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).
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).
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 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.
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 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.
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).
