Christiansburg is on a slippery slope. The Sage Lane saga comes back to life with the Ivy Ridge rezoning request.
This cuts close to two council members with many years working with the town's Planning Commission, who share church membership where the new building site may benefit from their expertise and advice.
It cuts close to a recorded deed for a private right-of-way providing a suitable and legal access point for the developer -- even if it means jogging onto homeowner association land or a small parcel that recently belonged to the town. That point brings you back to Roanoke City Council wrestling with similar issues when determining how to use (or dispose of) public assets.
It cuts close to council preparing to consider applying the town's own current minimum standards for open space -- what qualifies or should be excluded? Stormwater retention ponds, steep unbuildable or walkable slopes? Should sidewalks be required in new developments, since home buyers subsequently come back to the town seeking them? Is that open space?
After the Planning Commission received proffers -- voluntary written concessions from a developer to make an application more desirable -- and some other late changes -- today is the day for the Joint Public Hearing on Ivy Ridge. Will citizens and council members hear all pertinent information? How will it be presented? Why would anything listed as a zoning requirement be listed as a proffer and why are these "concessions" in a constant state of flux with this application?
Why is this application now endorsed by administration, planning and engineering staff -- and the chiefs of the police, fire and rescue services? This solidarity -- and comment before a Public Hearing -- is a historic first in Christiansburg. If part of the proposed access road was in the town's possession and is shown to have been sold at higher than normal market rates, will people instead suppose some type of collusion occurred between officials and developers? If so, would you suppose this is a first -- or a routine practice?
How would that benefit the public health, safety, welfare and convenience of existing residents or business, or future taxpayers?
And why -- two weeks from now, when council will vote this particular development up or down -- and after all this is finally discussed in a public meeting where citizens may ask questions (but might not get answers), why won't the Mayor allow further comment? Perhaps something will come out in the Public Hearing, need to be researched or verified, before all salient comments can be prepared?
This particular deal -- forcing a square peg into a round hole -- makes "development at any cost" appear as a goal in Christiansburg. Was that in the Vision 2020 plan? Just build, even on steep slopes with poor soil quality? Forget infrastructure, erosion standards and water or sewer capacity. Forget homeowners association rights and responsibilities. Forget public school capacity and the strain on county tax rates. What about unfunded road upgrades, much less providing adequate traffic lights?
This approach to growth leaves everyone (not just adjoining property owners or council members) on a very slippery slope.
Perhaps it is time to step back, and wait for the Town Charter and Town Code to be brought up to date.
Until then, maybe it is time for a moratorium and standard operating policies to be established regarding "staff input" or analysis?