 |
JCC Supes Divided on How to Bring High-Wage Jobs to CountyWednesday, February 23, 2011 At their work session Tuesday afternoon, James City County Supervisors had a long and sometimes heated discussion about how the new Economic Opportunity zone should be designed. The newest Comprehensive Plan laid out an Economic Opportunity area around the Hill Pleasant Farm, intended to draw businesses that would bring more higher-paying jobs to the county. The zone includes residential units and possibly a light rail stop. During the current ordinance update process, staff is working on trying to construct EO zoning and looked to the board for some direction Tuesday.The board generally agreed they wanted fewer residential units in the EO zone. They did not, however, agree on the commercial makeup of the area, the height of buildings that should be allowed, and whether a planned road extension should go forward now or after the area has been developed. During Tuesday’s discussion, staff said they had roughly estimated a mix of 15 percent residential units, 15 percent commercial retail, and 70 percent light industrial in the new zone. Staff also said affordable, work-force housing was the intended vision for the residential units. Supervisor Jim Icenhour questioned why affordable housing would go in an area that is supposed to have higher-paying jobs. “It doesn’t mesh,” he said. Apartments were more in line with the type of affordable housing Supervisor Jim Kennedy said he had in mind, and 15 percent seemed too high. He also said he didn’t want to see the area have the same problem New Town and other areas have, which is too much retail to be supported by the surrounding residential area. Staff explained that the higher housing unit number stemmed from the current density allowed in the area as well as available infrastructure. Light rail would need a higher density to support it, too, staff said. The whole idea of an EO zone is not appealing to Supervisor John McGlennon, he said, but some aspects were particularly concerning to him. He supports the idea of helping people in service-type jobs find affordable housing, but agreed that this likely wasn’t the sort of housing that would be built in the area. Also, McGlennon was concerned that the EO zone businesses might not create enough tax revenue to cover the cost to the county for additional services that would be needed. Bringing in new jobs will just spur population growth, he argued, and the county was already growing at an unsustainable rate based on recent census data. “I don’t support the creation of new jobs just for the purpose of creating new jobs,” he said. He wants the area to bring in more tax revenue, not just more people. Kennedy pointed out that using the EO zone as a receiving area for transferring development rights (TDR is a tool the county is considering to shift density and protect rural land) would not be creating more residential units, but would only be moving them from another area in the county. Kennedy also noted that the county has already had significant population growth without job growth, suggesting that the EO zone couldn’t hurt. The county couldn’t offer rail density bonuses and also TDR at the same time, though, McGlennon argued, and the rest of the board seemed to concur with that point. Staff said they would come up with different scenarios for EO, one for TDR and one for rail. The discussion on the number of residential units ended with a request that staff look at 10 percent or less for the EO zone, instead of 15. As for height of buildings, staff said according to their research, a building needed to be around eight stories high for it to be feasible for some larger businesses and corporations to want to move forward with development. Again, McGlennon brought up his concern about whether this type of development – likely an office building – would bring in enough revenue to cover county expenses for infrastructure and services. Icenhour agreed. McGlennon also argued that creating the zone doesn’t mean large companies will come. On the other hand, he doesn’t want the area to become a Short Pump or a Tyson’s Corner, he said, and he thought citizens generally didn’t want that, either. The men were outvoted by their Republican counterparts. Both Supervisor Bruce Goodson and Chairman Mary Jones agreed that the EO zoned needed to be flexible enough to anticipate what kinds of businesses might want to move to the area in the future. Jones also pointed out the current review process allows for more scrutiny of individual cases. Furthermore, the county needs to diversify its economy, Kennedy said, and needs to find ways to keep college graduates and young professionals in the area. Democrats were also outvoted on the planned extension of Mooretown Road. McGlennon brought up the road project at the meeting, and said he was upset that staff had clearly moved forward on the plan by drawing up a schedule and asking to begin the early legwork when he felt the board hadn’t officially given the project a green light. He also said the Comprehensive Plan didn’t call for the road project until after the EO zone had a master plan, and that by starting the project now businesses that move in wouldn’t have to help pay for the work. “When did this project come on the table?” he asked, clearly irritated. Icenhour echoed his concerns. Staff said the Comp Plan didn’t specify waiting on the project, and Goodson argued the road infrastructure was needed before development began to avoid trouble later. Kennedy agreed, and said that planning a road after development begins can lead to problems, which have already happened in other parts of the county. Kennedy, Goodson and Jones decided to let staff move forward with the road plan, which will be completed in roughly 10 years. Staff will use the input from the meeting to continue work on crafting new zoning ordinances for the EO area. Other business During the rest of their work session, the board discussed other aspects of the ordinance update process. One thing the board talked about is staff’s plan for a cumulative impact analysis, which would look at the various service-related cost impacts of new developments. Staff is working on a way to examine the effect of development on school, transportation, environment, water and sewer costs. The board agreed that this will help them make more informed decisions on future development.
|
|
Copyright © 2010-2011 WY Daily. Davis Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Website by Web-tactics
Website by Web-tactics
Comments
It's funny to me as they wonder aloud how to get more tax revenue into the area without a bunch of people moving here permanently.
HMMMMMM, I wonder what magic solution they can come up with. A study perhaps? Maybe a committee or a focus group?
How about this. Why don't the JCC supes and the York supes and the City council all get together and fix the tourism problem.
It's perfect. People come here from somewhere else, with $$$$$. They stay for a few days and then leave. While they are here they spend $$$$ and generate tax income for the municipalities. If tourist related business' were making more $$$$ they would be able to pay more, hire more managers, marketers, sales people, (higher paying jobs) and the great thing is that the infrastructure is already in place. Everything exists right now to generate millions of dollars for us locally except a couple of things.
1. Committment
2. A good plan
3. Accountability
The 3rd being the most important. The municipalities throw around millions of dollars in the the tourism arena every year with no accountability, no goals, no requirements, and really no clear picture of what they want in return for their investment.
I know that no one wants to hear it and may of you are probably making the "UGH" sound right about now. But it is absolutely true that if we want to improve the local economy for EVERYONE. The easiest and fastest way to do so is to increase our tourism base to levels that were seen in the late 80's.
We would be swimming in $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !!!