Hi everyone,

I have had a couple of requests lately for an update on where the development projects for Blenheim Road and Bird Street stand. I know long posts can get annoying or a bit overwhelming, so I have been keeping them to a minimum. I shared a similar post on facebook this afternoon, though here it is in its entirety. The following information incapsulates the last couple of meetings. As always, if you are interested in knowing more, or want to cross check information, videos of the town meetings can be found on the town website. If you are able to, please consider attending the Town Council meeting next Monday, March 21, at 7pm. A vote may be expected that evening. 

I am working on some meeting minutes to share if anyone is interested, but I have learned I should have paid more attention to typing class in middle school, I am not nearly fast enough to be able to take a word for word dictation.

There has been a good bit of discussion, at some times with passion, over the Special Use Permits (SUP) at Blenheim Road and Bird Street over the last months during work session, special sessions, and full Town Council meetings. At the February special session, some council members requested from Shimp engineering, the firm representing the landowner in the SUP requests, to see a draft of the phased plan for the entire Blenheim property site. Mr. Shimp commented on this request saying they would prefer to do the whole plan, but in the past when people have brought forward 300-unit development ideas there has been a strong response. He said that is where the origin of the smaller development idea came from, it was something people could wrap their minds around. The mayor stated with this council, seeing the whole plan would be better. Shimp agreed and stated the focus should be on Bird St. going forward since a builder has shown interest in buying the site.

Between the last town council work session and town council public meeting, it was shared that the Blenheim Road Special Use Project request was withdrawn by the landowner. The landowner can reapply at a future date with a new Special use permit request. Their focus appears to be on the SUP request for Bird Street at this point.

Conditions have been written for the Bird Street project. You can see those in the meeting agenda notes, but some updates have been made. The Bird St. proposal is now for 36 houses. At the last meeting, the council voted 3/3/1 (Mayor as tiebreaker) to push the vote to the March meeting for the Bird ST. project to get better site plans for what 36 houses look like, and to see an actual contract from a builder. One councilor made it clear he did not want to vote on a SUP, which will stay with the land in perpetuity, without actually knowing there would be a development built on the site. By passing the SUP, the town would immediately increase the value of the land. Without an actual guarantee the proposed development would be built, the now more valuable land could be leveraged for loans on future land acquisitions by the owner leaving the town with nothing to show for it. The land would then be locked into a concept that may not be in-favor in the future, and no way to really change it.  

On tonight’s work session agenda (and recently discussed at the last planning commission meeting) there is a discussion about a PUD or Planned Unit Development, which is something many people have recommended, and is recommended in some of the studies done for the town (West Downtown Area Plan).  For those who don’t know, a PUD is a type of development and regulatory process that can “float” or connect multiple different zoning areas, which can allow for much more control on proposals by municipalities. This type of process can help localities create a comprehensive plan for specific areas over various types of zoning, meaning the areas will look cohesive, and intentional. It is a great way to bring a variety of housing types and nonresidential uses together. The new SOFI Stadium multi-use development project is an example, though on a MUCH larger scale.

Folks, over the last couple of months there has been a lot said about “misinformation” spreading in the town over these issues. Most of the town meetings can be found on the town website if you are interested in listening or watching to get more information. I also encourage you to come to the meetings if you have any interest in this area, for or against. There is a work session tonight at 7pm at Victory Hall, and a Town Council meeting next week at the same time. The meeting next week may include a vote on this issue. If you are interested in talking to your council members to get more information, their contact info is available on the town website as well.

With regards to “for or against”…on a personal note, in my opinion, I feel that unfortunately there has been a misinterpretation on what voting “no” for these SUP could mean. Many people are interpreting a “no” vote to mean citizens of the area are against all development. Or that there is fear of development. This idea is not what I have experienced. Most individuals I have talked to are concerned about similar issues proposed by the town council member I mentioned above. They are concerned about Scottsville. They want to see Scottsville grow. But there are concerns that haven’t fully been addressed. For example, how will adding developments, and a new gas station on James River Road, impact the intersection of Valley St. and James River Rd. This intersection is listed in the comprehensive plan as an area of concern for the town that should be addressed, and was discussed as far back as the late 1990s. It has yet to be addressed. I am fairly confident in saying that everyone in their life has been witness to a situation where a party was forced to react to something that could have been avoided with some planning in advance. Scottsville does have plans in progress to have some of these issues evaluated. Tonight’s work session agenda outlines a few. So perhaps people should consider a “no” vote to mean “not yet” instead of “not ever”. Wouldn't it be good to see the outcome of those evaluations before committing?

I have also heard some comments that if this SUP isn’t approved, Scottsville may never get another development. On the agenda tonight, there is a discussion about the development opportunity, including the possibility of apartments, of the old tire factory site. Scottsville will have future development opportunities. They have already been in discussion. Keep in mind, as mentioned at the last Town council meeting by one of the council members, the same landowner currently has a development that has been approved, and platted out, for more than 25 houses within the town limits, but has chosen not to develop it yet. Scottsville will see growth.

Growth has also been an item cited of late. Scottsville, within the town limits, is currently about as large as it has ever been. At its largest in the mid-1880s, Scottsville hovered around 300 people until the expansion in the early 1990s. Since that point, Scottsville has been between 500 and 550 people for about 30 years. It hasn’t grown significantly, but nor has it declined. It isn’t dying. It is sustaining itself. While it isn’t a huge number, since 1980 and most since 1990, about 14 houses (including 3 manufactured homes) have been built in the Scottsville area. In addition to those houses, Scottsville has seen the new Food Lion building go up, the new Dollar General built and in 1982 the library was rebuilt after a lightning strike. This doesn’t include the apartments from the renovation of the Old Scottsville School. Again, not huge numbers, but population sustaining numbers.

Just some information to think about with these numbers. 

Respectfully,

S.