be discussed as the ordinance update progresses.

The EO zone is similar to mixed use areas, which allows for a mix of commercial and residential developments; supervisors requested a more precise definition and generally agreed mixed use needed to be more specific and needed a ratio of how much commercial compared to residential would be expected.

The next step in the process will be two planning commission forums held on August 24 at 6:30 p.m. and September 1 at 4:30 p.m. in building F in the county government complex.

The public is welcome to share input at the two public forums, but those wishing to speak should fill out an application on the ordinance page and fax, email or drop off the form with the county by August 16.

After the community offers its input, staff and the policy committee will collect reports and suggestions for the planning commission and supervisors to consider. Only then will the draft process begin.