Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Powhatan CWG backs CUP review for higher density in conservation subdivisions, directs staff to exclude unbuildable land from density math
Summary
Powhatan County working group recommended keeping a by-right conservation-subdivision option outside priority conservation areas but requiring a conditional-use permit (CUP) to obtain larger density bonuses (up to 85%) inside priority conservation areas; group also directed staff to exclude wetlands/floodplains from density calculations and sent the package to the planning commission.
The Powhatan County Comprehensive Working Group voted to move a draft policy package that preserves a by-right conservation-subdivision option outside designated priority conservation areas but requires a conditional-use permit for higher density bonuses inside those priority areas.
The move, advanced by Speaker 2 and seconded during the meeting, directs staff to remove unbuildable land (wetlands and floodplains) from the density calculation and to recommend a conditional-use (CUP) pathway that would allow larger bonuses — participants discussed figures up to 65% and 85% during deliberations. The committee took the motion by a voice vote and instructed staff to refer the measure to the planning commission for ordinance drafting.
Why it matters: conservation subdivisions cluster developable lots and place the remaining acreage in permanent open space, aiming to protect environmentally sensitive areas while enabling development. Committee members said a CUP would give staff and the public more design oversight at the point higher density is sought, so trade-offs between environmental protection and housing supply could be addressed on a site-by-site basis.
What the CWG debated: speakers walked through sample calculations showing how bonus levels change the number of buildable lots on 50- and 100-acre tracts and discussed consequences for lot size minimums. One member summarized the bonus mechanics plainly: “If you conserve 50% of the land, you re gonna get a 20% bonus” (Speaker 4). Several members agreed that modest base bonuses by-right (the current 20%) could remain outside priority areas while higher bonuses should require public-facing CUP review.
The group also explored how tax assessment rules can affect affordability. Members noted that when conserved acreage is held in an HOA or easement, state assessment practice can cause the land—omponent nd its value to be reflected on individual lots, which could raise lot prices and counteract affordability goals. The committee asked staff to model typical assessment impacts in local examples before final ordinance drafting.
Next steps: the CWG gave staff and the planning commission clear direction to draft ordinance language that (1) excludes wetlands/floodplain/unbuildable land from density math, (2) preserves a by-right option outside priority conservation areas, and (3) establishes a CUP path for increased density bonuses (up to the levels discussed). The CWG also asked staff to return with calculations showing the practical lot-count and tax impacts for representative parcels.
