Bacon's Rebellion

The State Senate on Land Use

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Thanks to Steve Haner for pointing out evidence of thinking about land use that has been taking place in the state Senate. This comes from a press release issued by Sen. Marty Williams, R-Newport News:

“There has been a growing awareness that our land use policies and our transportation planning need to go hand in hand. A number of Senate measures move in that direction. They would make local governments submit comprehensive plans, rezoning applications and subdivision plats to VDOT for review when it is anticipated they would have substantial impact on state roads. Another Senate measure requires fast-growing counties and cities to have ordinances regarding clustering of single family homes. And we will establish a joint subcommittee to study additional ways to integrate land use and transportation planning.”

Further, the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance lists these Senate initiatives as of Feb. 16:

SB 373 (Houck)– Allows localities to transfer development rights from a parcel of property in one part of a locality to a parcel in another part of the locality. (Passed Senate 38-0)

SB 699 (Houck)– Requires localities to submit comprehensive plans, rezoning applications and subdivision plats to VDOT for review when it is anticipated they would have substantial impact on state roads. (Passed Senate 40-0)

SB 374 (Watkins)– Requires fast-growing counties and cities to have ordinances regarding clustering of single family homes. (Passed Senate 40-0)

SJ 88 (Quayle)– Establishes Joint Subcommittee to study integration of land use and transportation planning. (Passed Senate 38-0)

It’s a start. If the Joint Subcommittee could lead to a meaningful airing of ideas, we could be moving in the right direction.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

Comments

3 responses to “The State Senate on Land Use”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    And I would expect the Senate to agree on most of the House proposals coming over. We’ll see, but they have been talking all along. SDH

  2. Jim Patrick Avatar
    Jim Patrick

    SB 374 “Deletes certain optional provisions regarding the clustering of single-family housing and reinserts those provisions as mandatory provisions…“

    Here we go, and I hope you like the ride. You asked for “linking land use and transportation”; this is what it means – state mandates, not local control.

    This is a ‘fill-em-up’ law applying to jurisdictions that already have over 10% growth. It says that those localities must allow unrestricted growth –see the by-right provisions– as long as the houses are clustered. This is the developers’ dream law.

    Note the link to transportation is… uhmm. Well there isn’t a link, in fact this ignores transportation needs, but I’m sure there’ll be something sometime in the future.

  3. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Jim, You raise a good point. While I’m dogmatic about the necessity of addressing the land use issue, that doesn’t make me in favor of every bill with “land use” slapped on the title. I argue that we need to deregulate land use, not pile on more regulations. The problem is that municipal zoning codes, subdivision ordinances, comprehensive plans are too restrictive. They interfere with the creation of balanced, compact, connected pedestrian-friendly communities by imposing all kinds of regulations. Furthermore, they allow very little room for developers to seek creative solutions — unless they’re willing to fork out big bucks for legal fees and face the uncertainties and delays associated with getting special use permits.

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT