The Chesterfield County Administration Building. (BizSense file)
Developers interested in rural residential projects may soon have more site options in Chesterfield if a proposed zoning ordinance amendment is approved by the county.
The Chesterfield Board of Supervisors is expected to vote next month on an ordinance change that would allow the board to consider zoning requests from developers to build new public roads to residential projects in areas with the agricultural (A) zoning designation.
Currently, the county’s ordinance entirely prohibits the extension or creation of a road for a residential development in agriculturally zoned areas. The current proposal would alter the ordinance’s language, giving supervisors the ability to grant exceptions as they deem appropriate.
“We’re tweaking that section of the zoning ordinance to merely allow the Board of Supervisors to consider the extension of a public road into an agricultural tract on a case-by-case basis,” County Planning Director Andy Gillies said in a recent interview.
Developments that could take advantage of the proposed exception policy would be required to have lots no smaller than 5 acres, among other requirements.
In making the change, Gillies said Chesterfield would be in a better position to help developers meet demand for homes in rural settings amid a wider shortage of housing in the county.
“Chesterfield is experiencing a need for more housing and there’s a wide variety of housing needs,” Gillies said. “One of the segments, not a huge segment but a portion of the market, is 5-acre homesteads. Not necessarily a farm but someone who wants a house on a larger piece of property.”
Such residential lots are already allowed in agricultural districts. But the creation of residential developments in those areas is stymied by zoning rules that haven’t allowed for road extensions or creation in agriculturally zoned areas for residential projects since 2010.
As things stand, developers have to situate residential projects in agricultural zoning on existing roadways that were built for commercial development, and Gillies said existing road frontages in agricultural areas are getting harder to come by.
The proposal wouldn’t change any aspects of the county’s agricultural zoning designation, such as setback minimums or building-height maximums, which would stay as they are now.
Developers that need new public road access for a rural residential project would be required to seek a zoning exception for the road, and developers would be responsible for the road’s construction. The exception request would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and ultimately considered for approval by the Board of Supervisors.
In addition to the 5-acre lot minimum, lots would need to have at least 250 feet of road frontage. However, an exception can be made for lots of a minimum of 150 feet that are also at least 10 acres. Those lots would be limited to no more than 10 lots per subdivision.
“If they want to go narrower, they have to go bigger,” Gillies said.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance change at its January meeting. The proposal came up for a board vote in the spring but was deferred until July 26. A public hearing will be held before the vote.
The Chesterfield County Administration Building. (BizSense file)
Developers interested in rural residential projects may soon have more site options in Chesterfield if a proposed zoning ordinance amendment is approved by the county.
The Chesterfield Board of Supervisors is expected to vote next month on an ordinance change that would allow the board to consider zoning requests from developers to build new public roads to residential projects in areas with the agricultural (A) zoning designation.
Currently, the county’s ordinance entirely prohibits the extension or creation of a road for a residential development in agriculturally zoned areas. The current proposal would alter the ordinance’s language, giving supervisors the ability to grant exceptions as they deem appropriate.
“We’re tweaking that section of the zoning ordinance to merely allow the Board of Supervisors to consider the extension of a public road into an agricultural tract on a case-by-case basis,” County Planning Director Andy Gillies said in a recent interview.
Developments that could take advantage of the proposed exception policy would be required to have lots no smaller than 5 acres, among other requirements.
In making the change, Gillies said Chesterfield would be in a better position to help developers meet demand for homes in rural settings amid a wider shortage of housing in the county.
“Chesterfield is experiencing a need for more housing and there’s a wide variety of housing needs,” Gillies said. “One of the segments, not a huge segment but a portion of the market, is 5-acre homesteads. Not necessarily a farm but someone who wants a house on a larger piece of property.”
Such residential lots are already allowed in agricultural districts. But the creation of residential developments in those areas is stymied by zoning rules that haven’t allowed for road extensions or creation in agriculturally zoned areas for residential projects since 2010.
As things stand, developers have to situate residential projects in agricultural zoning on existing roadways that were built for commercial development, and Gillies said existing road frontages in agricultural areas are getting harder to come by.
The proposal wouldn’t change any aspects of the county’s agricultural zoning designation, such as setback minimums or building-height maximums, which would stay as they are now.
Developers that need new public road access for a rural residential project would be required to seek a zoning exception for the road, and developers would be responsible for the road’s construction. The exception request would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and ultimately considered for approval by the Board of Supervisors.
In addition to the 5-acre lot minimum, lots would need to have at least 250 feet of road frontage. However, an exception can be made for lots of a minimum of 150 feet that are also at least 10 acres. Those lots would be limited to no more than 10 lots per subdivision.
“If they want to go narrower, they have to go bigger,” Gillies said.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance change at its January meeting. The proposal came up for a board vote in the spring but was deferred until July 26. A public hearing will be held before the vote.
Solving the need for more housing with “five acre homesteads” is a bit of a strange idea. I understand how this could make sense from the county’s perspective, but it’s also sad to see it become even easier for central VA’s agricultural and wilderness land be converted into suburbs.
I am assuming these lots will be for Mega mansions? From a developer standpoint, this makes sense – Mega mansions may be more profitable to build. From a tax base standpoint, mega mansions will bring in more money without having all the associated burdens on infrastructure and traffic. Does Chesterfield even have any working agriculture acres?
Victoria, the only reason this is being done is that George Emerson (father of Carrie Emerson Coyner , former school board member and house of Delegates member) owner of Emerson Construction (donated $1000’s to Kevin Carroll) wants to build on the Albright Property (the former Boy Scout Reservation). Mr. Emerson snapped his fingers and Carroll, Tommy Owens, Andy Gilles, et al all fell in line to do his bidding. He promised not to develop the Albright property, so now he wants to change the zoning laws so he can develop it without reneging his original promise. Follow the $$$.
aaahhhh – now THAT makes sense.
Oh, and $1K? That is one heck of an ROI….
I would look at the cost of maintaining those roads. Are the taxes on a 5 acre parcel enough to maintain the new road to serve it? Not usually when you consider all the other financial impacts. Additionally, since these do not need rezoning they would not pay cash proffers as other zoned property in Chesterfield does. Therefore, they would not be paying to support the capital needs of infrastructure like other new residential development. Perhaps they should be allowed on private roads that the homeowners then have to maintain themselves instead of putting the burden on the County and… Read more »