Commissioners: Property rights may return to owners
Planning commissioners say proposed changes to agricultural zoning will give some property rights back to landowners who lost them after the 2003 down-zoning
Date published: 8/8/2008
By DAN TELVOCK
Spotsylvania County planning commissioners say rural zoning changes they are considering will give some property rights back to landowners who lost them in a 2003 down-zoning.
In November 2003, supervisors passed zoning changes that reduced by 42 percent the number of homes that could be built in the county without the local government's permission. That reduction eliminated 23,000 by-right lots.
In March of this year, Supervisor Emmitt Marshall asked the Planning Department to present ways to increase development rights in rural Spotsylvania because some landowners are facing hardship in this sluggish economy. He recommended 3-acre lot divisions.
The Planning Commission reviewed the options for the first time Wednesday night.
Most of rural Spotsylvania is zoned A-3, which requires 10-acre lots. There is some 5-acre zoning.
All rural zoning has a 10-lot limit, which means a person who owns a home on 200 rural acres could create only 10 additional lots. A person with a home on 19 acres would not be allowed to divide the land for a non-family member under current zoning rules.
Allowing 3-acre lots could potentially add 8,509 by-right parcels in rural Spotsylvania. Of those, 3,153 could come in the first year, planners said. The 10-lot limit would stay intact.
Commissioner John Gustafson, a Realtor, said he doesn't think those numbers are accurate because some of the land is not conducive to building.
"For most folks their net worth is in real property," he said. "I don't see what the problem to the county or the taxpayers would be, but I see a great benefit to the landowners."
Of three options, commissioners chose the least restrictive one. It would not require any road frontage on a divided lot. The divided lot could be accessed through an easement on adjoining property. The application fees also would be less than the normal fees for subdividing property.
Planners warned that all the options are in direct contradiction with the current comprehensive plan, a blueprint to guide growth in the county. That plan targets growth in what is called the primary settlement boundary, and it promotes protecting the rural parts of the county.
Commissioner James Strother said he wouldn't want the land divisions to get out of hand, so he proposed limiting them to no more than four in five years.
Planners will return to the Planning Commission with a more defined plan based on their recommendations for a public hearing. No date has been scheduled.
Any zoning change recommended by the Planning Commission would require approval by the Board of Supervisors.
Dan Telvock: 540/374-5438
Email: dtelvock@freelancestar.com
Read more stories about Spotsylvania
Date published: 8/8/2008
Most recent reader comments:
the REAL question .....
(posted by
testexam
, Aug. 9, 2008 12:07 am)
how much land does Emmitt own in spotsy and how much will he profit from this policy change.... same Q for the rest of the "higher ups" ..... lets see whos the 1st to sell off their acreage for 10x its worth to developers .... let the fleecing begin !!!!!
the real problem - continued
(posted by
larryg
, Aug. 8, 2008 8:44 am)
If .. and when the county/BOS/PC takes responsibility for dealing with the road improvements that WILL be required as a result of growth - whether it be from rezones or 3-acre by-right - then the anti-growth sentiment will subside.
It's not the growth - it's the irresponsible approach to dealing with the impacts of it that causes the uproar.
If we want growth or more accurately we're not going to have policies that control/prevent it - then at the least - be responsible in planning for it.
The real issue
(posted by
larryg
, Aug. 8, 2008 8:41 am)
Although "growth" is going to be different than before because of the mortgage meltdown and the price of gasoline, in the longer run - the problem - IMHO - is a refusual by the BOS/PS/County Government to PLAN for the IMPACTS of growth.
and it's primarily with roads and schools. The BOS/PC have had opportunities to set up methods to generate funding for road improvements but they have refused and instead still profess that it is a VDOT responsibility.
Even if, in theory, true - the reality is not.
How many empty houses do we need?
(posted by
VincentN
, Aug. 8, 2008 5:38 am)
Wait a minute: "Allowing 3-acre lots could potentially add 8,509 by-right parcels in rural Spotsylvania. Of those, 3,153 could come in the first year," Is there really a demand in this "Sluggish" market to build such houses? Can there be that many needed for actual "family members"? Does any of this make sense? Take a drive around our county and those surrounding. Look at all the empty houses! What are the realistic numbers of supply and demand? does not seem like there is much real "planning" going on!
|
Star Directory
