|
Staff
Analysis:
Staff and the appropriate referral agencies have
reviewed this request for conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other relevant policies and
regulations. Findings, comments, and recommendations are
summarized below. The actual responses from referral
agencies are available upon request.
Zoning Office
The Zoning Office has the following comments:
Staff
acknowledges that the language of these proffers has
previously been approved by the Board of Supervisors, and
that only the proffers related to the workforce housing are
proposed to be changed. However, staff continues to offer
comments on all of the proffers because of concerns about
the language originally approved. These comments are
intended to clarify the meaning of the proffers so that
staff can properly administer them and avoid conflicts in
interpretation as the development proceeds.
Zoning Comments:
1.
Proffer 1.1 must be in compliance with Zoning
Ordinance (Z.O.) Sec. 13-202.D.5 which limits changes to the
Concept Development Plan (CDP) to reasonable changes
necessary for engineering reasons. The proffer
statement should make clear that any reasonable adjustments
to the CDP will be for engineering reasons. In any case,
proffers do not modify or waive zoning requirements.
2.
Proffer II.1 conflicts with the Zoning Ordinance; it
states the “proposed R-1 cluster portion of the property
shall provide not less than 15% open space.” Any cluster
portion must provide 50% open space and any conventional R-1
must provide 25% open space, as no reduction in open space
has been requested or approved by special exception, as
required (Zoning Ordinance Section 2-406).
3.
In the first paragraph of Item III, proffers are
enforced as zoning conditions. Zoning conditions cannot be
modified by agreement. This language should be stricken from
the proffers.
4.
It is not clear how the amount of 55,000 per housing
units (up to 15 housing units) was arrived at. It appears
that this is based on a percentage of the average prices of
housing units in Willow Creek or in the County as a whole.
The higher the prices of housing units are to be in Willow
Creek, the less incentive $55,000 will be. For example, a
$55,000 incentive does not make a $1m house affordable. This
being the case, it is possible that paying a regular “market
price” for a house elsewhere in the County might be less
expensive than taking advantage of the proffered $55,000. It
is noted by the Applicant that buyers might wish to buy
elsewhere in the County since the Applicant is proffering
the $55,000 to include housing units throughout the County
and the Town of Warrenton. More information regarding these
matters is needed in order to establish that $55,000 is
sufficient to accomplish the stated intentions in the
proffers.
5.
It is not clear whether the $55,000 incentive is
taxable income to the employee. Explain who pays the taxes
on the $55,000 incentive in the proffers.
6.
Explain whether there is an income level
qualification for the eligible employees mentioned in Item
III.1.
7.
Item III.3, it appears that all workforce housing
will need to be sold or contracted a year after the
foundation for the first home is laid on the property
(entire subdivision). In Item III.4, there is a staggered
schedule proffered for contributions of the $55,000
increments for workforce housing. In Item III.5, it is
unclear when contributions other than the down payment are
to be made. Contributions should be made as housing units
are sold or contracted up to the 15 housing units. Clearer
language or a table should be provided to make this
information more understandable and less confusing.
8.
Item IV.3, the Zoning Ordinance requires all
residential structures to be 25 feet away from the 100-year
floodplain elevation, not just outside the floodplain. The
Zoning Ordinance cannot be amended by a proffer and this
language is meaningless and should be removed.
9.
Item IV.4, the reference to the Northern Virginia BMP
Handbook, seeks to bind the County to a particular
interpretation. A proffer cannot tie the County; only the
applicant, and therefore the language is meaningless and
should be removed from the proffers.
10.
References to the “Applicant” are made in Items IV.4.
V.1, V.2, VI.1, VI-2. The language should be generalized for
example, the language of the 2nd paragraph under
Item IV.4 should be rewritten to read as:
“A “super
silt fence” shall be installed along the rear property lines
of lots #48 - #51 to provide a tree saved area to the
adjacent property owner to the east (i.e. PIN #
6981-54-4190).”
11.
Item V.1 and Item V.2, no statement is made as to
when the recreation improvements will be installed.
12.
Item VI.1, the applicant appears to be the only one
who will use the new road. Please provide language to
clarify what everyone else will do.
13.
Item VI.1, if no public roadway is agreed to by the
adjacent property owner, it appears there is no use. This
language should be clarified.
14.
Item VI.4, clarify what “heavy construction traffic”
means. The language should be changed to state that no
construction traffic shall access the property from.
Summary and Recommendations:
It is
recommended that the Board of Supervisors hold the public
hearing on this case. It is further recommended that action
be postponed and the hearing remain open, since more project
refinements are necessary. The Board should consider
Planning Commission’s recommendations whether or not the
workforce housing provisions contained in the proposed
proffers are appropriate and will still meet the intent of
the original rezoning.
The Planning
Commission recommended denial because of its concern that
the proffered workforce units will not actually be built,
and the overall project was not upgraded to meet the Board
of Supervisors Proffer Policy. The applicant indicated that
it could not offer anything beyond a cash contribution of
$55,000 plus $21,613 for the soft-second should any
workforce unit not be provided on site.
Staff asks
the Board of Supervisors to consider focusing on moving
forward with this item and its precedent setting workforce
housing program. Additional work is required with the
applicant to upgrade the “soft-second” mortgage for any
workforce units not constructed on site and to refine
language regarding the non-profit committee. Time must be
allocated to create a viable non-profit committee properly
empowered to screen candidates and effectively deal with
this creative “soft second” mortgage and outline re-sale
ramifications. This workforce initiative will be part of a
more coordinated and established comprehensive affordable
housing program, Countywide, in the future. It is
imperative that this committee commence as soon as possible
so that details regarding the soft-second mortgage,
selection criteria and screening and qualification of
potential applicants can be determined.
Staff
encourages the applicant to consider refining its proposal
to achieve the 15 workforce housing units onsite or to
consider the Planning Commission’s request for the current
proffer policy (e.g., for the workforce housing: $28,503 in
lieu of the $21,613, plus the $55,000). A proffered $76,613
can serve as a “soft second” mortgage portable to other
homes that are for sale (single family, town house or
condominium) countywide, subject to the terms of the Proffer
Statement. This specific proffered contribution would be
for the benefit of Fauquier County and School Division
employees.
The Planning
Commission and staff have noted with this amendment to the
approved rezoning for Willow Creek that the homes did not
need to be restricted to only 15 single family detached
units. Options for single family attached and condominiums
as a substitute could be viable, with smaller units
envisioned. However, this position is contrary to
information shared with the adjoining subdivision and the
unified housing objective represented in the original
rezoning. Residents were informed that the Willow Creek
homes (market rate versus workforce housing) would be
indistinguishable in design and size, and similar to their
community.
This project
presents a unique opportunity to establish an effective
start-up model for integrating affordable workforce housing
within our growing Service Districts. These districts are
intended to provide the full inventory of housing types and
opportunities for our existing and future resident
population.
|
