Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Powhatan committee adds parcels to economic-priority map and counts part of solar site toward 85/15 industrial target
Summary
A Powhatan County subcommittee voted to add several parcels to an economic-priority layer of the comprehensive plan and to count about 98.8 acres of an existing solar site toward the countys 85/15 strategic goal for job-producing land, a change that moved the committees spreadsheet above the 15% threshold used in its planning calculations.
Powhatan Countys economic development subcommittee voted Wednesday to move several parcels into an economic-priority category on the countys future land use map and to count a portion of a large solar site toward the countys 85/15 target for industrial/job-producing land.
The committee approved adding four parcels near Route 60 (identified in the committees GIS by parcel numbers discussed during the meeting) to the economic-priority layer. The panel also voted to treat Parcel 411 (the large solar site discussed at length) as part of the economic-priority area on the map while counting roughly 98.8 acres of that parcel in the spreadsheet used to track progress toward the 85/15 objective.
Why it matters: the county board set an 85/15 strategic goal (commonly referenced as 85/15 in committee discussion) to encourage a balance of economic land uses and housing, and the subcommittees parcel selections feed the planning commissions and boards recommendations. Committee members said counting a portion of the solar parcel in the calculations changed the numeric outcome used to measure progress toward the target.
Committee members said the spreadsheet used shared assumptions about acreage and assessed value when estimating the countys industrial land percentage. At the meeting the group noted that, without the solar parcel acreage, the calculation in their working spreadsheet stood at roughly 14.4% (short of the 15% benchmark the group was using as the near-term test). Including the 98.8 acres from Parcel 411 pushed the metric above that informal 15% screening threshold, a point several members cited when they approved the partial inclusion.
The motions were recorded and passed by voice/hand vote; the meeting transcript does not list a roll-call tally or individual yes/no votes. The committee took the actions during a broadly focused review of Route 60-area parcels the group had identified as potential sites for light industrial and job-creating uses. The subcommittees map edits also added small contiguous parcels near the Academy Road/Route 60 corridor to strengthen the economic-priority grouping.
Members who raised concerns said including parcels inside what residents sometimes call the Route 60 'gap' would generate public opposition unless the county pairs map changes with stronger buffer and screening rules. Other members said the county can design setbacks, tree retention and frontage buffers so new industrial uses are visually screened from the highway, citing previous Powhatan projects that have been buffered from public view.
What the committee directed next: staff were asked to reflect the approved parcel designations on the official future land use map, to update the subcommittees spreadsheet to reflect the 98.8-acre figure used in the vote, and to prepare a written recommendation for the planning commission and the Board of Supervisors that documents the map change and the assumptions used in the 85/15 calculation. Committee members said they expect follow-on work on zoning/ordinance language to require enhanced buffers where economic-priority parcels abut Route 60.
Votes and motions taken (as recorded in the meeting transcript): the motions to add the identified parcels and to include 98.8 acres of Parcel 411 in the 85/15 calculation were both approved by the subcommittee by voice/hand vote. The transcript does not include a named mover/second for each motion, nor a roll-call tally; minutes should be consulted if a precise vote count is required.
Context and next steps: committee members emphasized that map changes do not automatically change zoning or permit development; any future rezoning or permits will require separate applications, public notice and hearings. Several members said they wanted an accompanying ordinance amendment or zoning standards that would require substantial visual buffers and other mitigation measures if industrial uses are sited in sections of the corridor that residents consider 'rural character' areas.
