|
• Snow Closings
|
|
| Tue, Feb. 09 - - Mobile - RSS | |
| YOUR TOWN: Caroline | Culpeper | King George | Fredericksburg | Orange | Spotsylvania | Stafford | Westmoreland | |
|
|
Spotsy wants level growth
Spotsy wants to stick with 2 percent growth rateDate published: 6/10/2009 BY DAN TELVOCK Most Spotsylvania County supervisors made it clear last night that they want the county to stick with a 2 percent annual growth rate as they move forward with creating super-dense communities. Supervisors had their first work session on Urban Development Areas, which is state-mandated legislation for high-growth localities. The UDAs must hold at least 10 years of growth and no more than 20 years. The legislation mirrors a smart-growth approach that encourages self-sustained compact developments with a variety of housing, shopping, entertainment, jobs centers and open green space. The minimum density allowed by law is four units per gross acre, but county planners said the density will likely be higher. Staff presented 11 options for where this type of growth could occur. For 10 years of growth, there will be as many as 14,000 new homes for 29,000 people, almost 4,000 people more than the county's 2 percent annual growth rate policy. "It doesn't make sense to me that the county overall has a 2 percent growth rate [policy] yet we propose something that goes above that," said Supervisor Benjamin Pitts. Planners said they would create ordinances and incentives to encourage this type of growth once the UDAs are selected. But some supervisors said it might be wise to present the ordinances and incentives before they select UDAs. Earlier this month, the Planning Commission recommended that 541 acres of infill development near the under-construction Spotsylvania Regional Medical Center in Massaponax and 1,437 acres in the Courthouse area be designated as UDAs. Last night, most supervisors said they didn't want growth to spill out into rural areas. They asked county planners to focus on nine UDAs that are in what is called the primary settlement district, which is where the county's growth plan says development is to occur. Those nine areas encompass about 4,900 acres. If the UDAs are to be included only in the primary settlement district, then the Courthouse area and about 1,600 acres on U.S. 1 south toward Thornburg would be ruled out. However, developers would not be prohibited from proposing a UDA project or rezoning anywhere else in the county just because it's not within a UDA overlay district. Developers would, however, be required to apply for a comprehensive-plan amendment that costs thousands of dollars. Supervisor Emmitt Marshall said he did not want to rule out UDA-type growth in rural areas--chiefly Thornburg and the Courthouse area. Supervisors agreed to his motion to table the discussion for 60 days so he could speak with landowners about containing UDAs in the primary settlement district. Supervisors Gary Jackson and Pitts were not in favor of encouraging high-density growth in the Courthouse and Thornburg areas. "I am certainly going to focus on what I consider the more urban areas," Jackson said. "I'd hate to see us have a UDA outside the designated growth area." Dan Telvock: 540/374-5438
Date published: 6/10/2009
These guys are NUTS
(posted by
thankyouvets
, June 11, 2009 8:05 am)
Why in the world are we as property owners allow these egotistical politians hinder OUR property rights. Their making a mokery of our Constitution. This is ALL about money, and rather than reduce their spending they'll artificially control the market, limit growth through land use and proffers. This of course will force home prices up.
Talk is cheap
(posted by
MrWonderful
, June 10, 2009 11:27 am)
They talk a good game, but cave everytime it comes to an important vote. VRE wil be the next big handout given to developers.
=)
(posted by
INeedRights2
, June 10, 2009 8:36 am)
Its fabricated...it's a no-growth tool....now, these tools are coming back to haunt them..
2% growth is a farce
(posted by
Fredtastic
, June 10, 2009 8:12 am)
Its a political ally of these supervisors to say they support 2% growth. But their decisions don't actually reflect there own policy. The 3 acre lot divisions in the rural areas practically kills any chance for 2% growth when things pick up again. Densely populated areas (which I agree should only be in the designated growth areas) are the way to go - but adhering to a 2% growth rate \will not bode well for enticing anyone to actually propose these types of developments -which the county likes in theory.
I'd like to ask Mr. Jackson...
(posted by
blitzburgh
, June 10, 2009 7:35 am)
If someone lives in spotsy and builds a new house how does that cost the county $50,000 in services?
|
 |
|||
|
|||
