Spotsylvania News

Jeff Branscome writes about Spotsylvania County.

RSS feed of this blog

Ni Village public hearing postponed

Luck Development Partners has postponed the public hearing scheduled for tonight. The hearing was to be on the developer’s proposed Ni Village, which would be a mixed-use community near Massaponax High School. The public hearing was rescheduled for Oct. 11.

In an email, Luck officials said the extra two weeks will give the company time to address some questions about the project. At a planning commission meeting earlier this month, members questioned the pedestrian crossing, traffic impact and noise levels associated with the project.

The decision also came shortly after Supervisor Hap Connors had to go out of town unexpectedly. Connors has been supportive of the proposal.

Ni Village would include an educational center, which would be the first stage of the project. This center would go into an already existing building on the property (the vacant office space near the school board office). It would focus on green initiatives and could involve the University of Mary Washington, Germanna Community College, Virginia Tech and James Madison University, among others. Luck Development officials said they have already signed a memorandum of understanding with UMW for the proposed educational center.

The development would also include office, commercial and residential spaces. It would span both sides of State Route 1. That led the planning commission members to question the proposed pedestrian crossing to bridge both sides of the development. Luck Development officials decided to have a pedestrian crossing instead of a pedestrian bridge, citing safety studies and VDOT suggestions.

In response to questions, the Luck Development Partners already changed a few of the proffers, to address concerns about traffic on Hickory Ridge Road.

You can learn more about the project here. And here are some stories we’ve run about the proposal.



  • Anonymous

    the traffic analysis says that 17,000 new trips a day will go north.

    where are they going? what is their destination?

    and what has the county done about (or planning or has funded) at the I-95 interchange to handle this new traffic ?

    the number one problem with these proposals is they don’t have a plan for the new traffic and there is a tacit assumption that the “state” will upgrade – or “someone” will pay.

    the fact that the county has no real plan for HOW to fund upgrades – much less an actual upgrade design – that would support proposed new growth – is a problem.

    I’m not against the growth and development. It’s pretty much inevitable.

    But I’m opposed to the irresponsible way we don’t plan for the infrastructure that will be needed ….

    if we don’t have a plan for the infrastructure then how can we approve these proposals?

  • Anonymous

    and a follow-up

    We have designated areas for development including UDAs and we have ongoing proposals form folks like Luck for areas that are outside of designated growth areas.

    but even with our designated growth areas – we do not sit down and look at the build-out growth potential – especially with respect to the infrastructure that will be needed to serve it.

    So we have all this land in the Route 17 Area designated for mixed-use dense growth – and it is easily determined how much new traffic it will generate and that that traffic will affect the roads in the area.

    but that’s where we stop.  We don’t conduct an analysis of what will be needed nor the cost and thus we have no plan for it so that when incremental growth occurs – that that growth has some level of mitigation attached to it.

    when you look at the Ni River proposal – you notice that they talk about the infrastructure need – but they summarily dismiss it as something the county or the state will do.

    well…. it’s not being done… 

    there is no master plan for the Rt 17 area for transportation infrastructure ….   yes we have VRE – but much of that new development once constructive WILL use Route 1 and I-95 and while we have had a run at it with Tricord… we’ve still not got a plan together.

    We need to have a plan in order to be able to fairly judge the impact – and the responsibility of proposals like Ni River.

    If we actually did that – we’d have a much better idea of how to proceed rather than just having a argument about “growth”.