Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 3 · column 2 of 5 · from the scan, no model involved
Del. Clinton Miller, R-28th District, and Del. John G. “Chip” Dicks, D-66th District, proposed an amendment that they said sets guidelines for these costs. “The amendment ties the proffers directly to the project, forcing the local governing body to have some rational nexus for the proffers,” said Dicks.
“This is a fairer bill for all Virginian^,” said Miller. “There are no guidelines for conditional zoning today,” he said. The amendment stated that proffers would only be permitted if “all such conditions are necessitated by and attributable to the rezoning and not by any demand for public facilities which existed prior to said rezoning.”
In addition, the conditions must be “primarily for the benefit of the property subject to the rezoning” and conform to the comprehensive plan of the county. “This cuts the heart out of what they’ve been able to do in Northern Virginia,” said Cranwell.
Cranwell said the amendments set up a “Catch-22” situation by requiring localities to pay for existing infrastructure needs before requesting payment for development-related impact costs. The Virginia Home Builders Association favored the House amendments, calling them a “constitutional safeguard.”
“Developers should not be made to pay for sins of the past,” said Karl Bowmer of the VHBA.
One developer, Rick Hausler of Prince William, senior vice president of Kettler & Scott, spoke in favor of Cranwell’s bill without the amendments.
Kettler & Scott is one of the largest development firms in Northern Virginia and a partner in the proposed Salem project in Marshall.
The current system, said Hausler, “allows projects to go forward while being served by improved roads."
The Virginia Association of Counties and the Virginia Municipal League also opposed the amendments, saying the changes would have “potentially devastating impact.”
“This amendment would hurt Loudoun County, Prince William and Fairfax,” said Mrs. Rollins.
In a letter to the Prince William Board of Supervisors, John H. Foote, Prince William county attorney wrote: “The proposed amendments to old conditional zoning are sufficiently dramatic
95.5%