At long last, revised land use plan adopted in New Kent

New Kent’s Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted the county’s comprehensive land use plan at the group’s meeting on Oct. 9.

Supervisors removed references to Urban Development Areas (UDA) from the document due to recent legislation passed by the General Assembly making UDA designations optional in localities’ land use plans.

Before addressing the final vote and editorial changes, the only public comment came from James Poole, who questioned language remaining in the document that he said appeared similar to the definition of an UDA.

“I think the board overlooked a few pages,” he said, pointing to specific pages in the document. “If you’re going to take out UDAs, you need to remove any language that is similar to them.”

District 5 representative Ray Davis however, said that the language to which Poole was referring dealt with village designation.

“This definition is in reference to villages,” said Davis. “These were already established even before the comprehensive plan was created in 2003.”

District 4 representative Ron Stiers agreed with Poole that the language seemed unnecessary, making a motion to have those pages removed. But planning manager Kelli Le Duc explained a chain reaction could occur if those pages are removed from the plan.

“We have villages that are guided under this guideline,” said Le Duc. “By removing those pages you are going to get into a lot of legalities, including rezoning villages and areas already established under these guidelines, and this whole plan would have to return to public hearing once again.

“The application process would also be longer,” she concluded.

After hearing Le Duc’s comments, Stiers withdrew his motion.

“It’s all about compromise,” he said. “Some things we’re going to agree on, and some things we’re not, but we have to compromise.”

Before a final vote, individual statements in the Resource Protection section were voted on to determine if their inclusions were necessary:

–Approved 4-1 the removal of Goal 1, Objective D, number 4 in reference to open-space retention and environmental management policies that maximized habitat and environmental values. District 3 supervisor James Burrell cast the lone dissenting vote.
–Approved 3-2 the removal of Goal 2, Objective A, number 11 in reference to utilizing the green infrastructure asset maps to guide development in appropriate locations, to prioritize high value asset areas for protection or restoration, to work with landowners to develop conservation and open space development. Burrell and District 2 representative Tommy Tiller cast the dissenting votes.
–Approved 5-0 the editing of Objective G, removing the phrase “and emphasizes ‘letting the land do the planning.’”
–Approved 5-0 the editing of Objective G, number 1, to now read as “Continue to use a lower threshold of land clearing as set by the state‘s Chesbay requirements to trigger the requirement for a land disturbance activity permit.”
–Defeated 2-3 the deletion of Objective H, number 2, referencing to work closely with local, regional, state, and federal governments to establish policies and regulations that achieve long-term greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Stiers and District 1 representative Thomas Evelyn cast votes in favor.