Residents have been saying this, Council has acknowledged it, and the "ease and extent" of recent flooding have proven it. Christiansburg needs to adjust its approach to rezoning and conditional use requests.
Citizens have repeatedly pointed this out due to some seemingly unending construction projects (phase after phase after phase), to those which create too much traffic on residential streets -- especially when new developments are presented for council approval piecemeal, rather than taking a comprehensive view that looks at the entire process and into the future.
Council has acknowledged this both by adopting federally mandated minimum standards for soil and erosion control and storm water management, and in their new Vision 2020 statement. That document enumerates desires which will demonstrate a "commitment to environmental consciousness, effective storm water management, notably clean creeks and environmentally sound building practices." This vision reaffirms Council's intention to use the Comprehensive Plan as the guiding document for growth, and they have stated updating Chapter 30-Zoning of the Town Code is a high priority.
There is, however, a significant disconnect between "vision" and reality, as demonstrated at Council's last meeting. This included a Joint Public Hearing, between Council and the Planning Commission, to receive comment on a proposed rezoning.
No infrastructure data (road ROW, paved widths of existing or proposed roads, silly traffic data, water/sewer lines, staff analysis of overall impact to emergency services, school enrollment impact estimate) and fragmented view of town's ability to manage overall storm water, erosion and soil control during and after build out.
First, keep in mind that much of Christiansburg's undeveloped land remains zoned as agricultural. Even though the Comprehensive Plan has been in place for more than a decade, even though "Future Land Use" maps have been around just as long.
What is presented to the public, and Council, is often just a "concept" and may or may not be what is ultimately built-out. One citizen spoke about construction "over the next year" without realizing this project along Melody Drive could itself take a decade or more to complete.
Representatives for the development were rather fast and loose with information -- the MCPS Facility's Director was quoted as being supportive (yet he nor was any other school representative present, and there was no supporting documentation provided to back up the verbal remarks). A Council member asked whether the minimum required open or green space was met, and told "almost". This is relative to storm water management, and came after Council heard the steep topography only provided one feasible access point.
Other citizens have stated they discovered the required public notices, yet these were "hidden" in places not frequented by normal foot or vehicle traffic. And speaking of vehicles, the only "traffic studies" were informal counts taken by the developer's paid consultants on two week days.
Then there were broad statements made about how "all the current neighbors" were contacted and seemed supportive -- again with no documentation. Unless you count the 20 or so people who live in the neighborhood today and were present to express opposition about their street becoming a major thoroughfare in the future. These homeowners could see, from their own front porches, how the proposed project may one day be connected to yet another, separate development. And that view kind of looks like this:
The red star shows the existing, narrow Melody Lane. It feeds onto Radford Road via a steep street (Underwood) which exceeds the town's current
slope standards. At the center of the picture you see the
middle school, and some of the open area around it is meant for storm water retention. All the "disturbed" area represents other, separate projects (some which will have their own
Joint Public Hearings on Tuesday, Dec. 15). It is easy to see, in this aerial view, how roads may or may not one day become connected, from Mudpike to Radford or West Main or Depot via certain existing residential roadways that the Town will be responsible to maintain in the future.
What isn't easy to see is why the only information presented to the public at these hearings is a zoning map, showing the "subject" property, and borders of adjacent properties. Citizens are not provided topographic maps (showing
slopes or elevation), there is no data about how storm water or soil erosion might shift from the project area to adjoining properties, the pavement width of existing roads as contrasted to actual widths of right-of-ways, water or sewer capacity, current flooding issues reported in the vicinity, or potential impacts on school enrollment. The proffers are verbalized and seem fluid, or in flux -- even though no further comment will be received by Council (possibly to rebut comments made). Citizens cannot even be assured whether all principles in the project were present and available for questioning.
Christiansburg residents have been telling Council it can no longer look at subdivision or rezoning requests as confined with the borders of that project. Those property lines are imaginary, existing only on paper. The problems that can be created -- and the related risks and costs for addressing them -- are not.
For those who are still reading at this point and are interested, the video recording of Council's meeting are generally available at
MyVAResources or by contacting
Depot Dazed blog author Carol Lindstrom. Watch the meeting for yourself. This issue is bigger than one rezoning request, larger than one blog can handle.