Powhatan citizens working group maps Route 60 parcels to pursue 85/15 tax-split goal

Powhatan County's citizen working group spent much of its Feb. meeting reviewing a draft strategic plan implementation approach aimed at shifting the county's tax base toward the board's stated 85/15 target by encouraging more light-industrial development along the Route 60 corridor.

The subcommittee presented a GIS map and an accompanying spreadsheet that identifed parcels the group labeled "economic priority" (EP) for light industrial uses and tested how converting or emphasizing those sites could move the county's assessed-value mix away from predominantly residential tax burden. Members stressed this was an advisory exercise, not a rezoning or final county action.

Why it matters: the county's strategic plan calls for a higher share of commercial and industrial assessed value to ease the residential tax burden and support job growth. Subcommittee members said clearer future-land-use labels and targeted ordinance reviews could help economic development staff market appropriate properties to manufacturers and similar employers.

The subcommittee's work focused on the Route 60 corridor east to Jutes Ferry and identified multiple parcels (shown in a shared GIS map) for potential emphasis as light-industrial sites. Presenters said the spreadsheet applies recent assessed-value data, includes several parcels rezoned after the 2024 assessment roll, and produces an illustrative change in the commercial/residential mix if those parcels develop with industrial-type uses. Staff and the group emphasized the model is preliminary and conservative: it uses assessed values from developed comparator sites and does not assume large-scale changes to residential assessments.

Discussion and caveats Members repeatedly differentiated discussion from action. The group recommended that: - The board and staff treat the map as a planning and marketing tool, not an automatic rezoning; property owners would have to apply for any change. - The county should identify specific ordinances and comp-plan alignments that would need review if the board decides to pursue the economic-priority approach. - Infrastructure constraints matter: the eastern part of the county has more sewer capacity and a long-term Chesterfield water lease; much of the courthouse area depends on groundwater and has different constraints. Members warned that water, sewer and road capacity — and their long-term operating costs — must factor into any recommendation.

Committee members discussed sequencing and scope: maintain the county's "gap" (open space/character buffer) along parts of Route 60, avoid displacing adjacent residential areas, and keep buffer/landscape standards to soften industrial edges. The group also raised workforce connections: several parcels were identified near the high school and a proposed behind-the-high-school connector road (Batterson Road extension) to create opportunities for internships and short commutes for students.

Housing and parallel efforts Members agreed that housing and economic development are related but distinct workstreams. Several speakers noted Habitat for Humanity and a regionwide Partnership for Housing Affordability effort are conducting housing analyses; the RDA (regional development agency) representative said the RDA is preparing a regionwide housing toolkit and a market analysis pending a gubernatorial grant decision. The working group said it would avoid duplicating those studies and would coordinate submissions and timelines.

Data, transparency and next steps The group set these near-term steps: subcommittee members will meet again in one week and the full working group will reconvene the following week; the subcommittee aims to present a progress report for the board's April meeting but emphasized it may request more time. Staff agreed to provide: - A GeoJSON file of the EP parcels for posting to the county CWG GIS map. - The updated spreadsheet used in the presentation (including parcels rezoned after the 2024 assessment roll). - Regular batches of public comments (the county removed an earlier character limit and will forward submissions to the group).

Formal actions and what did not happen The group did not vote to change the comprehensive plan, adopt a new zoning district, or rezone any parcels. The meeting recorded two procedural motions: approval of the prior meeting's minutes with edits (motion carried; attendees signaled "Aye") and a motion to adjourn (carried). The EP mapping and spreadsheet were advanced for further subcommittee review, not finalized for board adoption.

Community participation Members asked that the posted map and materials be available to the public and encouraged residents to review the parcel map online and submit comments; staff agreed to leave the subcommittee meeting livestreamed and to publish materials on the county's CWG page so citizens can review the proposed EP parcels before the next meeting.

Next meeting The economic-development subcommittee will meet in one week and the full citizens working group will meet the following week. Staff will post the GeoJSON, the updated spreadsheet and any new public comments in advance so the public and committee can review them before the subcommittee's next session.