|
|
||
Supervisors and planning commissioners meet tomorrow to discuss several major proposals Date published: 10/27/2008
By DAN TELVOCK If the Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors lowers the minimum rural lot size to 3 acres, it could create 8,000 new buildable lots and threaten the 2-percent annual growth rate benchmark. But reducing the minimum rural lot size could help struggling families who right now cannot subdivide their land if it is less than 20 acres. Supervisor Emmitt Marshall asked staff in March to come up with options for 3-acre zoning instead of the current 10-acre minimum required in most of rural Spotsylvania. Residents in his district are struggling to make ends meet and the 10-acre lot size is too restrictive, he said. In August, Spotsylvania planning commissioners recommended the least restrictive option for 3-acre lot divisions. That plan would not require lots to have road frontage. Instead, access to the parcel could be through an adjoining easement on adjacent lots. County fees also would be lower than typically charged for subdividing property. Commissioners said this change would secure more property rights for landowners who lost them in a 2003 downzoning that reduced by 42 percent the number of homes that could be built without local government permission. Commissioners will have an opportunity tomorrow to explain their reasoning to supervisors during a joint meeting. Planning Department officials said 3-acre lots could create at most about 8,000 new buildable parcels. Of those, about 3,100 could come in the first year. Property owners would not be able to divide more than 10 lots no matter how much land they have. Marshall said he doesn't believe the change could result in sprawl because supervisors could limit the number of lot divisions per year or amend the ordinance if there was a rush of property divisions. "It might be a fear with some board members but not with this board member," he said. "Not everybody down here is going to attempt to sell 3 acres. I'm not, and I own land. I have no intention of using it at this particular time but if I got in a tight spot financially, I would rather sell 3 acres than have to sell 10 acres." Supervisor Gary Jackson said changing the minimum lot size would cost the county millions in additional services. "In these difficult economic times it is really surprising to me we are having this conversation," he said. "Much of the conversation seems to center on the economic circumstances of these individual property owners." Jackson said he already challenged planning commissioners to show him where in Virginia law it says improving the value of someone's real estate is a legitimate reason to change zoning. "If you want to move into a smart-growth environment, then you need to stop this kind of foolishness," he said. "You can't be giving away lots in the country and creating sprawl. We've got to make up our mind in what direction we are going in." Dan Telvock: 540/374-5438
Read more stories about Spotsylvania Date published: 10/27/2008
A minimum of a 40ft wide driveway or access to a county road
to sell a lot. Most county roads aren't 40 feet wide. Besides
commuters are not still looking at Spotsy for housing. Locals
might be able to find a place to live now.
8000 I THINK IS ANOTHER SMACK IN THE FACE OF LAND OWNERS. NOT IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS . PEOPLE WHO OWN THIS LAND ARE NOT AND WILL NEVER BE A BUILDER . MOST OF THESE PEOPLE DONT LIKE TO SELL ANY OF THEIR LAND BUT WHEN NEED STRICKS THEY SHOULD BE ABLEL TO. THEY ARE OLDER ANDF WISER THAN YOU MAY THINK THANK GOD.
We definitely need this. We're going to grow anyway, its not like the county can keep people out of our county. I most definitely support. :]
Supervisors, don't you get i?, We don't need or want more "unnecessary" growth. Mr. Marshall's plan will only cause our taxes to go up. The Board of Supervisors had the opportunity earlier this year to impose "impact fees" where everyone pays for the cost of growth. Only Supervisors Pitts and Connors supported such a plan. Supervisor Pitts made a motion to remove the extension of the Primary Settlemant District from the revision of the Comprehensive Plan. Supervisors Logan and Skinner voted No, WHY??????.
Supervisors, don't you get i?, We don't need or want more "unnecessary" growth. Mr. Marshall's plan will only cause our taxes to go up. The Board of Supervisors had the opportunity earlier this year to impose "impact fees" where everyone pays for the cost of growth. Only Supervisors Pitts and Connors supported such a plan. Supervisor Pitts made a motion to remove the extension of the Primary Settlemant District from the revision of the Comprehensive Plan. Supervisors Logan and Skinner voted No, WHY??????.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
