Powhatan committee backs adding UDD/master‑plan option for eastern Route 60 area

A Citizens Working Group subcommittee for Powhatan County voted to recommend that the area east of Route 60 near Page Road be shown on the comprehensive plan as an economic opportunity area with a reference to Unified Development District (UDD) master planning, a change that would allow future mixed‑use master plans to be considered there.

The recommendation, approved by the subcommittee after discussion and an earlier failed motion, asks staff and the planning commission to treat the eastern parcels within the county's service district as candidates for an economic‑opportunity designation and to reference UDD zoning in the comprehensive plan so that future applicants may seek a UDD rezoning and master plan.

Why it matters: The 75‑to‑100‑acre area under discussion sits at the Route 60/Page Road corridor and abuts existing gateway business and R‑2 residential areas. Changing the future‑land‑use designation could allow larger master‑planned developments that mix commercial, light industrial and residential uses, altering long‑term land‑use and service expectations for that part of the county.

Committee members debated scope, service availability and compatibility with surrounding lots before voting. Luke, the presenter, opened the discussion with an overview of the mapped area and size, saying, "I calculate about 2,850 acres, and that is, about 4 and a half just a little under 4 and a half square miles," to give scale to the eastern growth area. Several members pressed on whether gateway business designations should permit residential uses under a UDD master plan and where the county's utility service district should be drawn.

A recurring technical question was how much of a UDD could be outside the county's utility service district. The draft language the group reviewed originally allowed applicants to include up to 50% of a UDD area outside the service district; some members said that percentage should be lower (suggested edits in the discussion included 20% or keeping it entirely inside the service district), while others said a planning‑principles approach should not be strictly tied to existing utility lines.

Several members described UDD as a tool to manage transitions between commercial frontage on Route 60 and lower‑density residential lots behind it by requiring a master plan, pattern book, buffers and architectural standards. One staff speaker described how a UDD could "support true mixed use, which would be commercial, industrial, residential, and any combination," and said a UDD master plan would allow the developer and county to plan density transitions and open space.

The subcommittee also discussed alternatives, including focusing new housing opportunities on the previously discussed village area or on infill in existing neighborhoods such as Holly Hills, rather than expanding the service district or converting gateway business land to residential. Committee members repeatedly noted that the county's comprehensive plan and the Board of Supervisors' broader strategy emphasize balancing commercial tax base and housing supply.

After debate, a substitute motion passed to recommend that the parcels inside the service district be designated as economic opportunity on the future‑land‑use map with the comp‑plan language amended to reference UDD/master‑plan zoning (the motion was seconded and approved by the subcommittee). The group directed staff to draft text tying UDD/master‑plan processes to the comprehensive plan and to return with a more detailed map and recommended language for the full Citizens Working Group and the planning commission.

The subcommittee flagged several follow‑up items: (1) clarify the precise acreage and boundaries to show on the future‑land‑use map; (2) define how much of a UDD may lie outside the utility service district; (3) identify required master‑plan controls (buffers, transitions, pattern book and density limits, such as the 6 units per acre figure discussed) to protect existing neighborhoods; and (4) vet whether the village area or infill sites such as Holly Hills better meet the county's goals for attainable/attainability housing.

The recommendation must be translated into specific comp‑plan language and then considered by the planning commission and Board of Supervisors; it does not change zoning or authorize development by itself.

Less urgent details: Committee members scheduled a follow‑up meeting to refine language and maps and agreed to present the refined recommendation back to the larger Citizens Working Group before staff sends final language to the planning commission.