Do you support the updated Greenspace categories described above?
83% No
17% Yes
Weighted by
Weight Results
12 respondents
Do you support the updated Greenspace categories described above?
The area behind Chesterfield Landing should not be changed to a Public Park. This area was marketed to the homeowners of Chesterfield Landing as HOA lands. Access to this area is through very steep trails that are very close to private homes. There is no privacy buffer and increased traffic would be an issue for the neighborhood. The cul de sac cannot support parking for public access to the trail. While I support trails in the community, the area behind the homes at Chesterfield Landing should remain private HOA property so the HOA can regulate how and when it it is accessed by the public. Also, the mailbox bank for the entire community is near the proposed park entrance. We already have issues with people parking in front of the mailboxes. Adding a public park here will create more issues not less. As the landowner nearest the proposed public park entrance in this location, I strongly oppose turning the lot behind the houses on Oxbow Drive into a public park.
The change in nomenclature seems to allow for considerable new development (as many as 189 units). I do not support development in what had been labeled “Greenspace” in the previous MP just because better mapping data reveals “developable” land, whatever that is. I believe Crozet can justify all designated Greenspace as healthy for the community.
I also do not support the proposed public park behind Oxbow Drive, as I live on this road and we already experience traffic/parking issues that I believe would be exacerbated if this area was open to the public. To be specific, the road itself is very narrow, barely wide enough for two cars to pass one another, and many residents park in the street, because we all have small driveways. Therefore, the street really can not afford to accommodate any additional traffic or parking. Thank you for considering our comments.
The distinction between buffers and public recreation area is a very useful tool moving forward, though I believe that we should be more ambitious with the desired future public greenway trails along stream buffers: Powell's Creek north of Orchard Acres and the overflow from Crozet Park's retention pond into Lickinghole creek would both make great public amenities.
The draft plan includes a split land use designation for White Gate Farm (TMP 56E-2). This designation aims to continue the pattern of development currently in Wickham Pond. Changing this property's designation would support broader housing choices within Crozet and infill development that connects the Park Ridge Drive corridor to Crozet's easternmost neighborhoods.
An increase of 49-143 additional units over the 2010 Master Plan could be developed under the revised designation.
81% No
19% Yes
Weighted by
Weight Results
16 respondents
The draft plan includes a split land use designation for White Gate Farm (TMP 56E-2). This designation aims to continue the pattern of development currently in Wickham Pond. Changing this property's designation would support broader housing choices within Crozet and infill development that connects the Park Ridge Drive corridor to Crozet's easternmost neighborhoods. <br><br>An increase of 49-143 additional units over the 2010 Master Plan could be developed under the revised designation.
We need to preserve as much greenspace as possible to avoid degradation of the natural ecosystem services that it provides. I'm opposed to any increases in population density.
I oppose any change in designation that would support greater density in this area , or that would remove green space. Even "wild" green space has tremendous value for our health and that of our ecosystem and planet, including filtering ground water, buffering sound and light pollution and absorbing carbon dioxide.
the increase in traffic in Park Ridge Drive corridor needs to be looked at first. Without a date for the 250 connector in the future, this should be a non starter
While it is a priority of mine to have the trailway connect through this area, I oppose encouraging additional densities that high so far from downtown.
This area is completely detached from the rest of crozet. A public greenway trail spur along the stream buffer back to the main lickinghole creek trail system would make this proposal a little easier to support.
The draft plan designates parcels east of Eastern Avenue, south of Westhall Drive and north of Lickinghole Basin as Neighborhood Density Residential and Parks & Green Systems.
Development in this area has occurred at a lower density than shown in the 2010 Master Plan, and the Eastern Avenue corridor provides a boundary between areas with different development patterns. The portion of Urban Density Residential east of Eastern Avenue was changed to Neighborhood Density Residential to reflect current development and improve legibility of the land use map. The Greenspace boundary was also changed to reflect the actual location of environmental features.
An increase of 10-20 additional units over the 2010 Master Plan could be developed under the revised designation.
73% No
27% Yes
Weighted by
Weight Results
15 respondents
The draft plan designates parcels east of Eastern Avenue, south of Westhall Drive and north of Lickinghole Basin as Neighborhood Density Residential and Parks & Green Systems.<br><br>Development in this area has occurred at a lower density than shown in the 2010 Master Plan, and the Eastern Avenue corridor provides a boundary between areas with different development patterns. The portion of Urban Density Residential east of Eastern Avenue was changed to Neighborhood Density Residential to reflect current development and improve legibility of the land use map. The Greenspace boundary was also changed to reflect the actual location of environmental features. <br><br>An increase of 10-20 additional units over the 2010 Master Plan could be developed under the revised designation.
our area cannot support higher density, including increased traffic and school overcrowding.
I support the change in designation to neighborhood density residential in keeping with the character of the area. But do not support further development until traffic, transportation and community infrastructure is in place.
That density level will not create enough revenue for a developer to build that section of the eastern bypass, leaving it in the hands of the taxpayers to complete. Making this vacant parcel middle density might give enough reason for a developer to actually want to finish the bypass.
Absolutely not, the developers do not need more land to build, everyone gave feedback that we need to maintain greenspace and no homes should be built above the master plan (it should be reduced, if anything because our infrastructure was never meant for this).
The draft Future Land Use Plan includes a change to TMP #56-13's Greenspace boundary to reflect the actual location of environmental features.
An increase of 23-46 additional units over the 2010 Master Plan could be developed under the revised designation.
86% No
14% Yes
Weighted by
Weight Results
14 respondents
The draft Future Land Use Plan includes a change to TMP #56-13's Greenspace boundary to reflect the actual location of environmental features. <br><br>An increase of 23-46 additional units over the 2010 Master Plan could be developed under the revised designation.
Absolutely not! These areas were designated as greenspace and should remain that way for the well-being of current residents of Crozet.
Do not change these buffers! I oppose the higher density. We need to preserve some open space and green space. The natural environment/natural beauty is cited as one of the valued features of crozet. Leave some natural space and protect the health of our streams and groundwater!
These buffers need not be changed. There is no reason to butt up right next to the very edge of where development is allowed. Leave some space to breathe and stop cramming every inch with a housing development.
I can't tell from the picture above what the difference is from 2010 till now, but the language above discussing adding 23-46 units (e.g., homes) is a terrible idea. I don't understand the Greenspace boundary reflection of environmental features as I can't tell what is different. I support green space but do not support more residential homes/dwellings
