At the conclusion of the approved 1998 Waterfield Rezoning,
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors asked for a
review of the County’s proffer policy.
As a result, the Planning Commission and Department of
Community Development completed a preliminary Proffer Policy
Analysis Report in September of 1999.
That study reviewed the State enabling legislation,
identified what other growth jurisdictions used as their proffer
review methodology and guidelines, and presented recommended
refinements to the County’s proffer assessment procedures with
special emphasis on the residential rezoning category.
of the recommendations was postponed indefinitely pending results
in Prince William and other neighboring counties.
With all service district plans nearing completion and
recent rezoning applications, the need for implementing a revised
Proffer Policy has gained a priority ranking.
In March of 2002, the Board of Supervisors requested that
staff and the Planning Commission update the figures and
recommendations in the referenced report, as appropriate.
The target completion date for that report was July of 2002. Planning Commission
review was concluded in August, and the public hearing was
completed without any public opposition regarding the Proposed
Report & Proposed
Proffer Policy. The
proposed Board of Supervisors Proffer Policy is included as
Attachment 1, and much of the data and framework are included in
the revised Proffer
Policy Analysis Report,
which is attached. The Report outlines three options, which could be
used in assessing capital infrastructure impacts presented by
Capital Improvement Program Average Methodology (CIP);
Existing Level of Service Methodology (ELS); and
Cost to Build
The Proposed Proffer Policy is based on the Existing Level of
Service Methodology, and recommends that the maximum voluntary
cash proffer, which the Board of Supervisors will accept for a
residential rezoning will be $14,730.
It needs to be noted that the 1990 Board of Supervisors’
Policy only outlined how rezoning applications should be reviewed
for their local and Countywide impacts, with very general
guidelines regarding cash contributions and deeded property.
legislature has three separate types of proffer legislation, which
apply to differing localities statewide.
These categories are summarized below.
The first category is commonly referred to as the “old
style” proffering (refer to Virginia Code 15.2-2296).
This category is wide open to a jurisdiction; anything may
be proffered and it applies to a very select number of localities: Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County and
Virginia Beach. Under
this type of conditional zoning, a developer/applicant may proffer
anything to the locality without the requirement that the proffer
need arises from the proposed rezoning.
An example could be a residential developer proposing to
dedicate land and/or construct a commuter parking lot or commuter
rail stop along the Dulles Toll Road.
The second type of proffer legislation can be referred to
as the “high growth” or “middle style” of proffers (refer
to Virginia Code 15.2-2298).
This enabling legislation is limited to those jurisdictions
that had a population growth of ten percent or more from “the
next to latest decennial census year,” and to certain localities
which are located adjacent to such a locality as defined in that
section. This code
section allows these localities to accept proffers if:
“ (i) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
the conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning; and
(iii) all conditions are in conformity with the comprehensive plan
as defined in 15-2-2223.”
restrictions are important since they limit proffers to impacts
arising out of the rezoning application.
For example, to accept a cash or land proffer for schools,
it must be theoretically shown that the development will need new
or additional construction in that area of the County to serve
that project, or that school seats will have to shift to another
school as a result of the proposed residential rezoning.
In addition to the nexus standard, the Virginia Code also
requires that the proffer of cash or real estate not be accepted
until the project is shown in the jurisdiction’s Capital
3. The third
and final type of proffer is normally referred to as the “new
style” proffering (refer to Virginia Code 15.2-2297).
This category is the most limited.
While it has similarities to the high growth proffering
process and requirements, it prohibits cash contributions,
mandatory dedication of real or personal property for enumerated
uses, construction of off-site improvements or proffers not
related to the physical development or operation of the property.
County falls under the requirements described for the high growth proffer
Fauquier County Board of Supervisors enacted changes to the Zoning
Ordinance on August 7, 1990 to accept cash proffers from
applicants seeking rezoning approvals in accordance with the
enabling legislation adopted by the Virginia Assembly on July 1,
1990. As a result of
those changes, the Board of Supervisors also adopted the Policy
Regarding Guidelines for Proffers and Staff Analysis of Rezoning
and/or Comprehensive Plan Implications. As stated before, this
ten-page document provides broad guidelines on how to review
residential rezoning applications, and provides general guidance
on areas that are relevant for proffer consideration. A copy can
be provided if requested.
Policy Analysis Report. Other
jurisdictions have enacted ways to mitigate capital facilities
impacts of a proposed rezoning application by accepting
combinations of land dedications, actual construction and
differing amounts of cash proffers as shown in the previous
sections of this report. The County Proffer Policy Analysis
Report (Updated: July
24, 2002) reviewed and summarized the methodologies used by the
Counties of Chesterfield, Loudoun, Prince William and Stafford, as
well as the City of Chesapeake.
All established approaches are successful and were designed
pursuant to the applicable proffer limitations established in the
Virginia Code for their jurisdiction.
analyzed the following options from the latter jurisdictions, and
all provide the requisite building blocks needed to determine
capital costs for all facilities.
These options are described as:
The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Methodology;
Existing Service Levels Methodology (ELS);
Cost to Build Methodology (CTB); and
Level of Service Cutoffs Methodology (LOSAX).
conclusion of its September public hearing, the Planning
Commission recommended to the Board of Supervisors, as
demonstrated in Attachment 1, that the full $14,730 per
residential unit be the threshold amount for residential rezoning
present, Frederick, Loudoun and Prince William Counties are trying
to capture 100 percent of that per unit for public infrastructure
costs through voluntary cash contributions, actual construction,
and deeded property for all residential rezoning applications.
Chesterfield County attains approximately 85% of that public