On the agenda: Powhatan County meeting — Data Center (Jul 29)

AGENDA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS WORKING GROUP
Tuesday, July 29, 2025
5:00 PM CALL TO ORDER (Village Building - Conference Room)
1. Call to Order
2. Review of minutes from July 9, 2025, regular meeting
3. Discussion and Review: Draft Final CWG Report
(attached)
4. Other Business
5. Adjourn

Powhatan County Comp Plan Citizen Workgroup
Regular Meeting
July 9, 2025

VIRGINIA: AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITIZEN
WORKGROUP HELD IN THE VILLAGE BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM, 3910
OLD BUCKINGHAM ROAD IN POWHATAN COUNTY, VIRGINIA ON JULY 9, 2025

1. Call to Order
Chairman Timberlake called the meeting to order at 5:00pm.
2. Review of Minutes from June 18, 2025 meeting.
Chairman Timberlake asked for any changes to the minutes. Mr. Webb made note of several
changes requested by Mr. Reilly and Mr. Rissmeyer. Mr. Webb noted all the changes and said
they would be fixed for the final version to be signed. Mr. Schiefer made a motion to accept all
meetings minutes as amended. Mr. Donati, Sr seconded.
VOTE 9-0
Motion PASSED

3. Continued Discussions:
a.
•

•
•

•

Conservation Subdivisions

Mr. Webb started the discussion stating that currently Conservation Subdivisions are byright and have been in the Subdivision Ordinance for quite a while. He suggested the first
topic to be discussed should be if all Conservation Subdivisions should be a CUP.
Mr. Rissmeyer stated the last case that came before the Board was not a CUP and he felt
that staff was restricted as to simple recommendations they could give the applicant.
Mr. Webb stated in the case of the most recent Conservation Subdivision, there was a
private road proposed, which is not typically the case and therefore had to have Board of
Supervisor approval where typically Conservation Subdivisions would have public roads.
Agreeing with Mr. Reilly that a CUP may have been more appropriate in determining
terms.
Mr. Anderson stated he felt they were supposed to be giving the Board of Supervisor
housing options and counterproductive to shrink down the restrictions with a CUP that
was almost taking options off the table and less likely to be used in the future.

Page | 1

Powhatan County Comp Plan Citizen Workgroup
Regular Meeting
July 9, 2025
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

•
•

•
•

•

Mr. Webb suggested a possible discussion point could be to increase the bonus
percentage which could be the justification for the CUP.
Mr. Reilly stated its not a one size fits all and increasing the open land percentage in the
CUP sometimes defeats the purpose because the open land could be wetlands or
unbuildable land that would not have been allowed by the County to build on regardless.
The conditions can vary based on location.
Mr. Anderson asked about the recent Schroeder Rd. Conservation Subdivision and what it
was turned down for verses how it appeared to meet requirements on paper.
Mr. Shust stated the application was withdrawn because of the negative reaction of the
surrounding community.
Mr. Webb showed the Schroeder Rd plat to use as an example of Conservation
Subdivision for the room to use in the discussion.
Mr. Schiefer asked if any of this addresses affordability or attainability and is it worth
even continuing to discuss.
Chairman Timberlake said it did not address affordability and one item that has not been
discussed and is just now being explored on the assessment side was the land in
conservation is tax exempt according to state code and the value gets put on the
remaining lots which causes the lot prices to increase.
Mr. Anderson stated he thought the price point for the Schroeder Rd Conservation
Subdivision was a good price point that didn’t readily exist in the county and the layout
seemed to be a good layout that would work well with no wetland issues.
Mr. Rissmeyer asked what the staff review had been of the Schroeder Rd proposed
Conservation Subdivision.
Mr. Webb showed another example of a different Conservation Subdivision and reviewed
from his planning perspective the positives of having the open space centralized and
integrated into the neighborhood instead of being put to the side and this could be
addressed in a CUP with design leverage. He stated in the Schroeder Rd proposal, byright they were allowed 13 lots, but the developers wanted to rezone to RR-5 and then to
apply the Conservation Subdivision.
Chairman Timberlake and Mr. Shust discussed the history of the Schroeder Rd
development further.
Mr. Webb discussed the differences in that case and a typical CUP Conservation
Subdivision and the benefits of the CUP option. All agreed in all scenarios, the open
space would still be tax exempt, and the value would be placed on the remaining lots
which will still increase the cost.
Mr. Webb showed some additional examples of Conservation Subdivisions. He stated he
still felt the 10/10 acre lots with a CUP and increasing the percentage of the bonus area

Page | 2

Powhatan County Comp Plan Citizen Workgroup
Regular Meeting
July 9, 2025

•

•

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

•
•
•

was a good option and would allow staff to help lay out the Conservation Subdivisions in
a fashion that would be acceptable.
Extension discussion continued about the options involved in the CUP and the increased
percentage of the bonus area while possibly protecting environmentally sensitive land
and how that would align with the affordable and attainable housing options.
Mr. Reilly stated the purpose of a Conservation Subdivision is the preservation of land so
if that can be achieved it’s a positive, but all land is different so having the flexibility
built in through the CUP would help solve some of the issues.
Mr. Schiefer stated he felt the option should still be available as it stands currently as well
as the CUP option to have a comparison of what would work for the applicants.
Chairman Timberlake went over what the conversation results were at this point. The 2acre minimum with the 100-acre lot size and the current density as by-right, excluding
non-buildable land in both CUP and by-right, and moved all the other options into the
CUP like the smaller lot size and density bonuses.
Mr. Shust stated he felt the 100-acre is too steep for the by-right lot size as far as
availability in the county of that size lot.
Mr. Webb suggested a 50-acre minimum as a more viable option.
Mr. Reiley stated the ability to protect the wetlands was imperative with the CUP but that
was not possible with the by-right.
Mr. Rissmeyer asked if the group had any issues with the conservation area calculations.
Mr. Shust stated the steep slope areas he had issue with.
The group questioned what constituted a steep slope and was there a definition in the
code for Powhatan and did any exist in Powhatan.
Mr. Shust verified it was 15% by definition in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Reilly stated the CUP would allow those conversations to be opened between staff
and applicants. He stated buffer amounts for conservation areas, for example is in the
Comp Plan but not the Subdivision Ordinance which is technically a guide to follow the
Comp Plan. The CUP process would allow for more compromise and flexibility for staff
to work with applicants to achieve the goals set by the Comp Plan.
Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Shust if he had hesitation knowing now that a steep slope is
defined as 15% or would that be acceptable to make the Conservation Subdivisions
happen.
Mr. Shust replied that he felt the CUP option could alleviate any issues around the 15%
steep slope area, part of the calculations of conservation areas.
Mr. Rissmeyer stated the group seemed agreeable to #2 and #3 in the conditions, but #4
which was the minimum, 2-acre vs 40,000sf, still needed discussion.
Chairman Timberlake stated the 2 last conversations they are down to were, where is the
density number in order to make it all a CUP and still be viable for applicants. If

Page | 3

Powhatan County Comp Plan Citizen Workgroup
Regular Meeting
July 9, 2025

•

•

•
•

•

•
•

•
•
•

Conservation Subdivisions went to totally being CUP, there has to be a high enough
density which is tied to the density bonus and the lot size.
Mr. Rissmeyer stated he felt the lot size should be the smaller of the two choices and
increase the density bonus to make up for it in order to get the CUP and have
Conservation Subdivisions done correctly and attain the goal of conservation areas.
Chairman Timberlake asked the group if they agreed on the smaller lot size what would
that make the higher density number be and was that for them to decide or was the
suggested 65/85% acceptable.
Mr. Webb asked for clarity that the 65/85%, with smaller lot size but moving the entire
process to CUP was the consensus.
Mr. Richardson phoned in and asked the group if anyone had done the calculations as an
example, using the 50-acre max using both by-right and CUP to see the difference. He
also asked if the assessed value of the bonus being passed on to the lots was correct
currently.
Chairman Timberlake stated he did not have the exact code memorized but could bring it
in for discussion at the next meeting, but yes that was correct once the bonus was
transferred to an HOA where are the lot owners plus a third party all owned the open
space, it then became tax exempt similar to any subdivision, with the issue being in the
size of the open space being so large and the lot owners still having the use of the space
that the assessed value was then transferred to the remaining lots.
Mr. Richardson asked if by adding that back to the lots, would they now be less
affordable.
Chairman Timberlake explained that although it is assessed at a lower rate as open space
instead of house build space, it would still add value to the remaining lots. Starting in
2026 agriculture land, timber land and open space will all be separately evaluated once
stratified.
Mr. Anderson gave an example using dollars and Mr. Shust gave examples using number
of lots on 100 acres.
The group discussed if Conservation Subdivisions addressed affordable housing or just
options of housing.
The group discussed what the final results would be for Conservation Subdivisions.

Mr. Anderson made a motion for Conservation Subdivisions to be eligible using 50% as
minimum up to 85% as conservation area, with a CUP, not counting unbuildable land as
conservation area, 50 acre lot size with 40,000sf being the minimum lot size with the
recommendation that they consider a by-right option.
The group discussed the by-right option and what that included.
Page | 4

Powhatan County Comp Plan Citizen Workgroup
Regular Meeting
July 9, 2025
Chairman Timberlake repeated Mr. Anderson’s motion on the table as a by-right option of 20% at
50% gross acreage which is how it is currently except the Priority Conservation designation will
be removed meaning if the property is outside of the Priority Conservation area of the
Comprehensive Plan, a Conservation Subdivision can be done by-right. In all other cases a CUP
is required which includes higher density up to 85%, 40,000sf minimum lot size with 50 acre lot
size and in both by-right and CUP, the unbuildable land (defined mostly as floodplain) cannot be
included in the conservation area.
Mr. Shust seconded the motion.
VOTE 9-0
Motion PASSED

b.

Community Land Trust (CLT)

Chairman Timberlake stated he has researched CLT’s some and he is in favor of having it as a
housing option for the county to explore and agreed with Mr. Shust that they could just vote on
that unless they were planning to get into the details of how it would work.
Mr. Webb stated that Community Land Trust is an option currently if a developer wanted to do
so.
Mr. Shust stated that currently the details of who holds the land in trust was subject to who
was doing the CLT unless a formal process is put in place. Whether the County creates a
mechanism to hold the land or an outside party that is recognized to hold land in trust is
currently still open. A private individual would not be able to hold land in trust for a CLT.
Mr. Webb stated this could be an opportunity for a developer to contribute a piece of land
during an upzoning for example as a proffer as an incentive.
Chairman Timberlake stated the County was not at a point where they would be setting
aside money to purchase land to be placed in a CLT similar to Henrico.
Mr. Shust stated the land could be put in trust by a developer which would then have a
house built on it and the developer may even retain the right to be the builder of the house,
but the land costs would be removed. The idea being that removing the land costs would
help with the affordability of the house. There were certain mechanisms in place to make
sure the homeowner could not turn around and sell it as well as how it can be passed
down.
Page | 5

Powhatan County Comp Plan Citizen Workgroup
Regular Meeting
July 9, 2025
Mr. Webb stated that there are a lot of moving parts and harder to understand but for the
localities that are currently using it, it seems to work well.
Mr. Rissmeyer asked if it was 100 years or 50 years that the land remained in trust.
Mr. Shust said it can be structured however the parties involved decide. It can even be
structured to be bought by the homeowner or passed down at the “sunset” time for the
land.
Mr. Reilly questioned if the original homeowner received the benefit of the land cost being
removed from the price of the house, but how would that benefit subsequent owners?
Mr. Shust explained that there is a cap in place on the amount the house can sell for and
also perimeters in place on the amount that can be made off the sale of the house. This is
all regulated in the legal agreements that are in place.
Mr. Rissmeyer asked who Central Virginia Land Trust was and were they in our area?
Mr. Shust named several surrounding localities that CVLT operates in successfully.
Mr. Donati, Sr asked if regular banks or credit unions could operate as a land trust holder.
Mr. Shust responded that yes, credit unions were an option if they were interested.
First Sergeant Gregory asked what happened when the lease was up.
Mr. Shust explained that it isn’t a lease and what happens at the sunset or end of the time
frame is dictated in the original agreement. It could be released, passed down, sold, or
reinstated, just depends on how it was set up. There are no exemptions and they do pay
taxes.
Chairman Timberlake stated there are federal income tax exemptions on the developer
side but not the purchaser side locally.
Mr. Shust stated he felt the program could work well in Powhatan based on home size and
AMI (area median income) numbers and where that would align with mortgages in the
target area for affordability.
Discussion continued on how the process would work if the houses wouldn’t be built for
several years but the developer wanted to voluntarily proffer a certain number of lots to be
Page | 6

Powhatan County Comp Plan Citizen Workgroup
Regular Meeting
July 9, 2025
included in the CLT and would there be parameters in place to make sure the CLT lots were
spread throughout a planned community instead of grouped together which would provide
variability in housing in subdivisions.
Chairman Timberlake read the following statement sent to him from Mr. Melton who is out
of town and unable to join online but asked for his statement to be part of the record.
“I may have difficulty getting on the meeting. If I can’t get on, please share with the
group that I feel Community Land Trusts are an additional tool that is needed in our county
to address workforce type housing. The details and particulars that that can be worked out
or can be developed but we should not be bogged down in those details. The developer
chooses to put lots in the Community Land Trust that is selected by the county then is a
great beginning to affordability. Also, as far as Conservation Subdivisions, I feel they are a
great development tool that can encourage smaller lots with open space around them but
they should not require a CUP but increase and control standards that the developer can
use. Do not penalize one developer who used this rule to circumvent the ordinance.
Envision a large tract of land or farm that could continue to be niche farming with houses
outside of it, open space in a particular area, tighter density lots, require roads that are not
as long thus lowering the building costs which encourages affordability. ”

Mr. Shust made a motion that the group endorse the concept of Community Land Trusts be
advanced to the Board for consideration and inclusion.
Mr. Donati, Sr seconded the motion.
VOTE 9-0
Motion PASSED

4. Other Business:
Mr. Webb went over the editing group for the final report was Mr. Rissmeyer, Mr. Shust,
himself and Ms. Salerno needing to meet at least a week before the next full group meeting.
Mr. Rissmeyer stated that the notes from the last meeting had the 20th as the editing group
to be finished date. He stated that he finished the introductory section and Economic
Priority section and sent to Mr. Shust for initial review, then to be passed to Ms. Salerno and
end with Mr. Webb. This process will continue through each section until finished.
Page | 7

Powhatan County Comp Plan Citizen Workgroup
Regular Meeting
July 9, 2025
Mr. Webb stated the final product would be presented to the Board of Supervisors in their
September workshop. The group will meet again on July 29th to go over the final review.

5. Adjourn
Chairman Timberlake made the motion to adjourn. Seconded by First Sergeant Gregory.
VOTE 9-0
Motion PASSED
Meeting adjourned 8:00 PM

These minutes approved by motion and second at July 29, 2025 meeting of the
Comprehensive Plan Citizen Work Group.

Jamie Timberlake, Chairman
Comprehensive Plan Citizen Work Group

ATTEST:
Ligon Webb, Clerk
Comprehensive Plan Citizen Work Group

Page | 8

CITIZENS WORKING GROUP
FINAL REPORT
POWHATAN COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - - 2025

July 25, 2025
DRAFT

1

Table of Contents
I.

Introduction
CWG Ad-Hoc Committee Members
Organizational Framework
Summary of Meetings

II.

Data on Existing Conditions
Economic Overview
Housing Trends
What is Considered Affordable Housing?
Residential Land Availability
Public Utilities and Infrastructure
Transportation

III. Economic Prosperity Recommendations
Economic Prosperity Overview
[EP-1] Creation of an Economic Priority (EP) land use district
[EP-2] Update Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4 (Economic Development)
[EP-3] Meet Infrastructure Needs for EP Parcels
[EP-4] Support Rural Businesses in the A-10 District

2

IV. Housing and Residential Option Recommendations
[HRO-1] Expand Housing in the Village Growth Area
[HRO-2] Create Alternative Housing in the Route 60 East Growth Area
[HRO-3] Explore Alternative Housing within Holly Hills
[HRO-4] Support Rural Character in the A-10 District
[HRO-5] Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
[HRO-6] Conservation Subdivisions
[HRO-7] Family Subdivisions
[HRO-8] Create a Unified Development District (UDD)
[HRO-9] Establish Standards for Cluster Housing / Cottage Courts
[HRO-10] Support Housing Options for the Elderly
[HRO-11] Explore Community Land Trusts

V.

Closing Comments

Appendix 1: Economic Priority Parcel Maps

3

I. Introduction
On November 18, 2024, the
Powhatan
County
Board
of
Supervisors established a charter to
form a Citizens Working Group
(CWG) as an ad hoc advisory body to
assist in updating the County’s
Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map. This initiative was
launched in anticipation of the
Board’s new Countywide Strategic
Plan, which sets forth the county
strategic priorities for 2025–2028.

The CWG was established by the Board of Supervisors to focus on
two of the Strategic Plans six core priorities: Economic
Development and Housing and Residential Options.

The CWG has been guided by the Board of Supervisors’ charge as defined in both the formal
charter and the newly adopted Strategic Plan. Specifically, the Charter (given to the CWG
at our December 18, 2024, meeting) states:
The Board of Supervisors (BOS) has authorized the formation of an ad hoc Citizen Working
Group chartered to advise the BOS in its effort to update the County’s current
Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map.
The Working Group will be strictly guided by the Board of Supervisors 2024-2029 Strategic
Plan (final draft anticipated in December 2024) with concentration on two primary
strategic areas identified in the Plan:
• Economic Growth & Business Development
• Housing and Residential Growth
While the remaining areas of the Strategic Plan are vital to the county’s future and should
be given consideration, they are not core contributors to the charter assigned to the
Working Group.
The final version of the 2025-2028 Strategic Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors
on January 27, 2025. In the adopted plan, the strategic areas: Economic Growth & Business
Development and Housing and Residential Growth were replaced by Strategic Priority 2
(Economic Prosperity) and Strategic Priority 3 (Housing and Residential Options) generally
4

matching the CWG charter. In the Strategic Plan, the role of these two strategic priorities
and the specified key strategies are described as follows:
Strategic Priority 2 (Economic Prosperity):
This strategy aims to maintain a business-friendly environment that attracts and sustains
commercial and industrial growth. This priority reflects the county’s commitment to
fostering an economy that supports diverse business opportunities and creates highvalue jobs for our residents.
The updated 2025 Economic Development Plan will be the primary guiding document in
addressing long-term business growth and priorities. By focusing on strategic land use
and promoting high-value industries, Powhatan County aims to achieve a balanced and
resilient economic base that broadens the local tax base and provides more
opportunities for goods, services, and employment.
Strategic Priority 3 (Housing and Residential Options):
Housing is fundamental to the well-being of our residents and balanced residential
growth is key to maintaining a vibrant and thriving community. This strategic priority is to
balance our future housing and infrastructure needs with preservation of the Powhatan’s
rural heritage. This focus ensures that as we plan for and accommodate growth, we
remain equally focused on maintaining the natural landscapes that make the county
unique.
The Comprehensive Plan will provide guidance as we implement policies that will
establish housing inventories that meet the diverse needs of the county’s residents.
There is a growing need for more varied housing options catering to different age groups
and economic backgrounds, ensuring everyone from young professionals to retirees can
find housing options within the county.
The CWG was also asked to ensure its process was transparent and inclusive, with all
meetings open to the public, live streamed online, and minutes and YouTube videos also
posted on the county website and public facing.
CWG Ad-Hoc Committee Members
The CWG was composed of twelve citizens representing a cross-section of Powhatan’s
community, including district appointees from each Board member, representatives from
5

key public bodies, and several at-large members. Staff from Powhatan County and PlanRVA
provided non-voting support to the group. The members of the CWG include:
District Appointees: Danny Beran (District 1), David Anderson (District 2), Doug Bradbury
(District 3), Bill Melton (District 4), and Bill Donati Sr. (District 5)
Commissioner of the Revenue: Jamie Timberlake
EDA Representative: Matt Schiefer
Agricultural & Forestal Advisory Committee Representative: Bob Reilly
At-Large Members: Roger Richardson, Don Rissmeyer, Chris Shust, and Rudy Gregory
(or Sheriff Brad Nunnally)
County Staff (Non-Voting): Ligon Webb, Planning Director, and Roxanne Salerno, Director of
Economic Development
PlanRVA Support (Non-Voting): Barbara Jacocks, Community Development Director, and
Martha Shickle, Executive Director
Organizational Framework
The CWG held two foundational meetings in December 2024, which served to establish the
group’s organizational structure, procedures, and initial direction. During these meetings,
members reviewed their charter, adopted bylaws, and agreed upon key processes that
would guide their work. From the outset, the group acknowledged that its charter was not
to rewrite the entire Comprehensive Plan, but rather to conduct a targeted review of specific
chapters based on the County’s adopted Strategic Plan.
Key outcomes from this organizational phase included:
Election of Officers: Jamie Timberlake was elected Chair; David Anderson was elected Vice
Chair. The Planning Director was designated as Secretary, with the Chair responsible for
reviewing draft minutes for accuracy.
Voting Procedures: A quorum was set at nine members, with seven affirmative votes
required to pass motions. Proxy voting was limited to the public safety representative, and
absentee or email voting was not permitted.

6

Public Input and Transparency: The group agreed that public comments would be routed
through County staff or the county website, ensuring compliance with FOIA and
encouraging open engagement.
Meeting Schedule: Members initially agreed to meet twice monthly, generally on the second
and fourth Tuesdays, with alternating afternoon and evening sessions to maximize public
accessibility.
The CWG also began to define its workplan. While the Strategic Plan had not yet been
finalized, members agreed to begin with Economic Prosperity and tentatively identified key
chapters of the comprehensive plan for discussion: Chapter 4 (Economic Development),
Chapter 5 (Housing), and Chapter 8 (Land Use and Community Character). To support this
review, the group requested supplemental information, including GIS mapping layers,
infrastructure and utility data, parcel inventories, and workforce statistics.
Summary of Meetings
The CWG began its formal work in December 2025 and held a series of public meetings and
subcommittee work sessions throughout the spring. The group met on the following dates:
December 2, 2024, December 17, 2024, January 7, 2025, January 21, 2025, January 30,
2025 (subcommittee), February 4, 2025, February 14, 2025 (subcommittee), February 18,
2025, March 4, 2025, March 18, 2025, April 8,2025, April 15, 2025, May 14, 2025
(subcommittee), May 20, 2025 (subcommittee), June 18, 2025, July 9, 2025, and July 29,
2025.

II. Data on Existing Conditions
The CWG worked with Powhatan County’s commercial and residential property tax
assessment data, the spatial distribution of commercial and housing development, the
spatial availability of water and sewer infrastructure, and with the County’s Thoroughfare
Plan to inform discussions on existing conditions as summarized below.
Economic Overview
Powhatan County’s tax base is heavily reliant on residential assessments for local revenue.
In particular, the 2024 property tax base was 93.3% from residential parcels and 6.7% from
non-residential parcels. The Board of Supervisors’ Economic Prosperity strategic priority
7

therefore includes a key strategy that “the county will move towards an 85/15 tax revenue
split over the next five years” to reduce the county’s reliability on a residential tax base.
Prior to beginning the analysis of the tax revenue split, the CWG discussed the following
data on employment, household income, and commuting trends that were provided by
county staff to the working group, and then updated with sources for this report:
• According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics as of November 2024,
Powhatan’s unemployment rate was 2.3% which tied Arlington County for the lowest
unemployment rate of any county or municipality in Virginia. The statewide
unemployment rate for November 2024 by comparison, was 2.9% or 25% higher.
• Powhatan County median household income (2019-2023 5-year average adjusted to
2023 dollars) was estimated at $110,667 by the U.S. Census Bureau’s American
Community Survey. It should be noted however that this figure might underestimate
future median household income because the pandemic years of 2020-2021 are
included in the current 5-year averages (In considering housing affordability in the
county, the median household income is the correct statistic to use, as it captures
the household income used in a mortgage application, regardless of whether the
household has one or multiple wage earners).
• Roughly 11,402 residents are reported by county staff to be commuting out of the
County for work daily, while 4,266 non-residents commute in. By comparison to the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
2022 Traffic Counts, the traffic volumes at the eastern county line were reported to be
70,000 vehicles (U.S. Route 60) and 17,200 vehicles (Route 711) for a total of 87,200
vehicles. 10,938 commuter vehicles are therefore estimated to be 12.5% of the total
traffic volume entering and exiting Powhatan County.
• County staff reported to the CWG that there were 193 job openings and 729
employers as of December 2024. The U.S. Census Bureau reported a countywide
population of 32,392 on July 1, 2024, and the following statistics on population age
can be translated into a gross comparison between working age citizens and
available jobs, as follows.

8

US Census
Age Distribution
Under 5 years old
Under 18 years old
18 to 65 years old
65 years and older

Age
%
4.6%
18.5%
55.7%
21.2%

Population
(2024)
1,490
5,993
18,042
6,867

With 2.3% unemployment, the “working age” residents (18,042) are estimated to represent
415 potential employees versus the 193 job openings reported by county staff. While these
numbers provide a good basis to match the unemployed ratio to available jobs, the CWG
members also focused particular attention on identifying areas where commercial and light
industrial development could be realistically supported, based on infrastructure,
transportation, and land readiness to create more jobs.
Housing Trends
Powhatan’s current housing stock is dominated by large lot single-family detached homes.
While the County has experienced sustained residential growth over several decades, the
large lot single-family detached home has remained the dominant housing type. Data
considered by the CWG include the following information
taken from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American
Community Survey:
• The number of housing units in Powhatan County
increased from 4,723 in 1990 to 12,362 in 2024, an
increase of 7,639 units over 34 years. (An average of
224 per year)
• Owner-occupancy is high at 93.1%, well above the
statewide average of 70.5%.
• The median value of owner-occupied homes in Since 1990, the county has averaged 224
new housing units a year, with the far
Powhatan was reported as $381,300 in 2024, which majority being single-family detached
is $43,800 below the statewide median of $425,100. dwellings.
• Demographic trends show a gradually aging population with 21.2% persons 65 years
of age or older as compared to the statewide average of 17.2%.
9

• In 2024, the average wage of a worker employed in Powhatan was $53,924 and is
insufficient to afford most homes currently for sale in the county.
According to county staff, most homes listed for sale in Powhatan County were priced
between $300,000 and $630,000, with a significant percentage listed above $600,000. The
CWG also examined permit data provided by county staff, showing a steady decline in
single-family housing starts since 2019, dropping from 238 permits in 2019 to 115 in 2024.
This reduction raised questions to some CWG members about development constraints,
land availability, and market forces that could be limiting new housing production.
Powhatan County: Single-Family Building Permits (2016-2024)

250

200

j 150
:,

~

~

e

er 100
50

O

2016

2017

20111

2021

2019

2022

2023

2024

8.0
7.0

8.0

30yr fixed mtg rate %

6.0

40

3.0

2.0

1.0

YR

0.0
2018

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

20.22

2023

20::M

Not surprisingly, as the above two graphs illustrate, the decline in housing starts moved
inversely with increases in the 30-year fixed mortgage rate (with the latter somewhat lagging
the inflation rate).
10

What is Considered Affordable Housing?
In the CWG meeting on April 29, 2025, Susan Winiecki the Executive Director of Powhatan’s
Habitat for Humanity stated that 30% of annual household income is a ‘rule of thumb’ for
determining an affordable cost of housing. So, for a $45,000 income level, this is a mortgage
of approximately $1,125 per month which translates to a home price of $130,000. This is
too low for most housing sales in Powhatan or anywhere else. Ms. Winiecki also indicated
that Habitat for Humanity offers a silent second mortgage to those who qualify for their
program with an annual household income of less than $85,000, which translates to a home
price of $250,000 or less.
In another CWG meeting, Mr. Reilly presented a table on the affordability of housing based
on the 28% rule (instead of the 30% rule noted by Ms. Winiecki ) with an assumed mortgage
rate of 6.9% and no downpayment, and with assumptions for property taxes and insurance
(including PMI) to convert home prices from $100,000 to $600,000 to a range of required
annual household incomes from $34,793 to $204,009 to help explore the issue of
affordability.
As an example of affordability, since the county’s median household income is reported to
be $110,667 this would be just below Mr. Reilly’s tabulated $2,593 mortgage which
translates to a home price of $325,000. The median household income for a $325,000
home is above the threshold for the Habitat for Humanity program of second mortgage’s
and is below the median home price in Powhatan (2023) of $381,300 which translates to a
median household income closer to $130,000 based on these ‘rule of thumb’ examples.
Home
Price
$100,000 to $250,000
$250,000 to $375,000
$375,000 to $600,000

Required Annual Household
Income (28% rule)
$35,000 to $85,000
$85,000 to $128,000
$128,000 to $204,000

Housing Support
Programs
Habitat for Humanity
None Identified
None Identified

Residential home prices are continuing to rise versus median household income with no
reportable programs in this report to make housing more affordable, beyond the second
mortgage program for an annual household income of $85,000 or less.
Residential Land Availability
To better understand Powhatan’s residential development capacity under existing zoning,
an inventory of vacant residential parcels was compiled using data provided by the
Commissioner of the Revenue. This analysis allowed the group to examine how much land
11

was already subdivided and zoned for residential use—without additional rezonings or land
use map changes. Key findings based on tax records include the following:
• 1,454 vacant residential parcels exist countywide.
• 861 vacant parcels are zoned A-10 or RR with 5 acres or less.
• 593 vacant parcels are within higher-density or planned development districts (R-2,
R-U, R-5, and PD zones), suggesting the potential for infill development or more
compact housing models in those zoning residential districts.
The CWG viewed this inventory as a tool to inform more strategic, efficient, and contextsensitive decisions however some in the group questioned whether these parcels were
available for purchase. As a result, additional research was done on 6-acre or smaller
parcels in Powhatan County that have been sold as vacant land within the past 5 years. The
results are provided in a summary table below for 228 lots and they were also itemized by
subdivision name, lot size, and type (residential land or building lot) for those wanting to
take a closer look in the report appendices.
Number of
Lots Sold
228

Size
Range
0.31 to 6.0 acres

Purchase
Price
$9,000 to $528,000 (Avg. $133,014)

Public Utilities and Infrastructure
Public water and sewer availability are among the most significant determinants of where
and how higher-density development can occur in Powhatan County. While much of the
County remains rural and dependent on private wells and septic systems, public utilities
are currently provided in three Utility Service Areas (USA’s).
• Route 60 Corridor East
• Courthouse Village
• Route 711 Village
These areas largely align with the designated growth areas in the 2021 Comprehensive Plan.
To further inform infrastructure-related concerns, the Board of Supervisors commissioned
a Utility System Master Planning Report, completed by Dewberry in early 2025. This report
provided a technical evaluation of existing utility capacity, identified infrastructure
12

constraints, and proposed a phased approach to system maintenance and improvements.
Key findings from the Dewberry study include:
• The Route 60 Corridor East has the most extensive utility infrastructure, but a new
regional wastewater pump station south of Route 60 is needed to support future
growth and attract business investment. In this area, potable water is supplied by
Chesterfield County and wastewater is treated at the Dutoy Creek Plant.
• The Courthouse Village has moderate service levels, but future development may
require pump station upgrades, additional wells, and selected line extensions.
Drinking water in the courthouse area is supplied through commercial wells without
water treatment requirements, and wastewater is treated at the Fighting Creek Plant.
• Route 711 Village is the smallest of the three utility service areas and has minimal
water and sewer coverage, limiting its future development potential unless significant
infrastructure investment occurs. Water and sewer systems are connected to
Chesterfield County utilities in this area.
CWG members reviewed these findings alongside staff-provided maps and reports and
agreed that infrastructure availability must be a central factor in determining where growth
is directed. The group emphasized the need to align zoning, land use designations, and
capital improvements within the designated Utility Service Areas (USA’s) to avoid
ineffective, premature, or speculative development in unserviceable areas.
Transportation
Due to commuter traffic and continued residential and commercial growth in the county,
the capacity of our roadways has become stressed. As this plan gets implemented, traffic
congestion will likely increase unless we improve capacity along U.S. Route 60 and other
key routes. The CWG discussions about designated growth areas included some thoughts
about improving our roadways through a corresponding update to the county’s long range
transportation plan which is part of Plan RVA’s broader regional planning efforts. While we
did not coordinate with county staff and consultants about the current long-range
transportation plan and its projects, we did discuss the following challenges facing the
county.
• With the continued development and growth along U.S. Route 60, there are concerns
about the unsignalized and skewed intersection at Page Road, including increased
traffic volumes from projects on Page Road that are anticipated.
13

• The continued extension and completion of Carter Gallier Boulevard is vital to
providing a parallel roadway to U.S. Route 60 within the designated growth area to
accommodate local traffic and relieve peak hour traffic on U.S. Route 60.
• The extension of Old Church Road behind the high school to Batterson Road was
discussed. It would cross Judes Ferry Road near the high school and could reduce
traffic at the unsignalized intersection of Judes Ferry Road and Batterson Road,
creating a parallel roadway connection from Page Road to Carter Gallier Boulevard
and Old Church Road, and then Batterson Road to the Flat Rock shopping center.
• The village expansion should include better transportation routes between Rocky
Ford Road, Old Buckingham Road, and U.S. Route 60 to handle increased traffic in
the village from future development. This could also help reduce safety concerns at
the existing unsignalized intersection for Old Buckingham Road at U.S. Route 60 near
the Valero gas station / Food Lion shopping center.

III. Recommendations: Economic Prosperity
CWG recommendations aim to support growth where it makes sense—where
infrastructure is available, where land is realistically developable, and where housing and
jobs may be provided without undermining the County’s rural character. These
recommendations are grouped into two core categories aligned with the Strategic Plan:
Economic Prosperity and Housing and Residential Options.
Economic Prosperity Overview
Powhatan County’s economy is anchored by a strong residential tax base, high household
incomes, and low unemployment. However, it is fiscally imbalanced and highly dependent
on residential property taxes, with relatively less commercial and industrial development
as a non-residential tax base.
To address this concern, the 2025–2028 Strategic Plan sets a target of achieving an 85/15
tax revenue split, with 15 percent of local revenue derived from commercial and industrial
(non-residential) sources. This goal, while aspirational, is achievable—provided the County
focuses its land use, zoning, and infrastructure policies on areas where non-residential
development is feasible, encouraged, and sustainable.

14

[EP-1] Creation of an Economic Priority (EP) land use district to be shown on the Future
Land Use Map.
To spur economic development, the CWG recommends adoption of a new future land use
classification called the Economic Priority (EP) District. Working closely with the county’s
director of economic development, Roxanne Salerno, CWG recommended EP designated
parcels were chosen based on the following factors.
•
•
•
•
•

Proximity to key transportation corridors such as U.S. Route 60.
Availability of public and private utilities (water, sewer, broadband, etc.).
Larger parcel sizes and parcels with adjacent non-residential uses.
Manageable environmental or topographic constraints on the parcel.
Strategic alignment with long-term infrastructure and fiscal plans.

Economic Priority is not a zoning mechanism but a new recommended future land use
classification—to inform updates to the Comprehensive Plan and to guide decision-making
around
rezonings,
infrastructure
investment, and attracting business
interests with a recommended direct
link to Light Industrial zoning
applications.
The Economic Priority district is not
intended
to
encourage
retail
commercial development which is
better aligned to the Gateway Business
future land use classification, and it
does not promote any type of
The Economic Priority designation targets key areas for light
industrial and business development to strengthen the tax residential or mixed-use development.
base and support long-term economic growth. Residential and The Economic Priority district strategy
retail uses are discouraged to preserve land for job-creating
includes connecting smaller parcels to
industries.
larger ones through master planning, so
that flexible, contiguous land areas can meet the needs of a range of business and light
industrial use types.
Proposed Economic Priority Maps
15

The Economic Priority Map (depicted on the next page) shows gold shaded Economic
Priority areas which includes 72 parcels totaling roughly 1,400 acres in land area that have
been identified and recommended for a change in their future land use designation. These
parcels include areas currently designated for Gateway Business and Rural Areas on the
future land use map. The remaining district for Gateway Business is shown in purple shaded
areas on the map, for comparison of non-residential land use districts as a balanced
approach to retail (Gateway Business) versus light industrial (Economic Priority) in
developing a future land use map recommendation.

The resulting Economic Priority District shown on the map comprised of rough 1,189 acres
within the 2021 Comprehensive Plan strategic growth areas and 211 acres (15%) lying
outside the strategic growth areas but still within the county’s designated utility service
areas. The ~ 1,189 acres within those areas constitute approximately 23% percent of the
designated 5,160 acres in the strategic growth areas on the 2021 Future Land Use Map,
totaling less than 1% (0.83 percent) of the total county land area.
More detailed GIS-based maps showing all adjacent future land use designations and
parcel details can be found in the report appendices, and individual parcels and
adjacencies can be evaluated in detail using the county’s online mapping tool for the CWG
recommendations on the Future Land Use Map.
The 85/15 Tax Split
16

The evidence-based potential 85/15 tax split for the Economic Priority land use designation
was generally developed through the following steps:
1. Examine and categorize the 2024 assessment data for all commercial and residential
parcels (using the standard tax split practice of including vacant land as a residential
parcel). Government-owned land was excluded.
2. Assemble assessment data on all fully developed I-1 parcels along the Route 60
corridor from the eastern county line to Maidens Road.
3. Compute per acre average 2024 assessments on parcels identified in 1 and 2 above.
4. Work closely with the Director of Economic Development (Roxanne Salerno) to identify
a recommended set of Economic Priority district parcels along the U.S. Route 60
corridor that could achieve the desired 85/15 split. This was determined using per acre
projections of the increase in assessments resulting from fully developing these
parcels consistent within Economic Priority district guidelines.
A summary table of the projected outcomes is shown below, and the full calculation of the
Economic Priority district workbook for all 72 parcels can also be reviewed through the
YouTube videos of the CWG meeting and subcommittee meetings or by contacting the
planning department for the details.
2024 assessment data
All commercial parcels
$406,254,000
6.7%

2024 assessment data
All residential parcels
$5,661,832,900
93.3%

2024 assessment data
All Assessed parcels
$6,068,086,900
100.0%

Projected Assessments
Projected Assessments
Projected Assessments
with the Development of the
with the Development of the
with the Development of the
Economic Priority District Parcels Economic Priority District Parcels Economic Priority District Parcels
$998,978, 148
$5,645,568,195
$6,644,546,343
15.0%
85.0%
100.0%

[EP-2] Update Chapter 4 (Economic Development) of the Comprehensive Plan
The CWG recommends that Chapter 4 (Economic Development) of the Comprehensive
Plan be updated to reflect the EP land use strategy for an 85/15 split and to incorporate
lessons from other recent studies. Specific updates should consider:

17

• Support for employment-focused businesses that create higher wage jobs, such as
logistics, clean tech, health care services (including elder care), and advanced
manufacturing for light industrial uses.
• Support for businesses that provide jobs in the county that help reduce the currently
estimated daily commuter trips and road miles on workdays to provide congestion
relief and to avoid pressure to widen and improve U.S. Route 60 or Route 711 to better
accommodate peak hour (commuter) traffic.
• Expanded efforts to promote shovel-ready sites with established infrastructure
capacity and to create business-ready sites that can be certified through the Virginia
Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) and marketed.
• The addition of the role and responsibilities of the county’s Economic Development
Authority (EDA) added to the comprehensive plan.
The rewrite of Chapter 4 was not included in the CWG charter and is expected to be done
through a process involving county staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of
Supervisors.
[EP-3] Meet Infrastructure Needs for EP Parcels
Recommendations from the recently completed 2025 Dewberry Utility System Master Plan
strongly support utility investments to facilitate the growth of non-residential development
within the utility service areas. The Dewberry study emphasized the importance of
extending utility infrastructure only in areas designated for targeted growth, especially
along the U.S. Route 60 Corridor East and near the Courthouse Village. The study also
recommended the following priority needs:
• Construction of a regional pump station south of Route 60, which would unlock
additional capacity for commercial and light industrial users connecting to the Dutoy
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant.
• Focused investment in upgrading and refining system performance for existing utility
service areas.
• Leveraging public-private partnerships to build infrastructure that aligns with the
Powhatan’s economic priorities through voluntary proffers and other means that may
help minimize tax revenue contributions.
18

Together, the Economic Priority district and the Dewberry recommendations offer a unified
vision for infrastructure-led, fiscally sound, and strategic growth. Ideally, projects that offer
voluntary proffers to expand and improve public infrastructure in a manner consistent with
the Dewberry recommendations will provide utility connections and revenue (service
connection fees, monthly utility bills) that can then be used for routine system maintenance
through non-residential connections which typically require lower capacity allowing for
more connections that do not exceed existing plant capacity or water availability
limitations.
The CWG did not evaluate utility costs and budgets or make any specific recommendations
on how to manage public utility infrastructure to meet anticipated demands for Economic
Priority (EP) parcels, although it did designate EP parcels primarily within Utility Service
Areas (USA’s). The CWG also did not evaluate any private utility deficiencies within the EP
parcels such as broadband, electric and communication needs. For some uses, such as
Data Centers, literature supports the need for further study of existing infrastructure to be
sure a specific parcel or use does not utilize too much capacity, leaving the planned
development waiting for infrastructure upgrades to be implemented. All of this is
recommended for further study by the county staff with utility providers to be sure the EP
parcels can be fully serviced, business ready, and supportive of the Economic Prosperity
goals for the EP parcels and the Comprehensive Plan with an aspirational 85/15 tax split at
full buildout of the EP parcels or by combination with Gateway Business and other nonresidential sources of tax revenue that can also be pursued.
[EP-4] Support Rural Businesses in the A-10 District
While the CWG’s primary economic development focus was on infrastructure-ready growth
areas (EP parcels) the CWG also discussed how rural-based enterprises throughout the
county are an essential component of Powhatan’s local economy. Agriculture, forestry,
home-based businesses, and land-based services all contribute to both economic
prosperity and the preservation of the County’s rural character.
The 2021 Comprehensive Plan and the 2025–2028 Strategic Plan each emphasize the value
of rural economic activity, especially in areas zoned A-10, which cover most of the County’s
land area. These plans support small-scale business growth that is compatible with
Powhatan’s rural identity—particularly businesses that:
19

• Supplement farm and forestry operations (e.g., equine services, sawmills, veterinary,
farm equipment repair, and other needs)
• Add value to agricultural production (e.g., canning, distilling, cut flowers, on-farm
processing, and distribution)
• Promote agritourism (e.g., farm stays, pick-your-own operations, seasonal festivals)
• Operate from home-based workshops or studios, including construction trades,
artisans, and rural services.
CWG members discussed the importance of retaining flexibility within the A-10 zoning
district to accommodate these types of enterprises. Several members noted that overly
restrictive zoning can unintentionally suppress economic resilience in rural communities,
where many residents rely on a mix of land-based income sources To this end, the CWG
makes
the
following
recommendations:
• Maintain
and
support
allowances for agriculturalcompatible commercial uses
in the A-10 zoning district
through appropriate standards
including Conditional Use
Permits
(CUP)
where
applicable.
• Encourage agribusiness and
value-added
production,
especially those businesses The A-10 district supports rural enterprises like farming, forestry,
that diversify family farm income home-based businesses, and agritourism. CWG recommends
maintaining flexibility to allow these uses while preserving
or provide products and services Powhatan’s rural character.
to
the
local
community
including ‘Proudly Powhatan Produced’ and ‘Farm to Table’ programs.
• Continue to support home-based businesses by keeping regulations clear and
accessible while protecting neighboring landowners from unnecessary impacts.
• Promote Powhatan’s rural character and agricultural identity through branding,
marketing, and tourism initiatives, in coordination with regional partners such as the
Virginia Tourism Corporation.
20

This recommendation aligns with the Strategic Plan’s vision of preserving Powhatan’s rural
character and heritage while promoting sustainable economic opportunity. This can be
accomplished through the comprehensive plan updates and then by supporting
agricultural businesses through county staff. This recommendation is to refine and utilize
the vision in the 2021 comprehensive plan to align with the current strategic vision for the
county.

IV. Housing and Residential Option Recommendations
The Citizens Working Group (CWG) spent the latter part of their meetings focusing on the
county’s current housing patterns and land use framework, recognizing that the County’s
existing housing stock—predominantly large-lot single-family homes—may not meet the
needs of a diverse and growing population. A broader range of housing options would
support young adults, working families, teachers, public safety personnel, and retirees who
might be working within a fixed income and be unprepared for increases in county taxes and
other cost of living increases to county residents.
The CWG agreed at the start that new types of residential development should be
concentrated in areas already served by public infrastructure—specifically, the Village
Growth Area and the Route 60 East Growth Area, which together represent the County’s
best targeted growth opportunities. While the Village Growth Area was broadly seen as the
most appropriate location for residential expansion, discussions around housing in the
Route 60 East Growth Area were more measured.
As part of its work, the CWG supported expansions to both growth areas: including a ~245
acre extension east of the existing Village Growth Area to accommodate future mixed-use
and housing development, and a ~109-acre designation of Economic Opportunity (EO) on
the future land use map near the intersection of Route 60, Carter Gallier Parkway, and Page
Road in the Route 60 East Growth Area to accommodate future mixed-use and housing
development near the proposed Route 60 East Economic Priority parcels and to allow for
an infrastructure-supported, mixed-use node within that utility service area (USA). These
two CWG housing recommendations encourage housing diversity in appropriate, utilityserviced areas while avoiding strategies that might promote residential expansion into rural
areas.

21

[HRO-1] Expand Housing in the Village Growth Area
The CWG initially evaluated ~300-acres to the east of the existing Courthouse Village for the
strategic expansion of the Village Growth Area, with the intention of keeping the character
of the existing Village, allowing mixed-use development, staying within a walkable distance
of the courthouse square (~1-mile), and expanding existing infrastructure to accommodate
additional needs while staying within the designated utility service area (USA) for the village,
and anticipating transportation infrastructure in the development plans for internal
circulation and traffic needs while also improving connectivity from U.S. Route 60 to Old
Buckingham Road at the Rocky Ford Road intersection.
The CWG also discussed avoiding multi-modal connections to U.S. Route 60, keeping
bicycle and pedestrian traffic within the Village, leaving a rural viewshed on U.S. Route 60
by setting the Village limits back from the main thoroughfare, and requiring vegetative
buffers, shielded lighting and other development strategies to make the Village connected
and successful internally while discouraging expansion into the U.S. Route 60 corridor.
Within the Village Growth Area, the group supported a more expansive range of housing
options, continuing the area’s identity as a hub for compact, mixed-use development
opportunities that are connected and walkable. The Village already provides walkable
neighborhoods with sidewalks, connections to the trails at Fighting Creek Park (and the
YMCA), civic amenities including parades, concerts, and festivals, and village-scale design
patterns including encouraging senior living, and other types of diverse housing which can
be supported by master planned neighborhoods including 55+ living, assisted living and
other options for our aging population.

22

Powhatan Village Growth Area Expansion (light yellow area)
The CWG recommendation is a ~245-acre extension east of the existing Village Growth Area
to accommodate future mixed-use and housing development, which is shown on the map
above in yellow shading. This village expansion area can also be viewed online in the CWG
recommended Future Land Use Plan and through corresponding updates to the
comprehensive plan.
A closer look at how the village growth area fits into the Courthouse Square Center CHSC
District, and other types of zoning options should also be considered including refining the
comprehensive plan definition for Courthouse Village in terms of future land use and zoning
districts for future development.
[HRO-2] Create Alternative Housing in the Route 60 East Growth Area
The Route 60 East Growth Area, encompassing ~2,850 acres, is envisioned as a major
corridor for economic development, expanded employment opportunities, and targeted
infrastructure investment to sustain economic development. By contrast to the village
expansion [HRO-1], the CWG was more reserved in its discussions about residential
expansion in the Route 60 East Growth Area.
While some members supported limited mixed-use nodes in proximity to infrastructure and
targeted economic sites, there was less support for broader residential development in this
corridor, due in part to concerns about traffic, land use compatibility with adjacent
23

residential neighborhoods (larger lots), availability of existing homes nearby on Page Road
and elsewhere, and the primary focus for expansion in the area being economic
development and county jobs.
As a result, the CWG is recommending a ~109-acre contiguous portion of this growth area
near the intersection of Page Road and Carter Gallier Boulevard to support housing goals in
the strategic plan by being changed to Economic Opportunity (EO) on the Future Land Use
Map. This map change is entirely within the Utility Service Area (USA) and it provides an
opportunity for mixed-use development of what was previously a combination of Gateway
Business (no residential uses) and low density residential (A-10). By combining these prior
land use designations into Economic Opportunity (EO) the current comprehensive plan
description could remain mostly unchanged as a denser mix of residential and commercial
uses with recommended master planning and internal connectivity that supports
combining parcels into a larger plan of development. While it may be challenging to
combine parcels based on land ownership, there are very few opportunities for Economic
Opportunity (EO) development that remain in the county, due to the success of recent
development in the Route 711 East corridor and in other areas designated as Economic
Opportunity (EO) in the 2021 comprehensive plan.

Route 60 East Growth Area with Proposed Economic Opportunity (EO) Land Use
24

This future land use designation as Economic Opportunity (EO) is intended to: (1)
encourage landowners to consider combining housing and commercial development into
a village type setting for eastern county businesses in this location; (2) provide work force
housing, with complimentary retail or commercial development; and (3) be complimentary
to other supporting needs for the businesses anticipated by the Economic Priority (EP)
designations in the Route 60 East growth area.
This land use designation would also allow for strategic land use transitions in the
development plan. While denser, mixed-use development is considered appropriate
adjacent to Carter Gallier Boulevard and U.S. Route 60 with direct access, areas farther
east and north along Page Road—are expected to accommodate lower-density residential
development on larger lots that will transition into the character of nearby neighborhoods
such as Old Powhatan Estates.
The CWG recommendation for
a
~109-acre
contiguous
portion of the Route 60 East
growth area to be designated
Economic Opportunity (EO) to
accommodate future mixeduse development is shown on
the map above. It can also be
viewed online in the CWG
recommended Future Land
Use
Plan
and
through This is an example of a mixed-use development that could be appropriate
Economic Opportunity areas. The designation encourages a blend of
corresponding updates to the in
housing, employment, and services in walkable, master-planned settings
comprehensive plan. The CWG with access to infrastructure.
also recommends refinement
of the Economic Opportunity (EO) land use descriptions to no longer require larger land
tracts and instead, to encourage the combination of smaller land tracts to create a mixed
use or master planned development approach to this unique crossroads of Route 60,
Carter Gallier Boulevard, and Page Road for a sensible location to explore alternative
housing options.

25

[HRO-3] Explore Alternative Housing within Holly Hills
As part of its work, the Citizens Working Group (CWG) recommended modest adjustments
to the boundaries of Powhatan County’s two primary growth areas: the Village Growth Area
and the Route 60 East Growth Area, with a focus on expanding housing options in strategic
locations. These changes impacting ~354-acres are not intended to signal immediate
development plans, but to clarify where future growth could be appropriate, if pursued
thoughtfully and in alignment with public infrastructure. The CWG emphasized that private
property rights and market conditions ultimately shape when, how, and where land
develops. At the same time, there are other areas within the existing 2021 growth
boundaries that remain suitable for new and expanded residential neighborhoods, mixeduse centers, and light industrial investment. These CWG recommendations are intended to
support long-range planning efforts by providing a more accurate picture of where the
County is most prepared to accommodate growth—while continuing to support other
aspects of the future land use plan and while protecting Powhatan’s rural landscapes
outside of these designated areas.
A good example of where an existing neighborhood should be explored for incentives and
partnerships that might help encourage “by right” development is within the Holly Hills
Subdivision. Situated on ~147-acres with 185 total lots or parcels zoned R-U, this existing
neighborhood includes 34 vacant parcels ready for infill development (all one acre or less).
With average parcel sizes at 0.79 acres, Holly Hills is somewhat unique for the housing
stock that is available currently in Powhatan County. The nine homes sold within the last
three years range in sales prices from $250,000 to $391,000. Online real estate websites
show another home currently for sale at a list price of $255,000. These home prices are
mostly below the median value of owner-occupied homes in Powhatan ($381,300 in 2024)
and they are all below the 2024 statewide median of $425,100.
The CWG recommends that county staff work with local stakeholders including non-profit
organizations and volunteer groups to evaluate strategies to encourage infill development
of the vacant parcels in the Holly Hills neighborhood in a manner that provides an
affordable option for home ownership to those living in the eastern portion of the county
and considers the infrastructure and transportation challenges to long term success. As
economic priority (EP) strategies create local jobs adjacent to this well-established
neighborhood, the CWG hopes that the new jobs provide wages that make living in Holly
Hills attainable.
26

Additional planning for transportation routes is also recommended for Holly Hills. For
example, it is a ~1-mile drive from Holly Hills to the Crazy Rooster Brewing Company;
however, if the Economic Priority (EP) development parcels recommended by the CWG to
the east of Holly Hills were to provide a non-motorized transportation route by voluntary
proffer, we could envision a multi-use paved trail or greenway connecting Holly Hills directly
to the Oakbridge Business Park at the end of Oakbridge Terrace, so Holly Hills residents can
walk or bike to work. The estimated distance to the center of the Oakbridge Business Park
would then be around 0.6-miles.
The map below shows the Economic Opportunity parcels adjacent to Holly Hills in gold, the
Oakbridge Business Park in grey, and the Gateway Business parcels in purple with a
generalized location of a general alignment for a shared use path in red, to consider for the
county’s long range transportation plan to support the infill development of the Holly Hills
neighborhood and to envision a third housing option for affordable, work force housing that
could work within the existing community fabric of Powhatan County.

Holly Hills Subdivision

[HRO-4] Support Rural Character in the A-10 District
Outside of the designated growth areas, the CWG emphasized the need to protect the
County’s rural landscapes, farmland, and environmental resources including conservation

27

areas designated on the Future Land Use Map which are not recommended for changes by
the CWG at this time.
While the group recognized that residential growth by right will continue to occur in more
rural areas throughout the county, CWG members stressed that such development should
be sensitive to rural landscapes, low-impact, and carefully regulated where it is proposed.
Tools like conservation subdivisions—with strengthened review criteria—and clustering
were discussed as ways to accommodate limited housing while maintaining open space
and rural viewsheds. The CWG was unified in its view however that widespread residential
expansion in under-served or agricultural areas is inconsistent with the County’s long-range
planning goals and would undermine efforts to focus growth where infrastructure already
exists and to maintain our rural character as stated in the comprehensive plan.
Larger housing projects that occur in the A-10 District and do not adequately mitigate
impacts to adjacent homeowners, transportation routes, viewsheds, and the surrounding
agriculturally based economy should be carefully reviewed and kept within the established
legal boundaries of by right development to the extent possible, to avoid expanding housing
options into the A-10 district and eroding our rural character as a result.
[HRO-5] Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s)
Powhatan County already has a relatively permissive accessory dwelling unit (ADU)
ordinance, which allows one accessory
unit per lot by right, if it does not exceed
50% of the total square footage of the
principal dwelling. The CWG affirmed
that this current standard offers
appropriate flexibility for most property
owners while maintaining consistency
between neighborhoods. However, the
group also recommends a modest
refinement: to allow for a larger ADU to
be approved by Conditional Use Permit ADUs offer flexible housing for families, aging residents, and
long-term tenants. The CWG supports allowing larger ADUs
(CUP) on a case-by-case basis in certain by CUP while prohibiting short-term rentals to maintain
neighborhood stability.
cases.
28

ADU’s can provide a viable option for accommodating extended family, aging relatives, and
children looking for a place where multigenerational housing can be accommodated.
Multigenerational housing is affordable in that the land and principal residence is already
built with a driveway, well and septic, reducing the ADU project to mostly building
construction costs, which helps make this housing option affordable.
ADUs also provide a viable option for long-term tenants— in areas served by public
infrastructure or in agricultural areas where the tenant rent can provide the landowner an
alternative source of income.
The CWG also expressed clear agreement that ADU’s should not be permitted for use as
short-term rentals, such as those listed on Airbnb or VRBO. The group viewed ADUs as a
tool to support multi-generational living, aging in place, and workforce housing, not
transient or vacation lodging. Limiting ADUs to long-term occupancy helps maintain
neighborhood stability and ensures the ADU tenant contributes meaningfully to the
County’s broader housing goals.
[HRO-6] Conservation Subdivisions
Under the current zoning ordinance, conservation subdivisions are permitted by right in
Powhatan County’s A-20 (Agricultural), A-10 (Agricultural), Rural Residential (RR), Rural
Residential - 5 (RR-5), and Single Family Residential (R-2) districts, provided the parcel is at
least 50 acres in size. The ordinance allows for density bonuses of 20% or 25% in the
number of permissible dwelling units when 60% or 70% of the property, respectively, is
placed into permanent open space through deed restrictions or conservation easements.
While conservation subdivisions aim to balance housing with land preservation, the CWG
expressed concern that the by-right approval process (i.e., with no review by the Planning
Commission, Board of Supervisors, or the public) does not provide successful conservation
outcomes such as preventing harm to the County’s ecologically sensitive lands, minimizing
the crossing of environmentally sensitive lands, or providing larger buffers to adjacent
landowners when delineating the lands to be held in conservation. Also, the CWG had
concerns about the use of non-buildable land (which is designated as natural conservation
area) in the calculation of how much additional, heretofore unprotected, land would be
preserved by creation of a conservation subdivision.

29

To address these concerns, the CWG recommends a change to the current ordinance to
remove lands designated as Natural Conservation Areas on the Future Land Use Map (e.g.,
wetlands, streams, wildlife corridors, floodplains, and 15% steep slopes) from the acreage
used to calculate the density bonus. For example, if a 100-acre tract had 25-acres of
unbuildable land designated on the parcel, the lands placed into conservation would be
calculated based on the remaining 75-acres. At a 60% or 70% protected easement
requirement, the by-right 20% or 25% respective density bonuses would result in 1.2 or 1.25
times the general A-10 by-right, 0.1 dwelling units per acre, i.e., 0.120 or 0.125 dwelling units
per acre, respectively. Returning to our example of a 100-acre parcel containing 25 acres of
unbuildable land, the conservation subdivision would place 45 acres or 52.5 acres,
respectively, in a permanent protected easement, and 30 acres or 22.5 acres would be
available for clustering of houses under the current 20% or 25% density bonuses. Under
both density-bonus cases, the housing cluster area would permit nine houses to be built
(must be rounded down in the 25% case) with minimum lot sizes as small as (40,00 square
feet (approximately one acre). The by-right example is summarized in the table below.
Conservation

density bonus

Cluster

Raw#

# Dwelling

DwellingUnits

Cons Eas

Area

Dwelling

Units

per acre in

Easement Required

Density Bonus

calculation

#du/acres

Acres

Acres

Units

(rounded down)

Cluster Area

50%, by-right

clustering only, no bonus

NA

0.1

37.5

37.5

7.5

7

0.19

60%, by-right

20% bonus

=1.2 * 0.10

0.12

45

30

9

9

0.30

70%, by-right

25%bonus

=1.25 * 0.10

0.125

52.5

22.5

9.375

9

0.40

In evaluating all subdivision proposals county-wide, the CWG considers the elimination of
unbuildable land from the designated protected easement calculations necessary to
ensure that ecologically sensitive land will be protected in the creation of a conservation
subdivision first and foremost.
In addition to these changes to the minimum requirements for conservation subdivisions,
the CWG recommends creating a second pathway with higher density bonuses for
conservation subdivisions, through use of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. The
principal characteristics of these requirements are:
• Utilize a public-facing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process to allow for more
flexibility in minimizing impacts on ecologically sensitive land and providing
appropriate buffers through developer engagement with county staff and
knowledgeable citizens.
30

• Significantly increase allowable density bonuses to 65% and 85% (currently 20% and
25%) for conservation subdivisions following the CUP process.
• Include the revised buildable land calculations for conservation areas.
• Keep the minimum lot size at 40,000 square feet (approximately 1-acre) and keep the
minimum subdivision size at 50 acres.
• Specific recommendations for the new pathway are presented below, using the same
100-acre parcel example (including 25 acres of unbuildable land) above.
Cluster
Conservation
Easement Required

density bonus
Density Bonus

calculation

#du/acres

Cons Eas
Acres

Area
Acres

Raw#
Dwelling

#Dwelling

Units

Units
(rounded down)

Dwelling Units
per acre in
Cluster Area

60%under CUP

65%bonus

=1.65* 0.10

0.165

45

30

12.375

12

0.40

70%under CUP

85% bonus

=1.85 * 0.10

0.185

52.5

22.5

13.875

13

0.58

The CWG discussed how good conservation subdivision outcomes have been
unsuccessful in the past due to their use in more remote locations within the county, having
relatively low-density bonuses, and allowing significant negative impact on ecologically
sensitive lands, due to the lack of flexibility and engagement in the by-right development
process. For these reasons, several committee members wanted to eliminate the by-right
pathway altogether. However, after discussion, the CWG recommends that a CUP process
be required for all proposed conservation subdivisions lying wholly or partially within the
County’s Priority Conservation Areas (as designated on MAP 2 of the current
comprehensive plan). It was decided that this CUP requirement could provide the desired
protection of ecologically sensitive lands and provide a second pathway offering higher
density bonuses that achieves better conservation subdivision outcomes while keeping the
by-right option outside the Priority Conservation Areas.
The decision as to whether to eliminate the by-right option all together for conservation
subdivisions is a very important one and is respectfully passed along to the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors by the CWG members, for further consideration
with input from the broader community.
[HRO-7] Family Subdivisions
The CWG recommends refining the family subdivision ordinance requirements to expand
this housing alternative, so that existing multi-generational families can stay in the county
at an affordable price, through a broader family land subdivision option.
31

Currently, family subdivisions are allowed in the A-10, RR, R-2, and RU zoning districts. In
the A-10 and RR districts, a family parcel must be at least 3 acres, and the residue
(remaining) parcel must be at least 5 acres, meaning a minimum lot size of 8 acres is
required. In the R-2 and RU districts, both the new family parcel and the residue (remaining)
parcel must be at least 2 acres each, for a total of at least 4 acres. The CWG recommends
reducing the A-10 and RR requirements to 2 acres for the new family parcel and 4 acres for
the residue (remaining) parcel for a total of at least 6 acres (previously 8 acres). There were
recommend changes to the lot sizes for the R-2 and RU zoning districts.
In revising the ordinance, we also discussed the following recommendations: (1) making
sure the family subdivided land remains in the family for at least 5 years and does not allow
rentals in a family subdivision during those 5 years; and (2) that the family definitions be
made clearer in the written ordinance refinements (children, grandchildren, parents and
spouse or partner).
[HRO-8] Create a Unified Development District (UDD)
The CWG recommends consolidating and simplifying Powhatan County’s current Village
Growth Area zoning framework by replacing five, overlapping districts— Village Residential
(VR), Village Center (VC), Village Residential Planned Development (VR-PD), Village Center
Planned Development (VC-PD), and Commerce Center Planned Development (CC-PD)—
with a single, modernized zoning
category called a Unified
Development District (UDD).
This
new
UDD
zoning
HY
designation would eliminate
confusing overlapping districts
and provide a consistent
regulatory
framework
for
development
within
the
The Unified Development District (UDD) replaces multiple zoning districts with County’s two strategic growth
a single, flexible tool for master-planned residential, mixed-use, or light
industrial development. This graphic shows how UDD can guide coordinated areas: the Village Growth Area
growth in line with the Comprehensive Plan.
and the Route 60 East Growth
Area.
32

In the case of commercial, residential, and mixed use, the UDD would function as a flexible,
master-planned zoning district that could facilitate a range of development types—such as
mixed-use villages with or without commercial use types, and employment centers
including light industrial campuses and business parks—depending on the context. Any
rezoning to the UDD would require the submission of a Unified Development Plan (UDP)
that demonstrates how the proposed project aligns with the Comprehensive Plan, including
infrastructure availability, transportation access, and community-based goals. The UDD
zoning could apply to Economic Priority, Economic Opportunity, and a broad range of other
residential and commercial uses through the master planning process.
To reinforce the County’s growth management framework, the CWG recommends that the
total area proposed for a UDD rezoning must be located within a designated growth area.
This ensures that the UDD is applied in places where public infrastructure is available or
planned and where development aligns with the County’s long-range land use policies.
The CWG also emphasized that the UDD is not intended to override or replace the Future
Land Use Map, but rather to implement it more effectively through master planning. The
UDD should serve as a delivery mechanism for realizing land use goals already articulated
in the Comprehensive Plan. While the specifics of the UDD ordinance would be developed
through future action by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, the CWG
anticipates that it would include:
• A maximum allowable residential density tailored to infrastructure and location, with
no more than 6 units per acre, and oftentimes less.
• Mixed-use requirements, successful buffering, and open space standards including
common areas and public space where applicable.
• Connectivity requirements, including inter-parcel access and multi-modal
infrastructure such as sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails.
• Clear expectations for architectural and site design including a proffered plan of
development (master plan) that guides development.
The CWG’s support for the UDD is conceptual and forward-thinking, based on the belief
that a simplified, master-planned zoning district would provide greater clarity, flexibility,
transparency, and alignment in the designated growth areas than the County’s current
33

fragmented zoning district structure that is described for the five overlapping zoning
districts listed above.
[HRO-9] Establish Standards for Cluster Housing / Cottage Courts
The CWG recommends creating a zoning mechanism—through a new district such as UDD
or through amendment to existing districts—that would allow small-lot cluster housing or
cottage court development within the designated growth areas, subject to a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP). This type of development, typically comprised of smaller, more modest
homes arranged around shared open
space, are intended to serve retirees,
workforce
households,
and
residents
seeking
lowermaintenance,
lower-cost,
and
community-oriented housing types
on a smaller footprint.
Key design principles supported by
the CWG include:
• Compact building footprints
Cluster housing and cottage courts offer smaller homes arranged
balanced by functional open around shared open space to support retirees, workforce housing,
and community-oriented living. The CWG recommends allowing
space.
this housing type by Conditional Use Permit in growth areas, with
• Compatibility with available strong design, buffering, and infrastructure standards.
infrastructure (water, sewer,
broadband, transportation)
• A focus on walkability and connections to adjacent non-residential parcels.
• Appropriateness for aging in place, workforce housing, and other types of
community-oriented housing goals in the comprehensive plan.
While this recommendation is not part of the County’s existing zoning framework, it is noted
that the current regulations have “manufactured home parks” allowable by CUP in the A-10
zoning district and are subject to a set of defined use standards. Although the CWG did not
recommend converting or redefining manufactured home parks as cluster housing, staff
has identified a potential pathway for implementation that could involve amending the
existing manufactured home park provisions to better accommodate high-quality, designsensitive forms of small-lot housing. Any such revision would need to:
34

•
•
•
•
•

Include strong buffering, landscaping, and architectural standards.
Address building quality and permanent foundation requirements
Limit eligibility to designated growth areas where infrastructure can support it
Be clearly distinguished from traditional mobile or manufactured home parks
Establish maximum unit density and minimum lot size requirements.

This approach, if pursued, would require further study and a clear separation between
legacy manufactured housing allowances and intentional, community-oriented cluster
development models. The CWG strongly emphasized that any new housing typology
introduced into the ordinance should meet high standards of design and compatibility
while helping to address identified housing needs in Powhatan.
[HRO-10] Support Housing Options for the Elderly
In Powhatan, the median age of residents in 2000 was 37 years, whereas in 2023 it had
increased to 45.3 years. By comparison, the median age of residents in Virginia for 2023
was 38.8 years, or 6.5 years younger. As the County’s population grows older, the CWG
recognized the need to support residents who wish to age in place or downsize without
leaving the broader community. This includes encouraging the development of single-level
homes, more accessible housing, and encouraging development for active living, assisted
living and healthcare housing within the Village Growth Area and other utility-serviced
areas.
These housing types for the elderly are especially valuable when located near healthcare
providers (doctors, pharmacies, etc.), civic facilities, and community amenities. This CWG
recommendation is to intentionally plan for an aging population in the upcoming updates
to the county comprehensive plan. This recommendation aligns with the Strategic Plan
emphasis on expanding housing options for seniors while maintaining affordability.
The elderly oftentimes do not have school age children, reducing their tax burden on the
community. They also include a large percentage of retirees in their age group, which
provides flexibility for some community seniors to serve in key volunteer roles with our civic
organizations, neighborhoods, churches, non-profits and others.
[HRO-11] Explore Community Land Trusts
The CWG recommends an openness to explore voluntary partnerships with community
land trusts (CLT’s) — which are a nonprofit entity that holds land in perpetuity and facilitates
35

long-term affordable housing by separating land costs from housing costs. They typically
provide a program to lease their properties to income-qualified households within the
framework of a detailed program that typically caps profits and strictly controls
participation in their land trust program by those with a demonstrated financial need for
assistance. Two examples of CLT’s gaining popularity in other local communities are the
Central Virginia Land Trust and the Maggie Walker Land Trust.
For use in Powhatan, the CWG recommends adding broad policy language to the housing
options in the updated comprehensive plan. This does not require the county to adopt new
ordinances or take administrative action, and should not require county funding, since our
vision for CLT’s in Powhatan County is entirely through voluntary proffers.
Through this mechanism, zoning applicants can voluntarily offer to set aside lands by
percentage or acreage to be donated to a bona fide land trust as part of their subdivision
that is contingent of a zoning approval. Zoning applicants may be a developer looking for
higher density residential lots, or a nonprofit and mission-driven housing organization, such
as Habitat for Humanity who already works in the community.
Regardless of the applicant’s name or background, the zoning application would only
consider voluntary proffers as one factor in considering housing options created through a
voluntary donation to a CLT. Donations to the CLT simply provide another mechanism for
housing affordability through a successful tool being used in other communities.

V. Closing Comments
The Citizens Working Group (CWG) was established not to draft a full rewrite of the County’s
Comprehensive Plan, but to serve as a citizen-led advisory group, helping to make
recommendations that reflect Powhatan’s evolving needs while remaining grounded in its
values. As a citizen-led initiative, the CWG brought together diverse perspectives, local
knowledge, and a shared commitment to community stewardship. The process was
shaped by open dialogue, data review, and examination of the County’s past growth
patterns, infrastructure, and transportation limitations, as well as future needs.
Like any public planning effort, the CWG process required navigating competing interests
and differing priorities—the realities of a growing community with deep rural roots. Over the
course of many meetings, members worked to strike a delicate balance: honoring
Powhatan’s rural character and a commitment to land conservation, while also recognizing
36

the County’s responsibility to accommodate future residential, commercial, and light
industrial development in areas that are appropriate and supported by infrastructure and
transportation.
The CWG appreciates the opportunity to contribute to this important planning effort and
respectfully submits these recommendations as a foundation for broader public dialogue
and policy development as the County moves forward with its strategic plan through the
Comprehensive Plan updates, ordinance revisions, and broader policy development by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

Attachment: Appendix 1 – Economic Priority Parcel Maps (next page)

37

Appendix 1 – Economic Priority (EP) Parcel Maps
EP parcels are designated by orange color in the below maps. Purple is Gateway Business and Green is
Conservation Areas. Other future land use designations are shown in a variety of other colors as
described in the comprehensive plan and future land use map without changes, and the designated
growth area is depicted by a thick, red line. See below 6 maps.

Economic Priority District – Map #1 of 6

38

Economic Priority District – Map #2 of 6

39

Economic Priority District – Map #3 of 6

4 1-1038

C.

~

Economic Priority District – Map #4 of 6
40

Economic Priority District – Map #5 of 6

Economic Priority District – Map #6 of 6
41