My Side of the Fence

The danger isn't going too far. It's that we don't go far enough.

It’s alive….

Like an old horror show, the zoning re-write issue seems to just not go away.  Just to recap: about a year ago, the Council initiatied an overhaul of our zoning ordinance.  It was last updated some 30 years ago and all of our staff experts (as well as our development community) agreed that it was a hinderance to both good planning and economic development.  So, the Council kicked of a re-write of the whole mess.  

The start of that activity was the subject of much debate as there is a faction who was primarily concerned with the possible location of another abortion clinic in Manassas.  They wanted a re-write of that select part of the code advanced above all else to include the requirement for a special use permit (SUP) for the location of various and sundry health clinics, to include abortion facilities.  The Council, in its wisdom, directed the staff to expidite the whole mess and get it turned around ASAP.  

Nobody on the Council wants another abortion clinic in Manassas.  I don't want another clinic in Manassas either.

So, fast forward to today and the re-written ordinance has made its way through our technical zoning committee, the land use committee, the planning commission, several legal reviews and a marathon Council public hearing.  Last night was a work session on the public hearing.  Underpinning and dominating the entire debate is the desire by some to require a SUP to locate an abortion clinic or similar medical facility anywhere in the city.  As I've written elsewhere, I have no love of abortion but a SUP is not a panacea.  I hope that cooler heads prevail. 

However, what really disappoints me is that the entireity of the energy spent on this zoning update by the Council has revolved around abortion clinics.  I've no fight with a group trying to be heard on an issue but what about the other 99% of the code?  Understand, I'm not arguing against a debate about clinics, rather I'm positing that a wider discussion should be desired by our leadership.  This is the code that will govern how we develop and utilize the land in the city.  Yet there's been almost no discussion of the balance of the code in public.

I heard an aweful lot in the last election about how important Economic Development is….yet it seems to have no mind share amongst our leaders.  These technical details are important to the process.  The nitty gritty matters.

How does the proposal compare with the surrounding jurisdictions?  Does it provide a good foundation compared to others?  Will members of the development community be encouraged?  What kind of economic development does it encourage?  How about redevelopment?  Does it encourage that?  Can it?  We have identified housing as a challenge to our community.  Does this help that?  Those seem like a lot of important questions that nobody has asked during the presentations and public hearings.

This code is going to guide the development of our community for the next 20-30 years and this is the debate we're having?

 

16 Comments

  1. The one question you left off is: does the Code changes also incorporate what State Code says (that ole Dillion Rule thing) which was also part of the directive you voted for.  I have been following the process, and the Staff, Planning Commission and ZORC did a dang great job of making sure the language was standard.

    Take Housing for instance:  as I said before Council at one Citizens Time, I took that portion of the changes and passed it along to the folks at PWC OHCD, friends at State-level in DHCD and VHDA, and for fun, passed it along to the two parties who brought the 2006 lawsuit.  All is copacetic there!

    Now, with regards to the Clinic, all was fine in the draft until the now with the politics.  But I ask this question to anyone who cares to answer:  all the folks wailing and nashing about a possible additional clinic coming in, have you asked WHY there are not more?  Simple answer:  Economics.  Two factors affect that business: (1) the CDC who keeps the national numbers (to include our local Clinic) reflect the number of abortions are falling for several reasons to include education; and (2) the reimbursements for services is low enough – basically, pays squat – as to not make it a "booming" business.

    Andy, like you I push for Econmic Development.  The Council needs to bring its focus back to real work for Citizens, and not politics.  The 2015 Virginia Rankings show that, out of 133 local governments, PWC ranked 18; Manassas Park ranked 25; and our City was 56.  'Nuff said as the numbers say it all in terms of Economics.

  2. This is bullcrap.  We've had the same 2 subjects for the past 5 years.  Budget and abortion.  Only the schools are talking about our future.  We might as well put wooden indians up in front of the cameras.

  3. What happens if someone comes in and wants to open a mega abortion facility under the guise of being a health care facility? The city's reputation for being a "family friendly city" will be forever tarnished.  This subject shouldn't be taken lightly. Today, you're talking about one smallish facility. Tomorrow you could be talking about a facility that takes up an entire city block. What then?

  4. What indeed.  What happens if another 10 car dealers move in?  An asphalt plant?  The point Mr. Harrover is making is that a wider discussion should be taking place.

  5. Exactly WHO are YOU to say what the residents should find "important"?   A large number find THIS issue important.  So instead of the people of this community moving on to other topics?  Maybe the city council should listen, do what we demand, and then we can move on.  It isn't the communitiys fault we haven't moved on, it's the deaf councils fault 

  6. Who am I?  Just a resident.  Just like you.  Who are YOU to tell me what my city should find important? I can tell you who I'm not: an advocate for mob rule.

  7. All:

    I'm not in front of a pc so I'll keep this short:  keep it civil.

  8. "Maybe the city council should listen, do what we demand, and then we can move on." Even if what the group wants is illegal?

  9. @Faith

    Yes, I agree with your point that a large number of residents view as important…at least in terms of the vocal majority who attend a Council Meeting and speak.  However, I do not believe those who either speak or write the Council represent the views of all adult residents in this City's 11,000-plus households.

    Please keep in mind the Council has a duty to pass resolutions which serve the best interest of all residents.  To do other wise would be a "King's Writ" aka "as it is written, it shall be done".  The Council also has the responsibility to ensure what they do is in compliance with laws.  And when it comes to the Clinic, all but one of the Council supported Del. Marshall's push to have the regulations for those Clinics consolidated into one.  And such occured under 12-Virginia Administrative Code-5-412 in June 2013.

    What is written in the the January 14, 2015, Draft of Article II of the City Ordinances for a "Medical Care Facility" comply with 12VAC5-412 which is proper.  To do otherwise would raise questions if the Council was exceeding its authority under Virginia Law.

  10. Regardless of the issue, let's do our best not to duplicate on the city level the self-imposed gridlock that has hobbled our Congress to the detriment of our country. Let's pass the good elements of proposed laws that we can agree on. The parts we can't agree on won't go away; debate can continue and maybe one side or the other will relent. But let's not hold the consensus elements hostage while we engage in that debate. I believe this to be true regardless of where one stands on the most divisive issues. 

  11. Andy asks some good questions.

    Of course, having sat on the Land Use/Economic Development Committee for some time you tend to get wrapped up with the "inside baseball" stuff. You know it, so why doesn't everyone else?

    Below is a staff response to Andy's questions. I can say for myself that I absolutely believe that the recommended changes move Manassas further in the right direction and towards a better economic development future. We sometimes loose track of how far we have come. For just one example, compare Old Town today to 20 years ago. Progress does take time and (more inside baseball here) yes, there's more to come!    

    And I can share that on Friday I met at The Bone with a developer/builder from Leesburg. He was impressed with what we have done so far and expressed the wish that Leesburg would follow in our steps. He complained about the devisive politics that have kept Leesburg from moving forward. 

    Question #1 – How does the proposal compare with the surrounding jurisdictions?
    It is difficult to compare entire ordinances since land use is specific to a locality. However, generally, we feel that the new City ordinance is made more clear and better organized which compares favorably with that of surrounding jurisdictions. One of the goals of this Phase 1 project was to streamline and make clear the City’s land use policies as articulated through the zoning ordinance. That is accomplished in this
    draft.

    Question #2 – Does it provide a good foundation compared to others?
    Yes. This Phase 1 effort was all about providing a solid foundation by breaking up the “waterfall” that is outdated and not seen in other jurisdictions zoning ordinances. In this case the City was behind the times but approval of this ordinance update will move the City forward and set the foundation for additional phases.

    Question #3 – Will members of the development community be encouraged?
    Yes. Feedback from the development community has been positive and no members of the development community have provided written comments or public hearing testimony with any concerns. While we know if no major pending proposals there are several smaller land use proposals that have chosen to wait for adoption of the new ordinance before filing their application. One is an expansion of an existing Bed & Breakfast in the historic area and a couple others are new businesses wanted to come into the City. In addition, the Manassas Business Council passed the attached resolution supporting the
    ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission.

    What kind of economic development does it encourage? How about redevelopment? Does it encourage that? Can it?
    In progress. The goal of Phase 1 was to create a more business friendly ordinance with what is and what is not included in the zoning districts clearly articulated. This was a necessary step towards subsequent phases that will deal more specifically with encouraging economic development and redevelopment. The Planning Division is working on a research paper for the Department of Economic Development regarding what type of zoning makes sense for Mathis Avenue and other targeted economic development areas. Out of that research paper will come additional zoning tools for consideration.

    We have identified housing as a challenge to our community. Does this help
    that?
    Phase 1 only included a technical update of the residential zoning
    districts and did not address housing issues. Later phases will need to address
    these.

  12. I think we could use

    1. An economic development levy, 2. A phase 1 levy, 3. A waterfall breakup levy, 4. A bed & breakfast levy, 5. A housing levy………………………………. 

     

  13. I think the politics in Manassas have become pretty divisive.  There aren't any functionaing political parties to speak of – the candidates seem to all run by tehmselves.  I have been to a meeting of both political parties and they're little more than knitting guilds. 

    Maybe we'll get lucky and some of the school board folks will run for Council and get something done.

  14. Listening to the Budget Presentation last night, and today looking at the CM’s Budget and the Draft Strategic Plan, one thing struck me: if Council does not get this definition stuff out of the way, once again we have core documents to run this City with no foundation.

  15. Last night the Council voted 4-3 to over-ride the recommendations of the Planning Commission and staff. The vote requires a Special Use Permit for Medical Facilities in all zoning districts where theyare permitted and to require a SUP for the hospital. 

  16. Thanks for the update, Mark…and is EXACTLY the way I figured it would go; and disappointment the vote.  The Staff, PC and ZORC did a bang-up job, and yet, politics always wins.  I can see an economic impact to other-than-abortion-clinic impact to it.

Comments are closed.