County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
To: Bob Tucker, County Executive
Tom Foley, Asst. County Executive
From: Mark Graham, Director of Community Development
Date: 06 May 2007
Subject: Proffer Policy
In response what staff heard at the May 2nd Board meeting, we have attempted to list the questions that would need to be addressed with a proffer policy. Please recognize this is an attempt to very quickly compile a list of issues and we cannot claim this is an exhaustive list. With more time and careful analysis, it is possible other issues important to this policy could be discovered. We have attached a list of those identified policy issues.
Next, we heard an interest in an accelerated process with the goal of completing this policy as quickly as possible and an interest in assuring various interest groups are given the opportunity for meaningful participation in the process. Recognizing those goals can conflict, we have attached two drafts of possible schedules for consideration. Based on the advice of the County Attorney, both schedules assume this policy should be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Neither schedule should be considered a “take it or leave it”, but simply provide the Board some ideas as to how the process could be arranged.
Cc: Larry Davis, County Attorney
Wayne Cilimberg, Community Development
Attachment 1: Policy issues to consider
Attachment 2: Policy schedules
Policy Issues to Consider
Put another way, is it the Board’s policy to expect that all new development will pay its own way to the extent possible under the law? (Also, see #3 and #4 below)
For example, would this policy be applied to an in-fill project which divides one lot into two?
For example, Belvedere was over 800 units but had the same density possible without rezoning the property. What if the rezoning only adds 10% to the by-right density? Not providing a credit for the by-right could create a disincentive for rezoning to a better form, but all of the units create a demand for infrastructure.
Each affordable unit creates a demand for infrastructure, but the cash proffer amount can increase the difficulty of providing this affordable unit.
· Affordable units in excess of the County’s policy (currently 15%)?
· Proffers for land/facilities on the development site that are called for in the Comp Plan or identified in the CIP? (e.g. school site in the development)
· Proffers for land/facilities off of the development site that are called for in the Comp Plan or identified in the CIP? (e.g. school site on another piece of property)
· Proffers for services or other recommendations in the Comp Plan not otherwise anticipated in the CIP (e.g. transit)?
· Comprehensive Plan consistency (e.g. consideration of projects in a designated priority area)?
· Other design issues (e.g. LEED certified structures, public space in developments)?
· Conservation Easements that capture Development Rights?
(For each of the above that are anticipated as quantifiable credits, staff will need to prepare a methodology for the Board’s consideration.)
· Proffers for land/facilities that are not called for in the Comp Plan or identified in the CIP? (e.g. parkland not in CIP)
· Impacts occasioned by the development and not included in the cash proffer calculations? (e.g. road improvements beyond the CIP and Comp Plan which are necessitated by this development)
Go to next attachment
Return to staff report