Archives

Spotsylvania News

Jeff Branscome writes about Spotsylvania County.

Share
RSS feed of this blog

More on the 3-acre rural lot proposal

Two people who could not attend last night’s meeting on the rural 3-acre agricultural lot division proposal sent letters to the Planning Commission. One was opposing the proposal to allow for a 3-acre rural lot division once a year, and one was in favor of it.

 

Here is the letter for it. The letter is from Republican D.J. McGuire, who is rumored to be a possible candidate for Board of Supervisors. (Sorry, DJ, fixed it)

 

Here is a letter against the proposal. The letter is from Kevin Leahy, a former planning commissioner. 

 

This proposal is moving fast through the government process. The Planning Commission just recommended approval last night and now it’s going to the Board of Supervisors for a public hearing on Feb. 10. Here is what the zoning amendment says:

CA08-0021  Board of Supervisors: An amendment the Code of the County of Spotsylvania to allow for an Annual Division in the Agricultural 2 and Agricultural 3 zoning districts. This requires amendment of both Chapter 20, Subdivisions, and Chapter 23, Zoning.

 

 

 

 

 

The amendment to Chapter 20, Subdivisions, is to Article 2, Definitions and Rules of Constructions, to amend Section 20-2.1.3, Definitions – Subdivide, to rename the current subsection “C” as “D” and to add:

 

 

 

 

 

C.  Which divide a parcel of land in the A-2, or A-3 zoning district using the following Annual Division standards:

 

 

 

 

 

(1)  Minimum lot size shall be three (3) acres including the remainder parcel;

 

 

 

 

 

(2)  Lots shall have a scenic buffer strip thirty-five (35) feet in width along the existing secondary or primary road frontage, in which the existing vegetation and contours of the land will not be disturbed or altered. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit ingress/egress on the secondary or primary road where permitted by the standards of this chapter and VDOT, nor to prohibit the placement of fences or the planting of additional landscaping within the scenic buffer strip;

 

 

 

 

 

(3)   Any subsequent division(s) of the parcels created pursuant to this exemption shall conform to the provisions of the Spotsylvania County Subdivision Ordinance for cluster or conventional divisions;

 

 

 

 

 

(4)  The number of lots created under this provision shall not exceed one (1) lot per each 365 day period and the residential lot yield cannot exceed ten (10) lots from the parent parcel which existed on February 12, 2002.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The amendment to Chapter 23, Zoning, is to Article 6, Zoning Districts for the Agricultural 1 (A-1), Agricultural 2 (A-2), Agricultural 3 (A-3), Resort Agricultural (R-A), Residential Resort (R-R), and Rural (Ru) districts, to update references for minimum public road frontage for family divisions to the amended subsection “D” of the

 

 

Subdivision ordinance; and to amend Sections 23-6.3.4 and 23-6.4.4, which define the Development standards for the Agricultural 2 (A-2) and Agricultural 3 (A-3) districts, to add:

 

 

 

 

 

·         A residential density for the annual division of one (1) dwelling unit per three (3) gross acres;

 

 

·         A minimum lot area in an annual division of three (3) acres;

 

 

·         A minimum lot width in an annual division of one hundred fifty (150) feet;

 

 

·         A minimum public road frontage for annual divisions of one hundred fifty (150) feet (if divided off the public road) or as defined in Ch. 20-2.1.3, Subdivide [subsection] (D)(4), which provides private easement standards; and

 

 

·         A provision that there is no open space requirement for annual divisions.

 

 

 

 

Permalink: http://news.fredericksburg.com/spotsygovt/2009/01/22/more-on-the-3acre-rural-lot-proposal/

  • thatguyb

    Weren’t these the same gov’t folks that were bemoaning the lack of viable transportation funding? And here they are wanting to put MORE housing out in the rural areas of the county.

  • demosthenes

    I think a good mix of both of those plans would work. The answer doesn’t always have to be right or wrong, left or right, or one set way.
    I’m sure some citizens would like to keep their property but could use the tax break or some would like the ability to sell some but not all.

    I think DJ is not officially running for supervisor, but has he really committed?

  • dantelvock

    DJ reads this and he can answer. It was stated on this blog that he is considering a run for the board, and he has been very active the last few months in the local board actions. He denied it on this blog, but a few still believe he is going to apply to run. So, DJ, what’s the deal?