Growth

 We have a beautiful City! Williamsburg's openness and visual quality is a testament to the foresight and judgment of those who came before us. My hope is that we may continue this tradition.  

“Preserve and protect Williamsburg’s History, beauty and visual quality”. This phrase is taken from the 1998 comprehensive plan which also calls for ‘resisting the pressures for growth and change’.  We should listen to our past as we plan for our future. A large part of the architecture from the past was an avoidance of  tall structures  in favor of lower buildings which fit into the landscape. The library and surrounding buildings is an excellent example of this architecture.

 Our campaign is largely in reaction to the recent push toward encouraging building and growth by government over the last four years. This push has taken the form of up zoning; increasing density (1), decreasing required green space (2) and a recommendation to rezone residential property to commercial uses (3).

 The latest comprehensive plan serves to undercut attempts to resist new development by giving support and legitimacy to higher densities and less green space. This is a seismic shift in philosophy from the previous comprehensive plans. I do not believe that it is government’s place to encourage development. Proposals for new developments, outside of what is allowed by right, should come from the private sector and be welcomed or rejected by government in close consultation with the community at large.  

Our campaign is not opposed to new buildings and change. These are natural and healthy for a community. However, we feel that there is plenty of opportunity for both without removing zoning limitations which were put in place with great effort and forethought.  

If a project of quality is proposed, one that necessitates a greater density then allowed by right, then it should be considered on its own merits and if agreeable, the property may be granted the extra ordinary density that it requires using a rezoning process.  

This was the argument made for the use of the special use permit process - but the SUP process, unlike a rezoning, is weak in that the greater density is already allowed in code. Furthermore, with the greater density recommended in the supporting comprehensive plan it leaves little room for planning or council to reject a project which meets these base criteria. The fact that the Diggs building was approved with the highest density, on a 5 to 0 vote, is the first concrete demonstration of the inherent weakness of this system.  

While Council did modify a number of the recommendations found within the comprehensive plan during the implementation process, it was council that passed the comprehensive plan initially, over the objections of a number of citizens. It was only after vehement public opposition that they moved to alter these plans. This was called compromise, but who was the compromise with; the planning department, the commission, the City Manager, or the developer? There were scarce few citizens on the side of increasing densities to 22 units per acre.  

Government should act as the Citizen’s gatekeeper when it comes to new ambitious development, not as the doorman. It should not be necessary for the citizen’s to keep vigil of what new building, subdivision or ordinance change is next on the agenda. They need to have faith that government is minding the beauty and visual quality of the city for them.

 The most recent examples of this troublesome trend are the Health  Center and the Digges Condominiums. The new Health Evaluation Center is just about the same square footage as the library, and over five times the size of the community building. At 23,750 square feet, the Health Evaluation Center belongs on a much larger parcel; not on .87** acres +/-,  and just 25 feet from the historic North Henry Street . Council approved this building through the special use permit process and they did even more, they reduced the setback requirements for the entire zoning district in order to accommodate its dimensions.  This is a large commercial building and the first welcome to Williamsburg that a visitor entering the historic area along North Henry Street will see.   (4)

The Digges condominium, with its 24,000 square feet on just .75 acres could never have been built without the change to the comprehensive plan and the subsequent rezoning and special use permit process. These changes turned an M1, multifamily district, which allowed up to 8 units per acre and required 50% to be landscaped open space into the RDT designation allowing up to 14 units per acre and only requiring 25% to be landscaped open space.

 The bias of this administration is clear. More density, less green space, with an open season approach through up zoning. The citizen’s were able to mitigate the damage by protest but the bias remains. We need at least one person on Council who does not support this kind of open door policy to growth.

 In the final analysis, the Council, and through the council, the entire government must act according to its best discernment of the will of the people. Would the majority of the people have voted in favor of the Diggs condominium building or the Health Evaluation Center? Based on all the available survey’s I think they would not have. Therefore these developments should not have been encouraged by planning nor granted a special use permit by Council.

 In two short years the City will begin discussions with the surrounding localities to coordinate the timing of the updating of the comprehensive plan. It will be important to have a council member with the experience of having studied the issues of growth from the citizens’ perspective

 What are some possible solutions?  

• First, reaffirming private property rights. Reassure land owners that the government is only concerned with regulating requests outside of by right zoning.
• For all developments requesting special terms (SUPs), bring the citizen’s into the discussion early. Only in this way may the planning department, the planning commission and Council get the input that they need to make a sound decision.  
• Require that the developer collect 25-50 citizen signatures supporting the project's concept as part of the SUP application process.
• Insert into the SUP a description that defines what the comprehensive plan's goals are in granting SUP's. For example: That they be of particular benefit to the community and enhance the character of the City. This will aid planning and council in their decision making process.
• Post preliminary plans, sketches, and descriptions of developments being considered to a web site, so citizens may view and leave comments.
• Return to 1990 regulation - where all subdivisions require a public hearing - not just those with 25 or more lots.
• Identify existing buildings and developments that can be used as examples of what is attractive and desirable in a project.

 Terence Wehle

Candidate for City Council

* References in the text above.

1. First for 8 to 22, then settling on 8 to 14.
2. RM1 to RDT changes required green space from 50% to 25% for multifamily.
3. Calls in the Comprehensive plan to rezone church properties and the homes on Lafayette from residential to business.  
4. http://www.ci.williamsburg.va.us/dept/events/minutes/2005/cm120805.pdf

 ** incorrectly reported on this page originally as .5 acres +/-. Corrected on 4/4/2008.