March 08, 2007 Work Session
315
A Worksession of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday,
March 8, 2007, at 12:30 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration
Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT
Vice-Chairman Gene E. Fisher; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Gary W. Dove; Bill M. Ewing;
Philip A. Lemieux; and Barbara E. Van Osten.
ABSENT
Chainnan Richard C. Shickle
OTHERS PRESENT
John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator; Kris C. Tierney, Assistant County Administrator;
Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; Eric R. Lawrence, Director of Planning and
Development; Bernard Suchicital, Planner I; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; Ellen Murphy,
Commissioner of the Revenue; Dr. Jesse Richardson, Virginia Tech; Planning Commissioners
Robert Morris, Paige Manuel, and June Wilmot.
WORKSESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION RE: TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Vice-Chairman Fisher called this worksession to order. He began by clarifying the Board's
action from the previously adjourned budget worksession. He stated that it was the Board's
consensus to proceed with the advertisement of Scenario B, but noted there was one dissenting vote
regarding this scenario. He then turned the presentation regarding the transfer of development over
to Senior Planner Susan Eddy.
Senior Planner Eddy stated the Board held a worksession in November 2006 regarding the
transfer of development rights. Under such as program, development rights are transferred from one
property to another (i.e. from a sending area into a receiving area). This type of program was
enabled by the General Assembly in 2006. Senior Planner Eddy then introduced Dr. Jesse
Richardson, Virginia Tech, to discuss this topic.
Dr. Richardson began by saying that he was tom on the transfer of development rights. He
stated that in theory it was perfect because it gave downzoned property owners paper development
rights that can be used in a receiving zone. Thc program is market based and the county would put
Minute Book Number 32
Board 01' Supervisors Worksession witb Planning Commission on 03/08/07
(Discussion ol'Transl'er ol'Development Rights)
31
no money into it. However, interpreting such a program is more complicated because you are
creating a market in development rights. Dr. Richardson stressed that the County needs to decide
on the goal or purpose of the TDR program. He stated the most TDR program's are in place to
protect land; however, the most successful programs are the urban programs. He went on to say that
a TDR program may work well in Frederick County. He informed the Board that a developer will
not buy rights unless it makes a project morc profitable and to be successful, TDR program should
be regional. In Virginia it is possible to have a program that crosses jurisdictional lines. He cited
Montgomery County, Maryland as the poster child for TDR's. Dr. Richardson went on to say that
before implementing a TDR program in Frederick County a thorough analysis of the real estate
market in the County should be conducted. Some drawbacks to the Virginia TDR statutes are:
no banking of development rights.
cash proffers cannot be received in a TDR program.
Assistant County Administrator Kris Tierney asked Dr. Richardson to compare a purchase
of development rights program and a transfer of development rights program.
Dr. Richardson responded that PDR's are less complex and a locality can select the areas it
wishes to protect. Also, PDR's cost the locality money. TDR's involve the creation of a market
mechanism.
Supervisor DeHaven stated that he saw the TDR process as a means of obtaining public
service parcels or creating transportation connectivity.
Dr. Richardson stated that he had never seen TDR programs used to reserve public service
areas. He noted that in Virginia the purchase of speculative rights is not permitted and a purchaser
must own land in the receiving area in order to purchase rights. He concluded by saying there are
currently 150 TDR programs in the United States.
Following Dr. Richardson's presentation, Planner I Bernard Suchicital reviewcd three TDR
scenarios for areas located within Frederick County. Staff presented an Urban Development Area
to Urban Development Area transfer, Rural Areas Zoning to Urban Development Area transfer and
Rural Areas Zoning to Rural Community Center transfer.
Senior Planner Susan Eddy discussed how such a program would be implemented in the
Minute Book Number 32
Board of Supervisors Worksession with Planning Commission on 03/08/07
(Discussion of Transfer of Development Rights)
317
County. The tirst step would be to amend the Comprehensive Plan to establish the areas and general
goals. Then the Zoning Ordinance would be amended to establish criteria and a map of specific
parcels. Finally, procedures and forms would need to be created and established. She concluded
by reminding the Board that this is a market driven transaction.
Supervisor Van Osten stated there was a need to identity which rural community centers
could be developed.
Supervisor DeHaven stated that his biggest concern was trying to find a way to make sense
of this program and also having to give up proffers. He went on to say that this program was not
looking as attractive as it appeared on the surface.
Planning Director Eric Lawrence stated that staff was looking for direction from the Board
as to whether this merited additional study or staff should move on to something else.
Supervisor Dove stated that this presentation showed Frederick County was ahead of a lot
of localities in the state; however, he did not see where this program would benefit the County
outside of the Rural Areas.
Vice-Chairman Fisher directed statIto put this item on a future Board agenda for discussion.
The worksession was adjourned at I :50 P.M.
"
"'\.
\? 0 Q . 9..Q ~,__,
Richard C. Shickle
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Minutes Prepared By:
Ch H E.. '--1: O...Q >-?
~s
Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Minute Book Number 32
Board of Supervisors Worksession with Planning Commission on 03/08/07
(Discussion of Transfcr of Development Rights)