[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]









                 K I N G AND QUEEN COUNTY

		     COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
				1990










                                                           Adopted by.

                                            THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

                                                           Prepared by:
                                            THE PLANNING'COMMISSION
                                         The County of King and Queen, Virginin

                                                               and

                                                   THE COX COMPANY
                                            Planners * Engineers Landscape Architects
                                                     Charlottesville, Virginia


                                                                                        COASTAL ZONE
                                                                                  INFORMATION CENTER.




                                                             Adopted:
                                                        February, 1990


                                                                                                             VA W.P.











                K I N G AND QUEEN COUNTY
                COMPREHENSICE PLAN
				1990












                                                          Adopted by

                                           THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

                                                         Prepared by:
                                           THE PLANNING -COMMISSION
                                         THe County of King and gueen, Virginin

                                                              and

                                                  THE COX COMPANY
                                           Planners  ENgineers  Landscape Architects
                                                    Charlottesville, Virginia












                   This Plan was produced, inpart, through thefinancial support of the Council on the Environment
                   pursuant to the Costal Resources Program Grant Number 880713-00601800097from the National
                   Oceanic and Atrnospheric Administration.







          Comprehensive Plan 1990							King and Queen County






                                            Table of Contents





                                     Introduction  ..............................          I
                   Chapter I         Goals and Objectives   .....................       1-1
                   Chapter 2         Population and Demography       ..............     11-1
                   Chapter 3         Population Projections   ..................      III-1
                   Chapter 4         Land Use  ..............................          IV-1
                   Chapter 5         The Planning Process    ....................      V-1
                   Chapter 6         Future Land Use Recommendations        .......   VI-1
                   Chapter 7         Implementation    .......................        VII-1
                   Chapter 8         Preservation Area Criteria and Districts . . VIII- 1
                   Chapter 9         Appendix   .............................       IX-1






    1,   JA c@1MnDg@lh(yM@tw@ M&M nago                Mtms &M(:a ameem colmmv?










                               INTRODUCTION



























          lrna@ cm ca)MIP&MY








            Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                           Introduction



                                                INTRODUCTION


            The preparation of the County's second Comprehensive Plan represents a considerable
            challenge. As a place of unique agricultural and environmental significance, King and Queen
            County deserves special care in planning for a future which will preserve and enhance the
            qualities which have earned this significance. As with the 1979 Comprehensive Plan and
            subsequently adopted land development ordinances, the future success of growth management
            will not end with the adoption of this Plan, but will be predicated on how County leaders
            endeavor to meet the challenge of future land development pressures.

            Known as the "shoestring county", King and Queen was formed from New Kent County in 169 1.
            being named for William III and Mary of the English throne. The County is approximately
            forty five miles in length and averages a little over eight miles in width. Its present agrarian
            base evolved over the centuries, and today remains the focal point of the local economy.

            Due to the timing of the Plan Update. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act guidelines are only
            briefly mentioned. As the County and Planning District Commission develop and finalize
            Chesapeake Bay Preservation Programs they should be completely integrated into the
            Comprehensive Plan. We have, however, emphasized a sensitivity to King and Queen's natural
            environment. Great care has been taken to identify sensitive environmental areas, prime
            agricultural areas and other portions of the County which should be conserved for future
            generations. In the near future the County's zoning and subdivision ordinance will need to be
            revised in order to effect the Bay regulations and criteria. This should result in development
            regulations that more closely reflect the goals and policies of this Plan.

            This Comprehensive Plan has recognized that King and Queen is unique among Tidewater
            Virginia communities. Its strong agrarian and forestry economic base, for the most part, has
            escaped the ravages of uncontrolled suburbanization which has so adversely impacted the
            County's neighbors. Anticipating the growth demands of the 1990's, steps have been taken in
            this Plan and must be taken in future plans to provide for orderly growth with sensitivity to
            both the natural ecology and agrarian environments. In doing so, however, the County fathers
            should never lose sight of King and Queen's place in history and should always take
            appropriate steps to ensure that the County does not lose its special character.























            The.Cox Company                                                                introduction/ i











    1,   Ir
                          REM nooo                1 M129 ma gm@am com-ay?









                                       Chapter I
                . GOALS AND OBJECTIVES











                   6













          lrbl@ cem ogmpgmy?










               Comprehensive Plan 19W                                                           Introduction



                                                  INTRODUCTION


               The preparation of the County's second Comprehensive Plan represents a considerable
               challenge. As a place of unique agricultural and environmental significance, King and Queen
               County deserves special care in planning for a future which win preserve and enhance the
               qualities which have earned this significance. As with the 1979 Comprehensive Plan and
               subsequently adopted land development ordinances, the future success of growth management
               will not end with the adoption of this Plan, but will be predicated on how County leaders
               endeavor.to meet the challenge of future land development pressures.

               Known as the "shoestring county", King and Queen was formed from New Kent County in 169 1,
               being named for William III and Mary of the English throne. The County is approximately
               forty five miles in length and averages a little over eight miles in width. Its present agrarian
               base evolved over the centuries, and today remains the focal point of the local economy.

               Due to the timing of the Plan Update, The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act guidelines are only
               briefly mentioned. As the County and Planning District Commission develop and finalize
               Chesapeake Bay Preservation Programs they should be completely integrated into the
               Comprehensive Plan. We have, however, emphasized a sensitivity to King and Queen's natural
               environment. Great care has been taken to identify sensitive environmental areas, prime
               agricultural areas and other portions of the County which should be conserved for future
               generations. In the near future the County's zoning and subdivision ordinance will need to be
               revised in order to effect the Bay regulations and criteria. This should result in development
               regulations that more closely reflect the goals and policies of this Plan.

               This Comprehensive Plan has recognized that King and Queen is unique among Tidewater
               Virginia conununities. Its strong agrarian and forestry economic base, for the most part, has
               escaped the ravages of uncontrolled suburbanization which has so adversely impacted the
               County's neighbors. Anticipating the growth demands of the 1990's. steps have been taken in
               this Plan and must be taken in future plans to provide for orderly growth with sensitivity to
               both the natural ecology and agrarian environments. In doing so, however, the County fathers
               should never lose sight of King and Queen's place in history and should always take
               appropriate steps to ensure that the County does not lose its special character.
























               The Cox Company                                                                Introduction/ i







                 Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                 King and Queen County


                                              GoALs mD OEUECTrVES



                 Goals-Directed Planning Approach
                 The King and Queen County Comprehensive Plan is designed to be a guide for the physical
                 development of King and Queen County during the next 10 to 20 years. The overriding purpose
                 of the plan is to encourage the development of a safe, healthy. and distinctive living
                 environment while maintaining the unique and fragile natural environment of the County.
                 While preservation, conservation. economic development and housing issues are likely to be
                 the dominate underlying themes to be present       ed by local citizens, many other land use
                 considerations must be addressed. For example, the timing of development and the
                 appropriateness of local ordinances and land use designations are integral to the success of the
                 growth management process. Many factors will affect King and Queen County, and this plan
                 specifically focuses on those areas in which the County can have a positive impact.

                 An intelligent and comprehensible plan cannot be structured without taking into account the
                 locality's vision for its future. Therefore a future land use plan should be integrally tied to
                 preceding goals, objectives and planning policies. The initial step in the subject planning
                 process is to identify and clearly define future goals, to translate those goals into objectives by
                 which they would be realized, and to establish policies and strategies by which the goals can be
                 implemented for the betterment of the community of Interest. To formulate a set of goals and
                 objectives for King and Queen County, three major and distinct efforts should be undertaken in
                 order to ensure that the planning process proceeds in a rational manner and that adopted
                 future land use recommendations will be constructed on firm social, economic, moral and legal
                 underpinnings.

                 The initial effort in this regard is to undertake a thorough review and analysis of all previous
                 County plans and growth management documents. In doing so, past planning goals are
                 updated, refined and merged into the context of King and Queen County study requirements.
                 Secondly, the King and Queen County planning process should be designed to incorporate a
                 range of citizen input and participation opportunities which enabled all interested parties to
                 express their ideas, visions and expectations for the future of the County. Thirdly, the
                 Planning Commission must maintain a constant goals-oriented "vigil" during the development
                 of the master planning recommendations for King and Queen County. In doing so. they will be
                 able to maintain a high level of leadership and an objective focus as the many "nuts and bolts"
                 aspects of the Comprehensive Plan are being developed and as numerous land use alternatives
                 are evaluated. In particular instances the Commission may need to draw upon this set of goals
                 and objectives and apply rational and consistent planning criteria in testing land use
                 alternatives and/or implementation concepts. The result of this thorough, goals-directed
                 planning effort will yield a more consistent land use planning program and a more eMcient
                 framework for the.growth management program of King and Queen County.


                 Recommended Goals and Objectives
                 For the purpose of organizing this comprehensive planning effort, the County's range of goal
                 setting influence can be grouped into eight general categories: Comprehensive Plan,
                 Environment, 7@-ansportation, Housing, Land Use, Public Facilities, Economic Development
                 and Implementation. Within each of these particular topical areas, we have formulated the
                 following basic statements of possible goals and objectives. The central ideas contained in the
                 following list were drawn from the 1979 Comprehensive Plan. The Cox Company has
                 elaborated upon several of these goals and inteiJected some new ideas where weaknesses were
                 perceived. However, It is crucial to the success of this planning endeavor, that the County staff,
                 officials and citizens play the primary role in formulating the goals and objectives of the
                 Comprehensive Plan, which will shape the future of the County. This list is meant to serve
                 solely as a point of departure for the Planning Commission.




                 TheCozCampuV                                                          Goals and Objectives / 1- 1







                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                 King and Queen County


                L    COMRrehensive Plan - General

                          The adopted goals and objectives set the physical, social, economic and
                      cultural framework around which the King and queen County Comprehensive plan
                      is designed. The Comprehensive Plan shall be organized, designed and
                      Implemented so as to mang growth in the County In terms of (a) future land uses,
                      (b) scale and intensity of land uses, (c) timin and phasing of land uses, (d) timing
                      and phasing of support infrastructure, and (e) Promulgation of growth management
                      strategies which maintain and enhance the quality of life for current and future
                      residents.


                2.    Environment

                          Protect sensitive environmental areas and state waters within the County.

                          A.   Preserve rivers, stream valleys, established drainageways and wetlands. 7hese
                               should be preserved as both an ecological resource and a visual amenity and
                               made more accessible to the public for passive recreational activities.

                          a    Preserve topsoil and native vegetative cover and protect natural stream valleys
                               from pollution and siltation by establishing an erosion and sedimentation
                               control program and limiting development on steep slopes.

                          C.   Protect the County's water resources and the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay
                               from. degradation by:

                               1.  Determining the extent of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area
                                   within the jurisdiction using the criteria established by Chesapeake
                                   Bay Local Assistance Board and designate a Chesapeake Bay
                                   Preservation Area.
                               2.  Complying with the development regulations set by the Chesapeake
                                   Bay Local Assistance Board and incorporate them into the
                                   comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance,
                                   erosion and sediment control ordinance and building permit
                                   process.
                               3.- Following the criteria set forth by the Local Assistance Board,
                                   develop and implement a local program which shall encourage and
                                   promote the conservation of water resources, their protection from
                                   further pollution, the restoration of the high quality of state waters,
                                   the growth of aquatic life, and the reduction of present levels of
                                   aquatic pollution .
                               4.  Identifying and designating rivers eligible for State Scenic River
                                   designation.
                      ;
                          Define and implement growth management procedures which Incorporate both
                       esigii sensitivity and environmental protection criteria on a site-specific scale.

                          A. Identify environmentally sensitive areas for both existing areas of development
                               and undeveloped properties within the County.

                          B. Implement contemporary urban design and environmental design criteria into
                               the zoning. subdivision and erosion and sediment standards of the County.

                          Develop environmental design standards for new commercial land uses and
                      ;evelopment, incorporating contemporary techniques and current State and
                      Federal policies and practices.

                          A. Establish performance standards for stormwater management,
                               water quality and open space reservations as well as encourage recreation
                               areas with new private development.



                -nwCoxCampany                                                        G<x& and Objectives / 1- 2







                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                 King and Queen County


                           B. Set standards for corridor protection areas along existing and proposed
                               streets and highways by establishing Corridor Protection Districts.

                           TransRortation
                       ;
                           A transportation plan for the location, character and capacity of
                       ransportation facilities shall be compatible with the master-planned
                       arrangement of the Countys future land uses. This plan shall be coordinated with
                       the recommendations of the County-wide comprehensive plan and the Virginia
                       Department of Transportation planning efforts.

                           The transportation plan shall ensure road and street designs accomodate
                       ;lanned community development and promote traffic patterns which provide
                       service in a safe, fast and efficient manner within the County. The location, timing
                       and scheduling of these public improvements shall be coordinated with the'land
                       use plan!' for King and Queen County.

                       0 The County transportation plan shall establish and recommend the
                       reservation of the proper locations. allgnments and rights-of-way for future roads
                       and streets to ensure that these improvements can be implemented with the least
                       public cost.

                       A.  Identify and make recommendations to VDOT to correct any roads or highways that
                           present safety hazards.

                       B.  Coordinate future road alignments and improvements to existing roads with the
                           transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan for King and Queen County.

                       C.  Require all public and private land development proposals to incorporate the
                           recommendations of the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan,
                           including the reservation of future rights-of-way and the construction of related road
                           improvements .

                       D.  Tailor contemporary road and street design standards to the unique land use
                           .environment of King and Queen County. These standards shall be implemented via
                           the subdivision and site plan ordinances for the County and shall be in accord with
                           Virginia Department of Transportation criteria.

                       E.  Require that all private development proposals include traffic impact statements
                           which identify the nature of future traffic conditions and analyze the degree of traffic
                           generated by any given proposal. Traffic impact evaluations shall ensure
                           compatibility with the transportation plan for the County.

                       F.  Discourage private streets within single family developments. However, where
                           private streets are to be developed, they shall be built to public street standards and
                           shall be based on sound engineering design criteria.

                       G.  Establish and reserve properly planned access points to undeveloped properties.

                       H.  Develop and implement road and street design standards which are of appropriate
                           scale and capacity to serve long-range traffic demands, while respecting the
                           envirorunent and scale of surrounding neighborhoods.

                       I.  Cooperate with the Virginia Department of Transportation in creating desirable
                           design standards and controls for country roads.

                       J.  Set appropriate street signage standards for new development.

                       M   Recognize and encourage the protection of certain scenic or historical roadways by
                           identifying and designating them as State Scenic Byways within the County.


                ,MeC=C0n4WW                                                           Goals and Objectives / 1- 3








                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                               King and Queen County


                       I- Establish a system of County road names for all state and private roads.

                4.    Housing

                           Safe. sanitary. efficient and attractive housing shall be encouraged for all
                       citizens of the County. Housing and related land uses shall be developed in an
                       orderly fashion compatible with, and sensitive to, the Countys rural character.

                       A.  Encourage adequate levels of decent, safe and sanitary housing opportunities for all
                           ages and income groups while maintaining compatibility with other land use
                           planning goals and objectt@es.

                       B.  Establish minimum housing standards via the BOCA Code that include building
                           quality. lot size. parking and drainage requirements.

                       C.  Encourage well planned housing in "neighborhood" orientations that are compatible
                           with the scale of existing neighborhoods in King and Queen County.

                       D.  Encourage the rehabilitation of sub-standard housing and adopt an active housing
                           support program in this pursuit.

                       E.  Require the placement of manufacutured homes in designated parks or on standard
                           lots that meet the County subdivision ordinance.

                5.     Land Use
                       @
                           The Land Use Plan shall reflect the optimal land uses for King and queen
                         ounty at Its long-range, full development scenario. Decisions regarding future
                       land use must respect the Land Use Plan for the County. This plan represents the
                       graphic expression of the adopted goals, objectives and growth management
                       policies of for King and Queen County.

                           The Plan shall incorporate an integrated mix of residential, commercial, and
                       employment uses in the County which will provide adequate housing, shopping,
                       and employment opportunities for present and future residents and permit the
                       efficient delivery of services.

                       Agriculture

                       A.  Promote agriculture and forestry as the major land use and economic activity in the
                         . County.

                       B.  Preserve and further develop the cultural. social, economic, environmental and
                           aesthetic benefits of an ongoing agricultural industry and community.

                       C.  Designate in the Land Use Plan prime agricultural soil classincations and particular
                           areeas within the County are best suited for agriculture.

                       D.  Encourage farming practices that promote the conservation of agricultural resources
                           and avoid the pollution or degradation of surrounding areas.

                       E.  Promote land use and fiscal planning efforts through the Zoning and Subdivision
                           Ordinances and land use taxation, which help alleviate the land use and economic
                           pressures on agricultural land that may cause its premature conversion to
                           non- agricultural uses.

                       F.  Provide educational programs and technical assistance through government
                           agencies and research to facilitate long-term and improved agricultural and forestry
                           production




                 'Me CoK Corripany                                                  Goals and Objectives / 1- 4







               Comprehensive Plan IL990                                                King and Queen County


                      G.  Adopt planning and zoning standards and transition zones designed to reduce
                          potential conflicts arising from the proximity of agriculture to established or future
                          incompatible uses.

                      R   Discourage non-agriculturally related uses in those areas designated prime
                          agricultural land use areas in Land Use Plan.

                      Preservation

                          Create planning strategies to preserve and protect sites of historic and cultural
                          ortance and maintain the predominantly rural character of the County.

                      A.  Encourage private individuals to preserve historic landmarks and list them on
                          an official register

                      B.  Coordinate efforts to preserve historical landmarks using the Scenic Roads,
                          Scenic River and Scenic Byways programs.

                      C.  Enact, preservation measures to protect historic buildings and places where
                          consistent with the interests of the property owner and the community.

                      D.  Encourage only compatible development in areas surounding historic places or
                          buildings.

                      E.  Encourage the preservation of the rural character of important thoroughfares
                          and tourist corridors by the implementation of Corridor Protection Districts.

                      Land DevelQpmen

                      A.  Inventory and assess land development constraints and opportunities for all County
                          properties. Employ resource-based analysis and synthesis techniques which
                          organize unique landforms and homogenous geographical units into "planning
                          areas!' .

                      B.  Identify and establish land areas for future physical development which have both
                          (1) the strongest urban development potentials and (2) the physical attributes,
                          location and orientation capable of promulgating the existing rural and historic
                          character of King and gueen County.

                      C.  Implement land use procedures and initiatives which will stimulate future
                          development with "village" orientations compatible with the master land use plan
                          for the County.

                      D.  Reserve suitable areas for the development of "village" areas where residential,
                          commercial, office and service employment uses could be developed in a more dense
                          f4shion

                      E.  Encourage appropriate economic and commercial development within 'Village
                          Areas". which will provide tax revenues to balance the cost of providing -public
                          facilities for anticipated residential expansion.

                      F.  Using the Criteria Regulations of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act,. identify
                          environmentally sensitive land areas which should be conserved and/or protected
                          from future development.

                      G   Implement procedures which will result in the conservation of these critical areas
                          and State waters during private development activities.

                      H.  Channel intensive development away from critical environmental areas and
                          Chesapeake Bay Protection Areas by encouraging the clustering of land uses on
                          particular tracts in those areas with the highest development potentials. Sensitive

                MWCOXC=Parw                                                          Goals and Objectives / 1- 5







                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                   King and Queen County


                            areas which lie within tracts proposed for development should be maintained in
                            their natural state for passive and/or open space activities.

                        L   The implemention of future development, via zoning and subdivision regulations,
                            shall be "performance-oriented", with specific land uses and their intensities and
                            densities--being based on the Comprehensive Plan's methods and procedures for
                            determining the land carrying capacity and development suitabilities. Private
                            development applications shall include the preparation of land use suitability
                            assessments and environment analyses based on. the land uses presented in the
                            adopted King and Queen Comprehensive Plan.

                        Public Facilities and Services
                        L
                            The planning and programmin of all long-range public services, utilities and
                         cilities shall be consonant and compatible with the Land Use Plan for King and
                        Queen County, and these public improvements shall be Implemented in a way that
                        their scope and staging shall accommodate the strategies of the Comprehensive
                        Plan and be coordinated with each other and highway Improvements, when
                        possible.

                        A.  Plan and provide for an adequate level of utilities, facilities and public services
                            (including health care, fire protection and rescue. squad services) to all current and
                            future, residents within the County and, in so doing. recognize the interjurisdictionaI
                            and regional aspects of programming the future development and expansion of
                            certain facilities and services.

                        B.  The nature. scale, timing and implementation of all private development proposals
                            shall be subject to the provision of adequate and coordinated public facilities and
                            services. Private development proposals shall provide all necessary on-site and
                            off-site public facilities, utilities, infrastructure and recreational areas necessary to
                            accomodate both (1) the requirements of the given development, and (2) King and
                            Queen County comprehensive planning recommendations for adequate public
                            facilities within the general planning area.

                        Water &M

                            Assume a leadership role in advancing local and regional planning and
                        implementation programs for water supply sources to serve the long-range water
                        supply and fire protection requirements for the County. Place an emphasis on
                        adequate fire protection standards for new development within the County.

                            Identify possible locations for furure local water impoundments and initiate
                        water supply feasibility and engineering studies.

                        Solid- Waste Management

                            Assume a leadership role in advancing local and regional planning and
                        implementation programs for solid w te management.

                        0   Place priority on leading a program which identifies and meets the needs of
                        solid waste management in King and Queen County. Both the collection and
                        disposal of solid wastes should be addressed In this program.

                        0   Place priority, on identifying and selecting the most appropriate location for a
                        new sanitary solid waste landfill. The new landfill site should be located so as to
                        serve the entire County and provide sufficient capacity to accomodate the
                        long-range solid waste disposal requirements of King and Queen County. Because
                        of high development costs, opportunities for a large regional facility should be
                        explored as a means to ensure that the Countys long-term needs are met in the
                        most economical manner. Long-range plans for the adaptive reuse and
                        environmental conservation of the landfill after it is closed should be included.


                 11wCcmCmnpan3r                                                         Goals and Objectives / 1- 6







               Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                King and Queen County

                         Operating procedures for the new landfill site should be carefully established.
                       pportunities for joint-venture or public/private landfill operations should be
                     fully explored. Optimally. the County should excercise a substantial degree of
                     control over the operations of any new handfill-
                     @
                         Develop plans for the phasing out and closing of existing landfills in the
                       ounty. The County recognizes that these existing landfill are nearing their
                     design capacity and are inappropriate for expansion.

                         Sponsor programs. such as recycling and educational efforts, which address
                     the State's requirements for a reduction in the volume of solid wastes.

                         Work towards the implementation and expansion of 'box collection" within
                     rural areas. Opportunites for private collection services as a means to promote
                     more efficient , safe and economical waste collection should be investigated.

                         Adhere to recently adopted State requirements, which take effect July 1, 1992,
                        developing a solid waste management program.

                         Privately owned landfill . including debris landfill , should not be permitted.

                     Utilities

                     0 Initiate water and sewer feasibility studies. Coordinate the planning, timing
                     and routing of future water and sewer demands and system requirements with a
                     long-term capital Improvements program that responds to the future land use plan.

                         Establish provisions for adopting a Capital Improvements Plan process
                     ;hrough which the County can better provide for long range and costly physical
                     improvements.

                     0   Prepare regional and/or interjurisdictionally-supported plans, engineering
                     studies and implementation strategies for stormwater management to serve the
                     needs of the County.

                     Schoo

                     0   Improve educational opportunities for present and future residents within the
                     context of Improvements to the existing public school system and p'hysical plant.

                     Parks wW Recreatio

                     0   Plan for adequately sized parks and recreational areas as new residential
                     development occurs. Private development proposals shall include adequate space
                     and Improvements to serve the active recreational demands of each new
                     neighborhood.

                         Provide increased public access to waterfront areas.

               7.    Economic DevelQpment

                         Support the existing economic base in King and Queen County while exploring
                       ture compatible economic opportunities that can be supported by the Countys
                     natural financial and human resources to create expanded employment and
                     tax-revenues.

                     A. Encourage retail and service development in the "village" areas as the principal
                         means of expanding the local economic base.

                     B. Identify sites suitable for light industrial employment uses and reserve them for
                         well-controlled and staged economic expansion. Encourage future office and light

               'Ihe Cox Company                                                    Goals and Objectives / 1- 7








               Comprehensive Plan 1990                                              King and Queen County

                          industrial/technology-related land uses which are compatible with the surrounding
                          residential and agricultural areas

                      C.  Promote safe traffic and attractive development by establishing performance
                          standards for all economic development-related land uses, including site buffers,
                          landscaping and open space requirements.

                      D.  Promote recreation as an industry.

               a      Implementation
                      @
                          The King and Queen County Comprehensive Plan should be implemented via
                        rowth management tools such as the Land Use Plan, zoning ordinance, site plan
                              - bdivision ordinance and other environmental and design standards
                      which are to be Incorporated into this land use planning process.

                      A.  The basis for the character type, and timing of future land use and development
                          within King and Queen County and its planning areas is the adopted Land Use Plan.
                          This plan exhibits the graphic representation of the King and Queen County Plan and
                          is the physical expression of its adopted goals and objectives.

                      a   Decisions regarding the location, nature, type and intensity of future land
                          development shall be based on the adopted I-and Use Plan. This plan represents an
                          integrated expression of the measured land holding capacities, physiographic
                          potentials and optimal land uses for the County and its planning areas, at full
                          development.

                      C.  Amendments to the zoning of any properties within the County should be consistant
                          with the adopted Land Use Plan map. Deviations from the King and Queen County
                          Comprehensive Plan should require a revision and update of the Comprehensive
                          Plan and the Land Use Plan map prior to the consideration of any zoning
                          amendment by the County.

                      D.  The County shall work with all property ownership interests to encourage
                          compliance of their development proposals with the Comprehensive Plan.

                      E.  The County shall adopt new land use controls and growth management programs
                          including zoning, site plan and subdivision ordinances, facilities master plans,
                          erosion and sediment controls, environmental design standards, and urban design
                          standards, which are required to implement the Comprehensive Plan.

                          Implement the objectives, plans and strategies of the King and Queen County
                      @omprehensive Plan process through creative growth management techniques,
                      while stressing the principle of design and planning "accountabillty" within the
                      private development sector.

                      A.  Update and strengthen the existing zoning, subdivision, and site plan regulations
                          applicable to the County. These new County regulations shall govern and take
                          precedence over existing local zoning and subdivision controls.

                      B.  Apply existing land use enabling legislation to coordinate the design, timing
                          and funding of drainage and sewer systems within future development
                          areas of the County.

                      C.  Adopt improved environmental and hydraulic design standards and Best
                          Management Practices for future development within the County's watersheds and
                          other environmentally sensitive areas.

                      D.  Improve the level of site improvements, erosion and sediment controls and building
                          inspections.



               'IheCaxCmVwW                                                       Goals and Objectives / 1- 8







             Comprehensive Plan 1990                                         King and Queen county

                   E.  Support the formation of an Economic Development Authority, at
                       the appropriate 'future time, to orchestrate industrial and employment based
                       development activities in a manner compatible. with the objectives of the
                       King and Queen County Plan.

                   F.  Coordinate all King and    Queen County planning and land-use decision
                       making within the broader context of the County-wide comprehensive
                       planning goals and objectives for King and Queen County.

                   G.  The implemention of future development, via zoning and subdivision
                       regulations, shall be "perform anc e -oriented", with specific land uses,
                       intensities and densities based on the Comprehensive Plan's methods and
                       procedures for determining the land carrying capacity and development
                       suitabilities. Private development applications shall include the preparation
                       of land use suitability assessments and environment analyses based on the
                       land uses presented in the adopted Comprehensive Plan.

                   H.  Where previous and currently adopted local land use plans and growth
                       management controls are in conflict with the goals, objectives and strategies
                       of the Comprehensive Plan and implementation program for King and Queen
                       County, the Updated Comprehensive Plan should govern the local decision
                       making processes.






































             MeCaxCampany                                                  Goals and ObJectives 1- 9











    I
          c-gManDm1h(D=@'We M= now                           mms ml gm(B(Bm C&MMST









                                             Chapter 2
                                      POPULATION














                      4













          ,Tnm@ com c@)zmnD&MY,







                 Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                 King and Queen County




                                       POPUIATION CHARACTERISTICS


                 Although the 1980 Census data are now somewhat outdated. they do reflect the unique
                 demographic. social and economic.characteristics of the people who live within the County of
                 King and Queen. Particularly since the County appears to have accomodated only very
                 moderate growth, the 1980 Census is a fairly reliable source of data from which a profile of the
                 County's population can be drawn. Tables containing Census data are referenced below and are
                 found at the end of each chapter.

                 Age
                 The population of King and Queen County can be divided into age cohorts, each constituting an
                 age range of five years. Using cohorts one can more easily determine changes and trends in the
                 population in relation to particular age groups and their needs. The growth or decline of each-
                 cohort will affect demands on County facilities and services, particularly schools, and
                 determine the allocation land uses. As depicted in Table 1. the population of King and Queen is
                 not highly concentrated within any age groups, however its distribution among age cohorts
                 differs from the State of Virginia's population distribution, which is shown in Table 2.
                 Generally, within King and Queen County, there is a lower percentage of individuals between 15
                 and 44 years of age and a higher percentage of older individuals between the ages of 50 and 79.

                 This difference in population composition may be due to a number of factors, but it is likely
                 that younger residents are leaving the County for educational and employment reasons while
                 older individuals are migrating into the County. This is supported both by a lack of four year
                 colleges in close proximity that might draw college age residents into the County and by a
                 history of higher than average unemployment in the County. The slightly higher concentration
                 of aging residents is made up of long time residents who have chosen to remain in the region
                 and retirees who have moved into the area to take advantage of its proximity to the water,
                 reasonably priced land, low taxes and its unspoiled rural character. Nationally, there is a
                 population aging trend, and in King and Queen County this sector of the population has grown
                 steadily since 1960. At that time 19.6% of the population was over 55. In 1970, 22.9% of the
                 population fell into this catagory and in 1980 this percentage rose to 25.3% and is projected by
                 the State's Department- of Planning and Budget to be 27% in 1990 and 29.7% In the year 2000.

                 Distribution
                 King and Queen County is one of the most rural counties in the state. According to population
                 density, it was ranked 92 out of the 95 counties in Virginia. Using estimates of the population in
                 1987, there are approximately 20 people per square mile. Table 3 shows data from the 1980
                 Census, w1iich are the most recent figures that have been broken down by county subdivisions.
                 In that year the Beuna Vista district was the most populated at 2,49 1. The Newtown district was
                 slightly smaller at a population of 2,236, but it had shrunk slightly since 1970, while Beuna
                 Vista had grown by about 12%. Stevensville was the smallest at a population of 1,241 but it,
                 had grown almost 22% since 1970.

                 Racial Characteristics
                 The percentage of non-white residents of the County decreased from 51.6% to 46.7% between
                 1970 and 1980 as shown in Table 4. In Beuna Vista, this sector of the population increased from
                 31.8% to 39.6%, while the percentage decreased in Newtown and Stevensville. It is likely that
                 lack of employment within the County is the reason for this decline in racial composition.

                 Education
                 Following nationwide trends the population of King and Queen has increased its level of
                 educational attainment. Whereas in 1970, the median number of school years completed by

                 The Cox Company                                                              Population/ H- I







               Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                 King and Queen Ccnmty

               county residents over age 25 was 9.5. in 1980 it was 11.2.  Of this group 22.5% held high school
               degrees and 5.8 had completed 4 or more years of college in 1970. Table 5411ustrates that in1980
               these percentages had increased to 42.6 and 7.6%. respectively. Although the figures represent
               an advancement in educational efforts, King and Queen still lags significantly behind the State
               as a whole. As depicted in Table 7, the 1976-77 school year, the enrollment of County students
               in schools within the County has dropped 28% from 1,312 students to 943. Until the 1990
               Census data are published, it will be difficult to determine whether this decrease is a result of
               changes in the composition of the population or due to increased enrollment in schools outside
               the County. Likewise, the pupil-teacher ratio has dropped from 15.8 to 12.2. Enrollment in
               most occupational preparation programs has increased slightly. The most notable increase
               was in Business Education and Health Occupations, a program that was not in e2dstence at the
               time of the 1979 Plan. Table 9, which was provided by the County's Board of Education, projects
               future needs within the County for Vocational Education programs.

               Resident Commuting Patterns
               An analysis of commuting patterns within the area clearly points to the fact that King and
               Queeh is not remotely qualified as an employment center. As illustrated in Table 10, only 673
               of the 2,374 workers residing in King and Queen County actually work at a place of employment
               with ,in King and Queen, the remaining 1,394 work somewhere outside the County. Over 300
               workers did not report their place of work. Richmond and King William county are the largest
               providers of employment opportunities supplying jobs for 45.4% of the workers leaving King
               and Queen. Three other jurisdictions in the region supply King and Queen with 205 workers .

               Applicable Reference Tables
               Table 1 - Age Cohorts, King and Queen County, 1980
               Table 2 - Age Cohorts, State of Virginia, 1980
               Table 3 - Population Distribution by Magisterial District. King and Queen County, 1980
               Table 4 - Racial Characteristics, King and Queen County, 1980
               Table 5 - Educational Attainment, King and Queen County, 1980
               Table 6 - School Enrollments, King and Queen County, 1989-1990
               Table 7 - Public School Enrollments, King and Queen County, 1976-1989
               Table 8 - Enrollment in Occupational Preparation Programs, King and Queen County, 1989 - 90
               Table 9 - ExLsting and Projected Vocational Education Needs, King and Queen County, 1989-90
               Table 10 - Commuting Patterns, King and Queen County, 1980

























               The Cox Company                                                             Population/ Il- 2






             Comprehensive Plan 1990                                           King and Queen County












                                                      TABLE I
                                                   AGE COHORTS
                                           KING AND QUEEN COUNTY, 1980


                 0-4
                                                                                   7.3%
                 5-9
               1
                  14                          M;                               6.9%
               0:  1.9                                                                 7.8%
               15
               20 :24                                                                         8.6%
               25 29                                                                  7.7%
       C       30-34                                                                     8.1%
       0       35-39                                                          6.7%
       h       40-44                                             -    5.8%
       0                                                     4.7%
       r       45-49                                           4.9%
       t       50-54                                                    6.0%
       S           9                                                    6.0%
               :50::4
               65-69 t" Ma                         M.                5.5%
               70-74                                                 5.5%
               75-79                       2.5%
               80-84
            Over 85


                   0.0%    1.0%     2.0%    3.0%    4.0%     s.0%    6.0%    7.0%
                                                                                      8.0%    9.0%
                                                 Percent Of Population


                   Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

















               The Cox Company                                                      Population/ Il- 3







              Comprehensive Plan 1990                                          King and Queen county










                                                     TABLE 2
                                                  AGE COHORTS
                                             STATE OF VIRGEU& 1980




                0-4                                                    6.7%
                5  9                                                       7.2%
              10-4                                                                8.1%
              .15-19                                                                        '9.5%
      C       20-24                                                                            9.9%
              25-29
      0                                                                                  8.9%
      h       30-34                                                                 8.4%    -
      0       35-39                                                     6.8%
      r       40-44                                            5.6%
      t       45-49                         .. .. .......... ...... .. .5.1 %
      s       50-54                                         5.1%
              :5 - g                                   - M5.0%
                0-:4                                4.1%
              65-69.                           3.4%
              70-74                     2.5%
              75-79               1.7%
              80-84          1.0%
            Over 85         0.8%


                   0-0% 1.0%      2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% g.o% 10.0%

                                              Percent of Population



                     SOurCe: U.S. Bureau of the Census





















              The Cox Company                                                      Population/ 11-4






                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                      lUng and Queen County







                                                                TABLE 3
                                   POPULATION DISTRIBUTION. BY MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
                                               KING AND QUEEN COUNTY, 1940-1980




                             District               1940          1950          1960           1970          1980



                          Buena Vista               2,195         2,289         2,272          2,229         2,491
                        Percent Change                 -          4.3%          -0.7%          -1.9%         11.8%

                            Newtown                 2.803         2,478         2.366.         2,249         2,236
                        Percent Change                 -          -11.6%        -4.5%          -4.9%         -0.6%

                           Stevensville             1,956         1,532         1,251          1,013         1,241
                        Percent Change                 -          -21.7%       -18.3%        -19.0%          22.5%


                   Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census:









                                                                  TABLE 4
                                                      RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS
                                                    KING AND QUEEN COUNTY, 1980





                                District                       Percent White               Percent Nonwhite


                            BuenaVista                              60.4%                        39.6%
                           Newtown                                .46.6%                         53.4%
                            Stevensville                            51.0%                        49.0%
                           Camt3r                                   53.3%                        46.7%




                     Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1980.









               The Cox Company                                                                   Population/ H- 5







               Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                          Xlng and Queen County


                                                       TABLE 5
                                          EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
                                         E3WG AND QUEXN COUNTY, 1980


                                                                      Persons 25 Years and Older
                                                         Male               Female                Total


               Median School Years Completed
                     King and Queen County                                                        11.2%
                     State                                 -                   -                  12.4%

               Completed 4 Years of High School
                     Yung and Queen County                478                 545                 1023
                     Percent of Group                    26.2%              29.4%                 27.8%

               Percent High School Graduates
                     King and Queen County               39.0%              46.1%                 .42.6
                     State                               62.8%               62.1%                62.4%

               Completed 4 Years of College
                     King and Queen County                 61                 115                 176
                     Percent of Group                    3.3%                6.2%                 4.8%

                     State                                                                        19.1%



               Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980.



                                                         TABLE 6
                                            SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS (a)
                                      KING ANDQUEEN COUNTY, 1989-1990


                                                                                           Percent of Total
                               School                                 Enrollments            Enrollments



               Public Schools                                               854                   94.7%

                  King and Queen Central High School                        280                   31.0%
                  King and Queen Elementary School                          273                   30.3%
                  Lawson-Marriott Elementary School                         301                   33.4%

               Private Schools                                              48                    5.3%

                   York Academy                                             48       -5.3%
                                                                            902                 100.0%


               (a) County students in schools within County only.
               Source: King and Queen County Board of Education





                The Cox Company                                                                      Population/ 11- 6








                Comprehensive Plan 199o                                                       King and Queen County



                                                                 TAEZE7
                                                       PLMM SC11OCLEN1R0L1Z4ffNM
                                                   Kw-ANDQuEENcaEwy. im-mq


                                                    Number of             Annual        Number of Pupil-Teacher
                          Year Beginning       Enrolled Students          Change         Teachers          Ratio (a)

                                 1976                  1,138               -3.5%             72                15.8
                                 1977                  1,060               -6.9%             75                14.1
                                 1978                  1,068               0.8%              76                14.1
                                 1979                  996                 -6.7%             73                13.6
                                 1980                  988                 -0.8%             72                13.7
                                 1981                  986                 -0.2%             72                13.7
                                 1082                  1,004               1.8%              72                13.9
                                 198.S                 981                 -2.3%             72                13.6
                                 1984                  976                 -0.5%             72                13.6
                                 1985                  944                 -3.3%             73                12.9
                                 1986                  916                 -3.0%             74                12.4
                                 1987                  90                  -1.0%             74                12.3
                                 1988                  853                 -6.0%             72                11.9
                                 1989                  @854                0.1%              70                12.2



                        (a) Average number of pupils per classroom teaching position.
                        Source: King and Queen County Board of Education




                                                            TABLE 8
                               ENROLI,MENT IN OCCUPATIONAL PREPARATION PROGRAMS
                                            IONG AND QUEEN COUNTY, 1989- 1990



                                                   Grade       Grade       Grade          Total
               Course                                 10         11          12      Enrollment         Graduates



               Agricultural Education                 17         11          4              32               4
               Business Ed@cation                     20         34          46           100                49
               Occupational Home Economi(             1          5           3              .9               3
               Distributive Education                 --         -
               Trade & Industrial Education           14         4           4              22               4
               Disadvantaged Programs                 5          1           3              9                3
               Handicapped (ENIRs) in
                   Special programs                   1          4           0              5                0
               Health Occupations                     8          6           9              23               24



               Source: King and Queen County Board of Education




                The Cox Company                                                                    Population/ rl- 7







                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                  King and Queen County






                                                            TABLE 9
                               EXISTING AND PROJECTED VOCATIONAL EDUCATION NEEDS
                                            KING AND QUEEN COUNTY, 1989-1990



                                                  1989            Estimated 1990        Estimated 1991
                                              Number    Percent    Number Percent        Number Percent

               I. High School Graduates

                   Total Graduates                  54     100%          43     100%           42       100%

                   College-Bound                    16      30%          14      32%           is        36%

                   Non-College Bound                38      70%          29                    27        64%

                   Non-College Bound Lacking
                    Marketable Skill (a)              6     11%            0       0%            0        0%

               H. Additional Students Needing Vocational Education

                   Total Enrolled in VE
                    Programs                       176                   200                  200

                   Early School Leavers Not
                    Enrolled in VE Prograrr         13                   11                    11

                   Disadvantaged Not Enrolled
                    in VE Program (b)                 3                    5                     2

                   Handicapped (ENM Not
                    Enrolled in VE Progran            0                    0                     0

               Total Needing VE Programs           192     100%          216     100%         213       100%

               Total Not Receiving VE               16       8%          16        7%          13         6%



               (a) Graduates who did not complete an occupational preparation program in VE
               (b) Students with academic or economic disadvantages requiring special services.
               (c) Students mentally retared, hard of hearing, spech impaired, visually handicaped.
                    seriously disturbed emotionally, crippled, or otherwise requiring special VE program

               Source: King and Queen County Board of Education










                The Cox Company                                                              Population/ 11- 8






              Comprehensive Plan IL990                                             King and Queen County







                                                   TABLE 10
                                           COBDO[UTING PATTERNS
                                       EING AND QUEEN COUNTY, 1980



                     Total Residents Reporting A Place To Work                    2,374
                     Total Employed Within the County                              673
                     Total Commuting into the County                               205
                     Total Commuting out of the County                            1,394

                     Location of Employment of Employed County Residents

                     King and Queen County                                         673
                     Richmond                                                      379
                     King William County                                           376
                     Essex County                                                  114
                     Middlesex                                                      94
                     Williamsburg City                                              89
                     Caroline County                                                82
                     Henrico                                                        55
                     Hanover                                                        37
                     Glouchester                                                    22
                     New Kent                                                       17
                     Mathews                                                        15
                     James City                                                     12
                     Hopwell SMSA                                                   10
                     Worked elsewhere                                               92
                     Not reported                                                  307

                     Location of Residence of Workers Employed in County

                     King and Queen County                                         673
                     Essex County                                                  118
                     King William                                                   75
                     Middlesex                                                      12



                     Source: Transportation and Commuting in Virginia, 1980, Tayloe Murphy
                            Institute. The University of Virginia.












               The Cox Company                                                         Population/ ]1- 9







                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                  King and Queen county



                                                      HoUSEHOLDS


                A household, according to the U.S. Census definition, includes all persons who occupy any
                given housing unit. A housing unit is a group of rooms or a single room which is occupied as a
                separate living quarters. Within a housing unit, there must also be either direct access from
                outside the building or from a common hall or* complete kitchen facilities must be available for
                the exclusive use of the members of the household. A single family detached home, a townhouse
                unit, an apartment and a condominium are all considered single housing units. From the
                Census Bureau's perspective, all persons not members of households live in either: (1) group
                quarters, such as dormitories, barracks. and rooming houses; or (2) institutions, including
                hospitals, asylums and jails. In King and Queen County, none of the population was reported
                to live in group quarters or institutions. The households of an area are most critical in
                analyzing the County and regional housing market. The housing requirements of existing and
                future residents depend largely on the size, composition and income of households. For
                example, two bedroom detached units may appeal to retired elderly, singles, and students, but
                not to fa:milies with school-aged children. Household or family income will determine the typ    e
                and cost of housing that County residents can afford.

                Household Size and Composition
                The average size of households in King and Queen was 2.9 in 1980. This number was obtained
                by comparing the population with the total number of year-round, occupied housing units.
                Seasonal housing units were not included. In a recent study conducted by the Middle Peninsula
                Planning District Commission, however, It was estimated that the average household size
                within the planning district has decreased from 2.8 in 1980 to 2.5 persons per household in
                1987. This regional pattern may indicate similar changes taking place within the County. The
                small size of the average household in the County is probably a reflection of the higher
                precentage of individuals older than 50 years of age. many of whom no longer have children
                living with them. If population trends continue, and the older section of the'population
                continues to grow, average household size could continue to decrease.

                The vast majority of households in King and Queen are "family" households. A "family" is
                defined by the U. S. Census as a household in which two or more related individuals live
                together. Over 80% of the households in the County fall into this catagory. No households were
                reported in group or institutional quarters.


                Income
                For purposes of detenning income levels within the County, Adjusted Gross Income, as defined
                by the Center for Public Service in Virginia, was examined. In most cases, this income level
                controls the level of retail spending patterns as well as the type and quality of housing County
                residents can afford. Tables 11 and 12 break down Adjusted Gross Incomes into several
                earning bnackets to illustrate the distribution of different income levels or "AGI Classes" in the
                County and State. Notably, 54% of returns in King and Queen fall below $15.000. Table 13
                illustrates that the median AGI in King and Queen. $13,498, falls significantly below that of the
                state ($18,627) with a difference of $5.129. It even falls well below the Planning District's
                median AGI of $16,804. Another measurement that was used to examine income, is Adjusted
                Gross Income Per Exemption, exemptions being the number of dependents claimed on tax
                returns. AGI per exemption is very similar to a per capita income measurement except that the
                divisor contains only the population with adjusted gross income and their dependents, rather
                than the total population. The AGI per exemption for the County, the Middle Peninsula
                Planning District and the State are shown in Table 14 and compared graphically in Table 15.

                Applicable Tables
                Table 11 - Adjusted Gross Income on All Returns, King and Queen County, 1986
                Table 12 - Adjusted Gross Income on All Returns, State of Virginia, 1986
                Table 13 - Median AGI Per Return and Distribution of AGI Classes, County and State. 1986
                Table 14 - Adjusted Gross Income Per Exempetion, King and Queen County. 1986
                Table 15 - Bar Chart of AGIs for King and Queen County and Virginia, 1986

                The Cox Company                                                               Population/ H- 10







                 ComPrehensive Plan 19W                                                         King and Queen county





                                                                       TABLE 11
                                                  ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME ON ALL RETURNS
                                                         KCNG AND QUEEN COUNTY, IL986



                 More than 75K

                    50K to 74.9K

                 A  40K to 49.9K
                 G  30K to 39.9K
                 I
                    25K to 29,9
                 C
                 I  20K to 24.9:
                 a  15K to 19 9K
                 s
                 s  10K to 14.9K

                      5K to 9 .9K

                    Less than 5K


                                                                   10               15               20               25
                                                                  Percent of All Returns


                                   Source: 1986 Virginia AGI, Center for public Service. University of ViTgftlia




                                                                       TABLE 12
                                                  ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME ON ALL RETURNS
                                                              STATE OF VIRGINIA,1986



                  More than 75K

                    50K to 74,9
                 A  40K to 49.9:
                    30K to 39.9K
                 I
                 C  25K to 29.9K
                 I  20K to 24.9K
                 a
                 s  15K to 19-9K
                 S  10K to 14

                       5K to 9.9

                    Less than 5F,
                                   0               5                10              15               2 0              @5
                                                                  Percent of All Returns


                                   Source: 1  986 Virginia AGI. Center for Public service, University of Virginia



                 The Cox Company                                                                      Population/ H- ii














     0                                                                                         TABLE 13
                                                                      ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME ON ALL RETURNS
                                                                               KING AND QUEEN COUNTY, 1986
     0
     5                                                                                                                                                                                                9



                                                               AGI                                 Percentage Distribution Of Returns By AGI Class ($000) (b)
                                                      -------------------------      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Median           Less         5         10.0       15.0    ' 20.0     '25.0     30.0      40.0      50.0    75.0
                                        Number of         Total          Per           Than        TO         To         TO         TO       To       TO        TO       TO        or
                                       Returns (a)         (000)       Return           5.0        9.9        14.9       19.9       24.9     29.9     39.9      49.9     74.9     More


                 County                        2,538         47,388     13,498          17.3       21.1       16.4       9.5        8.5      6.9      9.7       5.8      3.7       0.9
                 Planning District            27,397       630,034      IR804           16.0       16.6       13.7       10.2       9.0      8.0      12.0      6.9      5.5       2.0
                 Virginia                 2,363,226    65,286,814       18,627          14.6       14.7       13.0       10.6       8.7      7.6      11.4      7.4      8.1       4.0



                   (a) Number of returns adjusted by counting two married separate returns as equival                ent to one married joint or combined retum.
                  (b) Details may not add to 100.0 due to rounding.


                 Source: Center for Public Service, University of Virginia, 1986 Virginia AGI.











     0





     W















                         Chapter 3
            POPULATION PROJECTIONS



























      Una@ CQZ ommlPffimy?








                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                               King and Queen County



                                          POPUIATION PROJECTIONS



                Methodology
                The main purpose of providing population projections in conjunction with the Plan Update is
                to establish a growth benchmark against which land use decisions regarding the type, mix,
                character and quantity of real estate products and public services may be tested. Thus, from a
                comprehensive planning standpoint, it is an exercise in modelling demographic demand and
                real estate supply. This study focuses on those relationships for a defined planning period
                which extends from 1989 to 2030.

                Population forecasting, at best, is an "educated guess", particularly in a rural environmental
                such as King and Queen. The track record of demographic forecasts and long-range planning
                "prognostications" which have accompanied comprehensive plans in Virginia has been
                abysmal. "Population booms" in rural areas, for instance, rarely have been accurately
                predicted and statistically identified in advance by professional demographers. For this
                reason, population forecasts developed in conjunction with the County's 1989 Comprehensive
                Plan Update should be employed only in the context of establishing a generalized analytical
                framework for the allocation of future land uses. These projections are not to be considered
                absolutes, but. rather, several demographic "targets" upon which the County's land holding
                capacities may be modeled.

                The future number of citizens who reside within the County of King and Queen will be impacted
                not only by its own growth policies and ordinances, but, by those of surrounding counties and
                the metropolitan areas surrounding Richmond and Norfolk. Thus, our approach to population
                forecasting will focus on the King and Queen County, as well as the other counties in the Middle
                Peninsula Planning District. The Counties of Essex, Gloucester, King William, Mathews,
                Middlesex and King and Queen are linked by their historical past, their location near the
                Chesapeake Bay and their economic reliance on agriculture, forestry and more recently
                tourism. They will constitute the "region of demographic influence" subject to this study.

                Regional Demography
                The 1980 Census provided the most recent actual count of resident population and demographic
                composition within the County. The six county region had an estimated 1980 population of
                59,987 persons. The County comprised 5,968 of that total or 9.90/0. It has been estimated by the
                Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia, that in 1987 the population of the
                Planning District and the County were 72,300 and 6,300 respectively, representing an annual
                rate of growth of 1.9% for the District and 0.8% for the County during that period ( Table 28).
                ,During thes=6 span of time the State of Virginia grew at an estimated annual rate of 1.4. In
                other words, growth trends in the six county "region of demographic influence". exceed the
                State's annual rate by 33%. Although the population growth figures for the Planning District
                are skewed somewhat by rapid growth in Gloucester County, which grew at a rate of 5.60/0
                annually and was the fastest growing locality in the State, they do reinforce a general
                demographic movement towards the Tidewater during the decade of the Eighties.

                Population growth 'is the result of either natural increase or net in-migration, or both. A
                natural increase is simply the difference between the number of births and deaths occurring in
                an area. Net -migration is the difference btween the number of persons moving in and moving
                out. Either mechanism can have a positive or negative value. Table 29 contains estimates from
                the Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia which show that between 1980 and
                1986, 75% of King and Queen County's growth (300 of 400 persons) was accounted for by net
                migration, while it created only about 50% of population change through out the State as a
                whole.



                The Cox Company                                                 Population Projections/ M- I







                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                 Mng and Queen County


                The Virginia Department of Planning and Budget has projected the COMMonweath's population
                on. a regional and statewide basis. Between the years 1987and 2000, the State's demographers
                project that the region's population will increase by 14,500 persons, to reach a level of 86,800 by
                the end of the Century. The State has also developed specific forecasts for each locality within
                the defined region. Table 30 through Table 34 below, outline the State's projections of
                population growth in ten-year increments for the individual counties and the region.

                There are certain qualifying factors which relate to the veracity of any localized growth
                projection. In general, they are usually more accurate when viewed for an entire region. The
                State forecasting models are not so finely tuned as to allow precise focus on the unique and
                varying factors which might affect the future development trends in any given jurisdiction.
                Thus, for the purposes of the 1989 Plan Update, we have employed a "regional share" approach
                in analyzing future population trends within the County. One must recognize that although the
                region might attempt to foster a unified approach to managing growth, development win occur
                neither uniformly nor in readily predictable paths within any of the six Middle Peninsula
                jurisdictions due to the varying availability of land priced to the market and serviced by
                adequate community facilities (water, sewer, roads, schools, police and fire protection). The
                County's allocation. of its projected regional growth "share" becomes even more difficult to
                accurately forecast due to (a) the lack of public water and sewer in the County and (b) the large
                percentage of agricultural and vacant lands currently held for farming and forestry uses,
                thereby limiting the availability (supply) of properly zoned land for residential development
                purposes.

                Thus, the Consultant's methodology to developing population projections for the
                Comprehensive Plan Update has been to distribute the regional growth demands (as modelled
                by the State's Department of Planning and Budget) using a range of potential regional
                population "capture" rates. In other words, the "capture" rates represent the percentage of
                regional population growth that will actually be housed within King and Queen's County limits.
                In determining this population growth "capture" increment, the following factors are involved:
                (1) the most probable number of people who wish to live within the County's rural environs (as
                compared to dwellers seeking more suburban locations in which to live "on the fringes" of their
                employment locations, (2) the environmental and physiographic limitations of the County's
                vacant and underutilized tracts to absorb growth, and (3) the long-term development objectives
                of large privately-held tracts in King and Queen.

                County Projections
                As prevously mentioned, these projections are not an absolute, rather, they represent a distant
                "target" of what may occur as well as the accompanying challenge to respond to most probable
                growth impacts: The County, through its planning implementation tools (zoning, subdivision
                standards, site plan requirements, utilities, road alignments, official map, and Chesapeake
                Bay Area Program, etc.) can shape the amount, the type, the quality, the placement and, to some
                degree. the timing of growth within its boundaries. It is the purpose of the 1988 Plan Update to
                employ these projections to orchestrate and serve the most efficient allocation of land uses, not
                to fix future land uses and household expansion in absolute terms.

                We have projected possible population scenarios using two methods. The first. illustrated in
                Table 35 and Table 36, is tied to projections by the Center for Public Service for Middle
                Peninsula regional growth. These projections are comparatively accurate because they are
                calculated for a fairly broad region. The State's population projections for the County, which
                are based on an average of 4.4% of the region's total growth, have been used for the "low end" of
                the 1987-2030 growth projections as shown in the following tables. In these projections
                regional population growth was held steady at 11,300 persons for each decade up to the year
                2030, accordingly, King and Queen County is projected to grow by 500 persons every decade. We
                have also tested a 6.0% capture rate as another "low end" growth rate for the forty year
                projection period. A different set of regional "capture" rates have been used to compute the
                "intermediate" and "high end" of the range. These projections rest on the assumption that King

                The Cox Company                                                   Population Projections/ M- 2







                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                King and Queen County


                and Queen may attract a greater percentage of regional growth than in the past. as more people
                decide to live in a rural environment and as the suburban fringe of Richmond continues to
                extend outward. A uniform "regional capture" of 8.OOA is employed for the 1987-2030
                intermediate level projections. When applied to the State's growth pmJection for the region.
                this percentage yields a County population growth increment of 3,872 persons for the period
                1987-2030.

                The "high range" regional capture increment of 10% provides an illustration of the impact
                which might result from a more exponential or uncontrolled "population boom!' in King and
                Queen. While we do not prescribe to the "high end' estimates. it is important to acknowledge
                their statistical aspects, given the fact that similar growth increments have been experienced
                in localities elsewhere in the Tidewater and Richmond regions. We believe that the
                "intermediate range" provides a more sound, conservative figure to use in developing the
                Comprehensive Plan's land use assignments and community facility demands and
                infrastructure support requirements. Table 37 translates population projections into
                household units, using an average household size of 2.5 persons. Household numbers are used
                moie often to calculate future residential land area requirements.

                The second methodology used to project population growth was based on different annual
                growth rates within the County. Projections by the Center for Public Service translate into an
                average annual growth rate of 0.65%. a figure which is lower than the 0.8% rate of growth
                experienced within the County from 1980 to 1987. Since the region as a whole is growing more
                rapidly than the state it is reasonable to predict that the rate of growth within the county could
                equal and possibly exceed the rate of growth of the State as a whole. Again, numbers
                representing, a low (1.0%). intermediate (1.5%) and and high (2.0%) rate of growth were used to
                show the long range effects of different rates of growth on the County's population. Tables 37
                and 38 illustrate that at a 2.0% annual rate of growth the population within the County would
                be 14 '762 in 2030, whereas the Center for Public Service's projection, based on an average
                annual growth rate of .65% would create a much smaller population of 8,700. These
                manipulations demonstrate that over a relatively long period of time, a fairly small increase
                in the rate of growth can have an enormous Impact.

                Residential Land Area Demands
                A major study objective of the 1989 Plan Update is to identify and reserve adequate areas for
                future development of appropriate residential housing products. For the County of King and
                Queen to reach its projected Year 2000 population of 7,170 to 8,150 persons, a range of new
                housing products of varying size, density and pricingwill likely be accommodated within the
                County limits. The vast majority of these housing units will be built upon currently vacant
                property.

                For planning purposes, it is important to project a future average County household size (the
                number of p- ersons living in a housing uniO In order to forecast the number and type of housing
                units that may be required to shelter an additional 870 to 1850 residents. in the year 2000. The
                1980 Census revealed that the average County household contained 2.9 persons. However in the
                Comprehensive Water Qualily Management Plan for the Middle Peninsula written by the
                Middle Peninsula Planning District Commision in 1989, it was determined that the average
                household size had decreased to aproximately 2.5 persons per household in 1987. While this
                figure Is relatively low. it reinforces the emerging County trend towards an increasing
                proportion of "empty-nester" and "retirement" household formations. Thus, using an average
                household size of 2.5 persons. 348 to 740 new King and Queen County households could be
                formed by the year 2000 and 300 to 714 more could be created by the year 2010.

                The amount of land that will be required to accomodate new housing units created between
                1990 and 2000, will be a function of the density of residential development that is allowed for
                differing housing products within the County. For example, one may distribute the projected
                increase in households for the year 2000 (348 to 740) in a manner that Is based on past and

                The Cox Company                                                   Population Projections/ M- 3







                Comprehensive Plan IL990                                               King and Queen County


                present trends in zoning and land use. Currently, several rural residential districts exist in the
                County. The Village Residential (M district and the Residential district allow lots as small as
                40,000 square feet (.92 acres) where there is no central water and sewer. The Low Density Rural
                district allows minimum lot sizes of 2 acres if they front on State maintained roads and five
                acre minimum lot sizes fronting on other than State maintained roads. Future development,
                caused by the growth of the County's population, may be allocated to the different districts in
                any number of ways. For example. by assuming that half the new households will locate in the
                zones requiring lots of 40,000 square feet and half will locate in zones requiring 5 acre lots,
                from 500 to aproximately 1000 acres would be needed for this residential growth. Calculations
                add in a factor for required right of ways. In more densely populated districts this factor is .3,
                while in very large lot districts it might be reduced to .2 or   1. Table 39 shows calculations,
                which use a variety of possible allocations into both existing and prospective density zones.

                By using the development densities such as these, that currently exist through the County
                zoning ordinance and by testing other densities that could be created through the planning
                process, one can create clearer visions of how future residential growth in the County might be
                accomodated and how it could drastically chanie the historic character of King and Queen
                County. If contained in dense residential zones, future residential growth could be fairly
                compact and most of the County's land could be preserved for its traditional use. On the other
                hand, if it is allowed to sprawl, valuable farm land. open space and scenic roadways will be
                destroyed. These calculations can be used to help the County to determine future land use
                requirements in existing and future districts, which may be designed to address
                environmentally sensitive areas and agricultural and forestry preservation areas.

                The demand for housing types is also influenced by other factors, including the size of the
                household, household composition and household income. In adhering to County housing
                goals, the Plan's residential land use designations should allow enough flexibility to provide
                housing opportunities for persons of all economic backgrounds, in particular persons who are
                employed within the County proper. Since the Comprehensive Plan's housing policy
                establishes that all types of housing should be accomodated, the planning process should strive
                to reserve adequate and sufficient residential land areas for housing orientations satisfying
                the full range of potential development densities. At the same time, the County does not
                provide public water and sewer. Until public utilities are provided, the County must also factor
                into its minimum lot sizes the land area requirements for primary and back-up septic fields
                and wells. This will limit the County's ability to truly concentrate new residential growth.

                The County must always consider very long range growth. While the next decade is the focus of
                this plan, growth will also occur in the following decades. Although the County may not
                immediatly zone for land area requirements that will not be present until 2030, expansion
                potential should be considered in the creation and placement of any new zoning districts.

                Applicable ,Tables
                Table 26 - Historical Growth, King and Queen County 1940-1980
                TAble 27 - Historical Growth, King and Queen County and Region, 1970-1980
                Table 28 - Estimated Growth, King and Queen county and Region, 1980-87
                Table 29 - Components of Change, King and Queen County and Region, 1980-1986
                Table 30 - Projected Growth: 1980-1990, King and Queen County
                Table 31 - Projected Growth: 1990-2000, King and Queen County
                Table 32 - Projected Growth: 2000-2010. King and Queen County
                Table 33 - Projected Growth: 2010-2020, King and Queen County
                Table 34 - Projected Growth: 2020-2030, King and Queen County
                Table 35 - Projections by Percent of Projected Regional Growth, King and Queen County
                Table. 36 - Household Projections By Percent of Regional Growth, King and Queen County
                Table 37 - Population Projections By Annual Growth Rate, King and Queen County
                Table 38 - Household Projections By Annual Growth Rate. King and Queen County
                Table 39 - Future Land Use Requirement Alternatives

                The Cox Company                                                   Population Projections/ M- 4











                                                                     TABLE 26
                                                               HISTORICAL GROWTH                                                                    0
                                                                                                                                                    0
                                                       JUNG AND QUEEN COUNTY, 1940-1980                                                             1


                                                           1940         19@0         1960         1970         1980


                              King and Queen County        6.954       6,299        5,889        5,491        5,968

                              Percent Decade Change                    -9.4%        -6.5%        -6.8%         8.7%


                              Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census: Virginia Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, 1976, 1980.


                                                                  TAEOLE27
                                                             HISTORICALGROWTH
                                                     IMG AND QUEEN COUNTY, 1970-1980


                                                           1970        1970-1980 1970-1980                       1980       Annual
                  Jurisdiction                 1970     Population:     Growth       Growth:       1980      Population:    Growth
                                           Population   % of Region    Increment % of Region Population      % of Region      Rate

                  Essex County                 7,099       14.9%          1,765        14.3%       8,864         14.8%        2.2%

    0             Gloucester County          14,059        29.5%          6,048       48.9%        20,107        33.5%        3.6%
    v

                  King and Queen County        5.491       11.5%          477         3.9%         5,968         9.9%         0.8%
    a
    0
                  King William County         7.4  97      15.7%          1,837        14.8%       9,334         15.6%        2.2%

                  Mathews County               7,168       15.1%         .827         6.7%         7,995         13.3%        1.1%

    0
                  Middlesex County             6,295       13.2%          1,424        11.5%       7,719         12.9%        2.1%



                                                                                                                100.0%
                  NUddle Peninsula PD        47,609        100.00/0      12,378       100.00/0     59,987                     2.3%


                  Source: Virginia Department of Planning and Budget, Virginia Population Projections 2000

                                                                             I















                                                                                                                                                                          0
     to                                                                                                                                                                   I



                                                                         TAEO[E 28                                                                                        (A
                                                                  ESTRdATED GROW7H                                                                                        CAD
                                                         KING AND QUEEN COUNTT 1980-1987



                                                                1980         1980-1987      1980-1987                        1987         Annual
                Jurisdiction                      1980 *    Population:        Growth        Growth:           1987      Population:      Growth
                                             Population     % of Region      Increment     % of Region Population        % of Region        Rate

                Essex County                      8,864         14.8%              36          0.3%           8,900          12.3%          0.1%

                Gloucester County                20,107         33.5%           9.293          75.5%          29,400         40.7%          5.6%

                King and Queen County             5,968         9.9%             332           2.7%           6,300          8.7%           0.8%

                King William County               9,334         15.6%            966           7.8%           10,300         14.2%          1.4%

                Mathews County                    7.995         13.3%            805           6.5%           8,800          12.2%          1.4%

                Middlesex County                  7,719         12.9%            881           7.2%           8,600          11.9%          1.6%


     0          Adiddle Peninsula Pl)            59,987        100.00/0        12,313        100.00/0         72,300        100.00/0        IL.90/0
     10
                Virginia                        5,346,8'12                    556,888                      5,903.700                        1.4%
     9t
     0


                Source: Virginia Department of Planning and Budget. Virginia Population Projections 2000

     0







              Comprehensive Plan 1990                                          King and Queen County

















                                                          TAE11Z 29
                                                 COMPONENTS OF CEL4NGE
                                     IMG AND QUEEN COUNTY AND REGION, 1980-1986



                    Jurisdiction                  Total Change                Net Migation
                                             Numeric    Percent         Numeric      Percent


                    Essex County                0         0.00/0          -200        -2.0%

                    Gloucester County         7,900       39.3%           7,000       34.7%

                    F4ng and Queen County      400        6.0%            300         4.5%

                    King William County        900        9.2%            500         5.7%

                    Mathews County             600        8.0%            800         10.1%

                    Middlesex County           800        10.2%           900         11.4%


                    =ddle Peninsula PD        10,5W       17.6%           9,300       15.5%


                    Virginia                 447,900      8.4%          208,100       3.9%



                    Source: Center for Public Service, University of Virginia, Estimates of the Population
                            Of Virginia Counties and Cities: 1986-1987













              The Cox Company                                             Population Projections/ M- 7

















                                                                                       TABLE


                                                                                      TABLE 30
                                                                         PROM=D GROWTH: 1980-1990
                                                                    KING AND QUEEN COUNTY AND REGION



                                                                           1980       1980-1990 1980-1990                            1990        Annual
                           Jurisdiction                     1980      Population:      Growth        Growth:          1990       Population:      Growth
                                                        Population    % of Region    Increment % of Region Population            % of Region        Rate

                           Essex County                     8,864          14.8%         436            2.8%          9,300          12.3%          0.5%

                           Gloucester County                20,107        33.5%          9,893        63.8%           30,000         39.7%          4.1%

                           King and Queen County            5,968          9.9%          732            4.7%          6.700          8.9%           1.2%

                           King William County              9,334          15.6%         1,666         10.7%          11,000         14.6%          1.7%

                           Mathews County                   7,995          13.3%         1,505          9.7%          9,500          12.6%          1.7%

                           Middlesex County                 7,719          12.9%         1,281          8.3%          9,000          11.9%          1.5%


      0                    Afiddle Peninsula PD             59,987       100.00/0       15,513        100.00/0        75,5W        100.00/0         2.3%



      0
                           Source: Center for Public Service, University of Virginia. Virginia Statistical Abstract          1987 Edition.


      rt
      0





      00

















                                                                                  TABLE 31
                                                                     PROJECTED GROwTH: 1990-2000
                                                                KING AND QUEEN COUNTY AND REGION


                                                                      1990        1990-2000 1990-2000                            2000        Annual
                        Jurisdiction                    1990      Population:      Growth        Growth:          2000       Population:      Growth
                                                    Population    % of Region    Increment % of Region Population            % of Region        Rate
                        Essex County                    9,300         12.3%          400           3.5%           9.700          11.2%          0.4%
                        Gloucester County             '30,000         39.7%          7,500         66.4%          37-.500        43.2%          2.3%
                        King and Queen County           6,700         8.9%           500           4.4%           7,200          8.3%           0.7%
                        King William County             11,000        14.6%          1,000         8.8%           12,000         13.8%          0.9%
                        Mathews County                  9,500         12.6%          1,000         8.8%           10,500         12.1%          1.0%
                        Middlesex County                9,000         11.9%          900           8.0%           9,900          11.4%          1.0%


                        Wddle Peninsula PD              75,5W         100.00/0      11,300        100.00/0        86,800         100.0%         1.4%



                        Source: Center for Public Service, University of Virginia. Virginia Statistical Abstract          1987 Edition.















                                                                       TABLE 32
    m
    0                                                        PROJECTED GROWTH: 2000-2010
    0
    5                                                   KING AND QUEEN COUNTY AND REGION


                                                             2000      2000-2010 2000-2010                      2010        Annual
                    Jurisdiction                2000      Population:    Growth      Growth:       2010      Population:    Growth
                                             Population   % of Region  Increment % of Region Population      % of Region     Rate

                    Essex County                9,700        11.2%        400          3.5%        10,100       10.3%        0.4%

                    Gloucester County           37,500       43.2%        7,500       66.4%        45,000       45.9%        1.8%

                    King and Queen County       7,200        8.3%         500          4.4%        7,700        7.8%         0.7%

                    King William County         12,000       13.8%        1,000        8.8%        13,000       13.3%        0.8%

                    Mathews County              10,500       12.1%        1,000        8.8%        11,500       11.7%        0.9%

                    Middlesex County            9,900        11.4%        900          8.0%        10,800       11.0%        0.9%


                    Middle Peninsula PD         86,800       100.00/0    11,300       100.00/0     98,100       100.0%       1.2%



                    Source: Center for Public Service, University of Virginia. Virginia Statistical Abstract 1987 Edition.
    0







    0
















   0                                                                                                                                           CD

                                                                                                                                               eb
                                                                   TABLE 33
                                                       PROJECTED GROWTH: 2010-2020
                                                   I(ING AND QUEEN COUNTY AND REGION


                                                         2010     2010-2020 2010-2020                      2020       Annual
                Jurisdiction                 2010    Population:    Growth      Growth:       2020      Population:    Growth
                                        Population   % of Region  Increment % of Region Population % of Region          Rate

                Essex County               10,100        10.3%       400          3.5%        10,500       9.2%         0.4%

                Gloucester County          45.000        45.9%       7,500       66.4%        52,500       41.1%        1.6%

                King and Queen County      .7,700        7.8%         500         4.4%        8,200        7.0%         0.6%

                King William County        13,000        13.3%       1,000        8.8%        14,000       11.9%        0.7%

                Mathews County             11,500        11.7%       1,000        8.8%        12,600       10.5%        0.8%

                Middlesex County           10,800        11.0%       900          8.0%        11,700       9.9%         0.8%


                Middle Peninsula PD        98,100      100.00/0     11,300       100.00/0    109.400       100.00/6     1.1%



   0
                Source: Center for Public Service, University of Virginia. Virginia Statistical Abstract 1987 Edition.

   102.
   m
   0
   m
   0
















    tv
    0
    0                                                                    TABLE 34
                                                              PROJECTED GROWTH: 2020-2030
                                                         1MG AND QUEEN COUNTY AND REGION


                                                              2020       2020-2030 2020-2030                       2030       Annual
                     Jurisdiction                2020      Population:    Growth       Growth:       2030      Population:    Growth
                                              Population   % of Region   Increment % of Region Population      % of Region      Rate

                     Essex County                10,500       9.6%          400         3.5%          10,900       9.0%         0.4%

                     Gloucester County           52,500       48.0%        7.500        66.4%         60,000       49.7%        1.3%

                     King and Queen County       8,200        7.5%          500         4.4%         8,700         7.2%         0.6%

                     King William County         14,000       12.8%        1,000        8.8%          15,000       12.4%        0.7%

                     Mathews County              12,500       11.4%        1,000        8.8%          13,500       11.2%        0.8%

                     Middlesex County            11,700       10.7%         900         8.0%          12,600       10.4%        0.7%


                     Middle Peninsula PD        109,400       100.00/0     11,300      100.00/0     120,700        100.0%       1.00/0


    .9
                     Source: Center for Public Service, University of Virginia. Virginia Statistical Abstract 1987 Edition.
    0







    0



    ra







                 Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                    King and Queen County





                                                                  TABLE 35
                                                        KING AND QUEEN C
                                   PROJECTIONS By PERCENT OF PROJEC= REGIONAL GROWTH


                 Regional Growth                        (3,200)    (11,300) . (11,300)        (11.300)      (11,300)

                   Growth Share           1987(a)       1990         2000         2010          2020         2030
                     of Region        Population Population Population Population Population Population
               State Projections (a)      6,300         6,700        7,200        7,700         8.200        8.700

                         6%               6300          6,492        7.170        7,848         8.526        9,204

                         8%               6,300         6,556        7,460        8,364         9,268        10,172

                        10%,              6,300         6,620        7,750        8,880         10,010       11.140


                   (a) State projections were taken from Virginia Statistical Abstract- 1987 Edition
                published by the Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia

                Source: The Cox Company



                                                                   TAINE36
                                    HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS BY PERCENT OF REGIONAL GROWTH
                                                         KING AND QUEEN COUNTY


                Regional Growth                       (3.200)      (11,300)      (11,300)     (11,300)      (11,300)

                  Growth Share            1987          1990         2000         2010          2020         2030
                    of Region        Households Households Households Households Households Households

               ;tate Projections(a)       2,520         2,680        2,880        3,080         3,280        3,480

                        6%                2,520         2,597        2,868        3,139         3,410        3,682

                        8%                2,520         2,622        2,984        3,346         3,707        4,069

                        10%               2,520         2,648        3,100        3,552         4,004        4,456


                        (.i) E@L:trapolated from population estimates in M-stimates of the Population of Virginia
                 Counties and Cities 1986 and 1987" published by the Center for Public Service at the
                University of Virginia. using an average household size of 2.5 persons.

                Source: The Cox Company





                 The Cox Company                                                        Population Projections/ M- 13







               Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                King and Queen County





                                                             TABLE 37
                                     POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY ANNUAL GROWTH RATE
                                                    KING AND QUEEN COUNTY




                Annual Growth          1987          1990       2000        2010         2020          2030
                      Rate         Population Population Population Population Population Population

              State Projection (a)     6,300        6,700       7,200       7.700        8,200         8,700

                      1.0%             6,300        6,491       7,170       7,920        8,749         9,664

                      1.5%             6,300        6,588       7,645       8,873        10,297      11,950

                      2.0%             6,300        6,686       8,150       9,934        12,110      14,762


                 (a) State projections were taken from 'Virginia Statistical Abstract- 1987 Edition,
              published by the Center for Public Service, University of Virginia.

              Source: The Cox Company






                                                            TABLE 38
                                                  ENG AND QUEEN COUNTY
                                   HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS BY ANNUAL GROWTH RATE




               Annual Growth         1987          1990       2000         2010         2020          2030
                     Rate        Households Households Households Households Households Households


              State Population
               Projections(a)        2,520       2,680        2,880        3,080        3,280        3,480

                     1.0%            2.520       2,596        2,868        3,168        3,499        3,866


                     1.5%            2,520       2,635        3. 058       3,549        4,119        4,780


                     2.0%            2,520       2,674        3,260        3,974        4.8"         5,905


                     (a) Extrapolated from population estimates in "Estimates of the Population of Virginia
               Counties and Cities 1986 and 1987" published by the Center for Public Service at the
              University of Virginia, using an average household size of 2.5 persons.

              Source: The Cox Company




               The Cox Company                                                  Population Projections/ M- 14






                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                               King and Queen County











                                         ILLUSTRATION OF POPULATION PROJECTION
                                            ALTERNATWES AT DIFFERENT RATES
                                                   KING AND QUEEN COUNTY


                16,000.
             P  14,000-                                                                                   E3
             o  12,000.
             P
             U  10,000-                                                  E3                               0
                 8,000
                                                        .13                                ------------
             a
             t   6.00013

             0   4,000.
             n
                 2,0004

                     0
                     1987*            1990             2000            2@10             20'20            20130
                                                                 x

                             State ProJection -0- 1.0%            M. 1.5%             0- 2.0%

























               The Cox Company                                                  Population Projections/ M- 15







                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                     King and Queen County








                                                                TAKE 39
                                         FUTURE LAND USE REQUIREMENT ALTERNATIVES
                                                    M3NG AND QUEEN COUNTY, 2000


                   Projected New Households-        348-740

                   Zoning District Alternatives                Density

                   Village Residential /Residential V.        1 acre lots
                   Low Density Rural                        2-5 acres lots
                   Agricultural                             20 acres lots

                   Formula:      Number of Units x Number of acres x (.7,.8, or.9 depending on lot size)



                               Lot PMx Alternative          Lot Size MIX      Acres Absorbed (a)


                                           A             100% in 1 acre lots      500-1060


                                           B             100% in 2 acre lots      870-1850


                                           C             100% in 5 acre lots 2175 - 4625


                                           D             33% in 1 acre lots
                                                         33% in 2 acre lots      1180-2510
                                                         33% in 5 acre lots


                                           E             50% in 1 acre lots      1340-2850
                                                         50% in 5 acre lots


                                           F             50% in 2 acre lots     4300-9150
                                                         50% in 20 acre lots


                                           G             25% in 1 acre lots
                                                         25% in 2 acre lots     4210-8950
                                                         50% in 20 acre lots



                                      (a) Acreage is approximate. Factors for right of ways are: (.3) for 1 acre
                               lots, (.2) for 2 acre lots and (. 1) for 20 acre lots.










                The Cox Company                                                       Population Projections/ M- 16







                    M= noso               Mmis m(fi gma@m comsy,










                               Chapter 4
                         . LAND USE














               P













        ,Tna@ 0@)& 0@)=jPffimy,







                 Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                    Mng and Queen County


                                                           LAND UsE


                 Residential
                 Compared to the rest of the State, the rate of residential development within King and Queen
                 County has been relatively slow. The number of units created each year in the County has
                 fluctuated from year to year, but the average number of units created has remained fairly stable.
                 The 1979 Comprehensive Plan contained a study of building permits issued from 1975 to 1977.
                 During those three years the average number of permits issued, including those for
                 manufactured homes, was 78. Table 16 illustrates that the average number of permits issued
                 from 1982 to 1988 was 80. The most significant change in this data is the decrease in permits
                 issued for permanent dwellings as compared to the number of permits issued for manufactured
                 homes. From 1975 to 1977. an average of 38 permits for permanent dwellings were issued each
                 year, while the average for manufactured homes was 40. From 1982 to 1988, the average number
                 of permits issued for permanent dwellings decreased to 21 while the average number of permits
                 issued for manufactured homes increased to 59 each year. This type of residential development
                 reflects the County's comparatively low household income.

                 Most new lots have been created along major roads. particularly along the southern portion of
                 Route 14 and all along Route 33. This is, at least in part, due to the fact that most of the County is
                 in environmentally sensitive areas of wetlands, flood plains and steep slopes. As a result, the
                 roads in the County historically have been built along the long stretches of soils most suited for
                 development. In addition, almost 25% of the acreage in the County is owned by corporate
                 forestry interests and, hence, remains undeveloped. Only a few subdivisions, often served by
                 private roads, have been developed in recent years. Although the County has tried to encouraged
                 the development of a mobile home park, none have yet been established. As a result,
                 manufactured homes are scattered about the County on small lots that usually front on roads.

                 There is a fairly high percentage (8.5%) of seasonal or vacant housing. This may be a reflection
                 of the growing second home market within the County. As illustrated in Table 17, the quality of
                 the existing housing stock varies greatly according to whether it is owner or renter-occupied.
                 Predictably. the condition of owner occupied housing is superior. The most significant data
                 related to the quality of the County's housing stock is that 32.5% of occupied rental housing
                 lacks complete plumbing. The highest percentage of substandard or overcrowded housing is in
                 the district of Newtown as shown in Table 18.


                 Village
                 Walkerton and Mattaponi are the most densely settled areas in King and Queen County. At the
                 present time there approximately 40 residences in Walkerton and about 250 in the Mattaponi
                 area. Development in both is limited by environmentally sensitve areas and nearby rivers. In
                 addition, neither of these two settlements is served by public utilities, and the County has no
                 plans to provide these services in the future. Although, there have been few problems with the
                 land's ability to support septic systems thus far, it is highly unlikely that these soils could
                 support continued development on lots of one acre and less. The 1990 Comprehensive Plan does
                 not recommend the expansion of these areas. Any plans to develop these villages should be
                 studied in a future planning process

                 Agricultural Land Use
                 Historically, agriculture has been one of the main economic activities in King and Queen
                 County. There are four primary crops grown within the County, soybean, corn, wheat and
                 barley. Cattle, poultry and hogs are also raised. Data gathered from the 1987 Census of
                 Agriculture and shown in Table 20, indicates that King and Queen follows the national trend of
                 decreasing numbers of farms. but with an increase in the average farm size. The County
                 Extension office reported that twenty years ago there were upwards of 200 full-time crop farmers
                 in King and Queen, while today twenty-five farmers do the bulk of the farming in the County.

                 The Cox Company                                                                    Land Use/ IV - 1







                 Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                 King and Queen county

                 However. it is important to note that many of these large farmers rent rather than own the bulk
                 of the land they farm. The increase of farm size is an indication both of the willingness of land
                 owners to rent out more of their land and of the ability of these farmers to farm more land more
                 efficiently. While the number of farms has decreased, the production of at least two crops, com
                 and soybean, has increased (Table 2 1). The production of poultry also appears to be growing
                 slowly, while the production of hogs fluctuates greatly. Generally, prices for soybean and small
                 grains have been high in the past year and have helped some farmers to recover from the lower
                 market prices that were paid for several previous years.

                 Alth ough there is State enabling legistation that would allow King and Queen County to
                 establish a land use taxation program to help farmers, the County has chosen not to implement
                 such a program. There are essentially two reasons for this. The first is because the County is
                 primarily rural and sparsely populated. This creates a situation where there is no other source
                 of funds to offset the loss in revenue. In other words, if farmers were given a tax break on their
                 farmland, it is likely that the property tax on their houses would go up. This situation is
                 aggravated by the fact that the greatest proportion of the land use tax break would go to absentee
                 landlords, in particular the Chesapeake Corporation, a forestry company that owns 24% of the
                 land in the County and 50% of its timber. It is likely that a land use taxation program would end
                 up costing County residents more than it would help them.

                 Forestry Land Use
                 Forestry activities occur on 153,245 acres, or over 75% of the County's land area (which is
                 203,584 acres (land area does not take Into account acreage that is covered by water). The
                 forestry industry, farmers and miscellaneous individuals are the largest owners of timber as
                 depicted in Table 23. However, since 1977, farmer ownership of timberland decreased 46%.
                 Since no other ownership catagory gained this much acreage (25,645) and since the total acreage
                 of timberland decreased from 160,961 acres to 153,245 acres, it can be assumed that much of the
                 loss in farmer owned timber was do to a conversioni In its use. The Virginia Employment
                 Commission reports indicate that forestry offers no employment within the County. However,
                 these reports are misleading, perhaps due to supressed or unavailable information, as they do
                 not seem to include known forestry activities by small or large farmers and do not include
                 employment by corporations that are based outside the County. Practical knowledge of the
                 County enables one to make the reasonable assumption that forestry activities do create
                 employment within the County. Forestry also creates spin off industries, such as lumbering,
                 and, when managed properly, performs functions that are beneficial to the natural
                 environment.


                 Commercial
                 In recent years there has been relatively little commercial development in King and Queen
                 County. The few commercial establishments that exist are situated on Rt. 360 and Rt. 33 along
                 which there is a fair amount bf traffic and in the "villages!' of Walkerton and Mattoponi where
                 residential development is more dense. There is one industrial parkjust off Rt. 36 which is not
                 yet fully occupied and another located on Rt. 678 and 608. which is in the early stages of
                 development.

                 Applicable Tables
                 Table 16 - Buildings Permits Issued, King and Queen County 1982-1988
                 Table 17 - Housing Characteristics, King and Queen County, 1980
                 Table 18 - Housing Characteristics By County Districts, King and Queen County, 1980
                 Table 19 - Agricultural Land Use, King and Queen County,
                 Table 20 - Number Of Farms By Size. King and Queen County, 1969, 1974, 1987
                 Table 21 - Agricultural Production, King and Queen County, 1981-1984
                 Table 22 - Total Cropland and Harvested Cropland, King and Queen County, 1982, 1987
                 Table 23 - Ownership of Commercial Forest Land, King and Queen County, 1986
                 Table 24 - Forest Inventory By Species Group, King and Queen County, 1986
                 Table 25 - Annual Removal/Growth of Forest By Species Group, King and Queen County, 1986

                 The Cox Company                                                                 Land Use/ TV - 2








              Comprehensive Plan 1990                                           King and Queen county














                                                    TAFRE 16
                                            BUMMING PERMTS LSSUED
                                       KING AND QUEEN COUNTY, 1982-1989


                               Year        NewHomes      Manufactured Homes       Total


                               1975           59                 38                 97
                               1976           39                 51                 90
                               1977           17                 31                 48
                             Average                             40                 78

                               1982           11                 48                 59
                               1983           18                 58                 76
                               1984           26                 72                 68
                               1985           19                 66                 85
                               1986           23                 71                 94
                               1987           28           40 + 9 Replacement       77
                               1988           25           51+1  Replacement        77
                             Average          21                 59                 so


                                  Source: King and Queen County Zoning Administrator
























              The Cox Company                                                          Land Use/ IV - 3








                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                      King and Queen County










                                                             TABLE 17
                                                     HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
                                                   KING AND QUEEN COUNTY, 1980

                                                       0ccupancy

                                  Total Housing Units                                         2510
                                  Vacant Seasonal and Migratory                                 214
                                      Percent -of Units -                                    8.50%
                                  Year-round housing units                                    2296
                                  1.0 1 or More Persons Per Room                              5.6%

                                                    Owner Occ upied Units

                                  Complete Plumbing for Exclusive Use                        89.8%
                                  Lacking Complete Plumbing for Exclusive Use                10.1%
                                      Complete plumbing but used by another
                                       household                                              0.1%
                                  Some but not all plumbing facilities                        4.5%
                                  No plumbing facilities                                      5.5%


                                                   Renter Occuppied Units

                                  Complete Plumbing for Exclusive Use                        67.5%
                                  Lacking Complete Plumbing for Exclusive Use                32.5%
                                      Complete plumbing but used by another
                                        household
                                  Some but not all plumbing facilities                       11.1%
                                  No plumbing facilities                                     21.3%


                                  Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980
















                 The Cox Company                                                                     Land Use/ IV -4






                               Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                        King and Queen County



                                                                                TAME IS
                                                      HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS By COUNTY DISTRICTS
                                                                     KENGAND QLMW COUNW, Lq80

                                                  Total Number of Units
                                                        BuenaVista                                              1097
                                                        Newtown                                                  872
                                                        Stevensville                                             541

                                                  LacIdng Complete Plumbing for Exclusive Use
                                                                                               Owner          Renter
                                                        Buena VIsta                            16.0%          15.8%
                                                        Newtown                                10.7%          47.2%
                                                        Stevensville                           10.7%          38.2%


                                                  Median Number of Persons
                                                                                               Owner          Renter
                                                                                                  2.44           2.42
                                                                                                  2.51            2.3
                                                                                                  2.64            2.5


                                                  Median Number of Rooms
                                                                                               Owner          Renter
                                                        BuenaVista                                 5.8            5.1
                                                        Newtown                                    5.9            5.1
                                                        Stevensville                               5.8            5.4


                                                  1.0 1 or More Persons Per Room
                                                        Buena Vista                                             3.8%
                                                        Newtown                                                 6.2%
                                                        Stevensville                                            8.3%




                                                  Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980




                                                                          TABLE 19
                                                                 AGRICULTURAL LAND USE
                                                                 IONG AND QUEEN COUNTY


                                                                                                                  Farm Acreage as %
                                     Year      Number of Farms Average Acreage Total Farm Acreage Total Land Acreage

                                     1959               605             Not Available              80,832                39.7%
                                     1969               320                  170.3                 54,508                26.8%
                                     1974               260                  198.0                 50,672                24.9%
                                     1982               197                  267.0                 52,598                25.8%
                                                        157                                        53,266                26.2%

                                  Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture,
                                             1969,1974,1987


                                 The Cox Company                                                                       Land Use/ IV - 5






             Comprehensive Plan 1990                                          King and Queen County
















                                                    TABIZ 20
                                  NUNBER OF FARMS BY SIZE, 1969, 1974, 1987
                                            IONG AND QUEEN COUNTY

                                                                            % Change
                    Size Range (Acres)    1969        1974        1987     1974-1987

                           0-49             90          76         40         -47.0%
                          50-99             82
                          100-179           62         115         56         -51.3%
                          180-259           24
                          260-499           38          49         36         -26.5%
                          500-999           16          12         11         -8.3%
                      1000 and Over         8            8         14         75.0%

                    Source: U.S. Department of Cor=erce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture,
                          1969,1974,1987


























              The Cox Company                                                         Land Use/ IV - 6





















                                                                           TABIE 21
                                                                   AGRICULTURAL PRODUCnON
                                                            KING AND QUEEN COUNTY, 1981-1984



                                                                     1982                            1983                           1984


               Product           Acres    Production             Acres     Production            Acres     Production            Acres    Production

           Corn (a)             9,600          912.0            9,300          1113.0           5,800          255.0           11,000         1215.0

           Soybean (a)         16,400          412.0           17,500           551.0           15,200         243.0           19,000         570.0

           Cattle (b)                          1,400                            1,600                          1,420                          2,000

           Milk Cow (b)                        250                              250                             250                           250

           Hogs (b)                            7.000                            5,800                          4,400                          6,000



           (a) Cmps are measured in thousands of bushels.
           (b) Measured in number of animals.

           Source: Comprehensive Wate     r Quality Management Plan for the Middle Peninsula, Middle Peninsula Planning
                     DistrIct Commission, Januaiy 1989.


    15







              Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                King and Queen County







                                                    TABLE 22
                               TOTAL CROPLAND AND HARVESTjED CROPLAND (a)
                                      KNG AND QUEEN COUNTY. 1982, 1987.

                                      Year       Total Cropland     Harvested Cropland

                                      1982            34,256                32,322


                                      1987            37,863                30,147


                                 (a) In acres
                                 Source: 1987 Census of Agriculture, Advance County Report,
                                           King and gueen Courity










                                                     TABLE 23
                               OWNERSHIP OF CONMIERCLAL FOREST LAND (ACRES)
                                          KING AND QUEEN COUNTY, 1986

                                                                               % Change
                               Owner                    1977         1986      1974-1987


                               State                    320          320          0.0%
                               County/Municipal         417          350         .-16.1%
                               Forest Industry         49320        57733         17.1%
                               Farmer                  55452        29807         -46.2%
                               Misc. Corporate           0          2710          100.00/0
                               Misc. Private Individ   55452        62325         12.4%
                               Total                   160961       153245        -4.8%


                               Percent of Total
                               County Land Area        79.10%      75.30%         -4.8%


                               Source: Virginia Division of Forestry












              The Cox Company
                                                                                            Land use/ iv - 8







                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                      King and Queen county






                                                          TABLE 24
                                        FOREST MWENTORY BY SPECIES GROUP
                                             EMG AND QUEEN COUNTY, 1986


                                                           Sawtimber (a)         Growing Stock (b)
                                  Species Group          (Thousand Bd. Ft.)    Mousand Cubic Ft.)

                                Pine                          298,651                    114.709
                                Other Softwoods M               27,624                     4,895
                                Soft Hardwoods (d)            176,296                     67,791
                                Hard Hardwood                 218,195                     71,242

                                Total (all species)           720,766                    258,637


                                Source: Virginia Division of Forestry





                                                         TAME25
                             ANNUAL REMOVAL/GRdWTH OF FOREST BY SPECIES GROUP
                                             KING AND QUEEN COUNTY, 19S6


                                                     Sawtimber (a)                  Growing Stock (b)
                    Species Group               (Thousand Bd. Ft.)                (Thousand Cubic Ft.)

                                            Removal            Growth           Removal           Growth


                 Pine                             12,514            19,722            3,195             6,512
                 Other Softwoods (c)                    0             607                  0                98
                 Soft Hardwoods (d)                  511            10,725              390             3,121
                 Hard Hardwood (e)                 3,990             9,081             1,301            2,453



                 (a) Softwoods, 9" DBH and over; hardwoods 1 l"DBH and over.
                 (b) All merchantable trees 5" DBH and over.
                 (c) Coniferous Trees; cypress, hemlock, cedar. spruce and fir.
                 (d) Boxelder, red and silver maple, butternut, yellow poplar silver and sweetgum,
                       magnolia, willow, sycamore, basswood, and elm.
                 (e) Sugarmaple, birch, hickory. beach, ash. hollyall commercial.oaks and black locust.

                 Source: Virginia Division of Forestry








                The Cox Company                                                                     Land Use/ TV - 9










  1   41
       c@MjPmlh(BM@@w(g Mm nose            MMS mm(A Qwnm comm*








                                Chapter   .5
                 THE PLANNING PROCESS














               v













       M(D c@& c&M)P=Y'







                              Pbn NA30                                                King and Queen County



                                             THE PLANNING PROCESS


                 Overview of Planning Process
                 In the preparation of the 1990 King and Queen County Comprehensive Plan, the planning
                 process has been segmented into four principal areas: (1) planning research, (2) demographic
                 and environmental analysis, (3) land use synthesis and (4) future land use recommendations.
                 In seekIng the optimal path to orchestrate future growth and to accommodate land use demands
                 within the County, this four phase process has revolved around a systematic investigation of
                 the natural and man-made environment in King and Queen County. The resultant
                 comprehensive plan "product" yields a set of resource-based, future land use recommendations.
                 This planning effort has also initiated the process of implementing the Criteria Regulations
                 which were created by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board. Being a county within
                 Tidewater Virginia, all future planning processes will be influenced by this legislation. The
                 Act's primary goal--to protect and restore state waters--will become one of the underlying
                 tenents in the County's planning of its future.

                 Due to an insufficieny of detailed mapping information regarding the County's physical, soils
                 and geologic characteristics, this effort is merely the first step in and ongoing process which
                 County planners must direct, primarly through the site plan and subdivision review process.
                 As more extensive mapping resources become available, they should be incorporated into
                 County ordinances and maps. but the primary vehicle for obtaining this information, will be
                 the development process itself. The burden will fall upon the developer or land owner to
                 produce site specific information, including detailed mapping and Impact studies, in order to
                 establish the precise boundaries of environmentally sensitive areas. County planners will use
                 this privately prepared, parcel-by parcel information in the decision making process and
                 incorporate it into the overall County information base.

                 Upon an exhaustive analysis of King and Queen County's resources, the physical attributes of
                 the comprehensive land use plan can be logically resolved This is done through a process of
                 comparative analyses in which a range of alternative land use allocation concepts are weighed
                 against the measured physical, social, ecological and economic realities of the County. In
                 theory, the recommended land use plan is one which:

                           1.  Best accommodates the County's planning goals and objectives while
                               balancing the individual rights of the landowner with those of the
                               entire citizentry of King and Queen: and

                           2   Is capable of being implemented within the context of sati!iNing both
                               (a) the marketplace demands, and (b) the ability of the local
                               government to responsibly supply municipal services and
                               infrastructure; and

                           3.  Provides positive County-wide benefits with the least negative
                               impact on the measured values making up the existing physical, social,
                               political and economic environment; and

                           4.  Responds to State mandated statutues and obligation to protect and
                               restore Bay waters and sensitive environmental areas.

                 The land carrying capacities of ecologically sensitive' areas, such as wetlands and shorelines
                 which perform important water quality protection functions, are to be considered principal
                 determinants in the allocation of land use and in setting rational limitations on future growth.
                 The conservation of agricultural and forestry areas must also be given strong attention in
                 establishing the nature and location of future land uses. In this respect, the underlying
                 planning thesis is that the County, as long as it meets minimum standards of compliance with
                 the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. can employ Its own rational value system in preparing a
                 long-range vision for its future through the adoption of this updated Comprehensive Plan. This


                 The Cox Company                                                        Planning Process/ V- 1







                               Plan 1990                                                  King and Queen County


                 must be achieved through a systematic planning process rather than through the sometimes
                 obscure and artificial criteria employed in drawing conventional zoning districts and "first
                 generation" land use plans.
                 The current planning process for King and Queen County underscores the wisdom of
                 establishing future land use patterns based on envirom-nental limitations and physiographic
                 potentials, as opposed to simply organizing land use patterns by following property lines and
                 political boundaries. It affirms that zoning cannot be considered a truly useful planning tool
                 for the County unless and until environmental resource plans upon which zoning is based. are
                 drawn to reflect the Intrinsic development suitabilities of the land.

                 The first and second stages in the County's planning efforts have been to collect and analyze all
                 available data and background information to create a generalized physiographic and land use
                 model of the County's 203,584 acres. This has been recorded in graphic reference exhibits
                 which can be used to address the County's environmental and ecological systems, cultural
                 resources, man-made systems and infrastructure characteristics. These may also be helpful in
                 designating the generalized locations for Resource Protecton Areas (RPAs) and Resource
                 Management Areas (RMAs) as defined by the Criteria Regulations of the Chesapeake Bay
                 Preservation Act.

                 Environmental resource maps for the County at this stage are general in nature. However, over
                 time. these maps will be expanded. and should be considered "evolutionary' in that they will be
                 periodically updated as new mapping sources are provided by State and Federal agencies. For
                 example, soils maps are insufficient to make detailed assessments of site-specific development
                 proposals. However, as more comprehensive and detailed information becomes available
                 through the completion of King and Queen's soils mapping, this work should be incorporated
                 into the County's "determinant" mapping base.

                 In addition. an integral aspect of the planning process will be the responsibility which is given
                 to prospective developers to provide up-to-date and detailed, site specific information before
                 any development proposals are approved by the County. Hence, a thorough knowledge of the
                 County's environmental limitations and capacities will gradually be attained. This process
                 will insure that future development and planning decisions are well founded. Eventually the
                 maps and subsequent development impact studies should contain the following information:

                                     1.    Surftcial geology
                                     2.    Soils groupings and highly sensitive soils
                                     3.    Hydrologic environments andfloodplains
                                     4.    Soil drainage environments
                                     5.    Existing vegetation
                                     6.    Physiographic features
                                     Z     Slopes and contours
                                     8.    Existing land use
                                     9.    Historic landmarks and cultural features
                                    10.    Tidal and non-tidal wetlands
                                    11.    Public facilities and infrastructure
                                    12     Ambiance and County scale

                 County Planning Area Concepts
                 The third stage of the planning process--land use synthesis--is to establish the social and
                 ecological values inherent in the above processes which must set the tone of any prescription
                 for the utilization of King and Queen County Area's natural resources. This synthesis produced
                 a number of discrete '?Ianning Areas" (or geo-physical planning units), transportation
                 planning "Corridors" and designated Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas within the County.
                 Each will have its own set of unique potentials and limitations for the different types of future
                 land uses which may be demanded in King and Queen. This is done in order to identify internal
                 geographical components having prime development potentials or severe limitations. In
                 certain instances, the transportation "Corridors" overlap more than one "Planning Area". This
                 is due to the need to address future land uses in the context of their "linearity' along a particular
                 route.



                 The Cox Company                                                            Planning Process/ V- 2








                Ccanprehenshe Plan 199D                                               King and Queen C(nmty


                When the "Planning Areas" and Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas are viewed in the
                aggregate, growth management recommendations can be drawn to ensure that the County's
                future land use demands are directed to those Planning Areas having both (a) optimal
                development suitabilities and (b) opportunities to enhance the social values and planning goals
                of the County.


                Land Development Status Concepts
                As cited above, the result of this County-wide analysis was the segregation of King and Queen
                into "Planning Areas" and "Corridors" each of which has a unique and specific physical,
                environmental and social character. From a standpoint of their dominant existing land use
                status, the land within the prescribed "Planning Areas"and "Corridors" has been further
                evaluated and classified into one or more of three primary development stages: (1) Rural
                Village/Stable Areas, (2) Corridor Infill/Transition Areas, and (3) Agricultural/Undeveloped
                Areas. The development "stage". or status, of planning areas represents a key parameter in
                designating future land uses. While it is important to recognize that most of the County's
                development has not been "planned" (in an academic sense). the current planning process
                strives to establish future development patterns which are based on sound planning principles
                and which respect established land uses.

                      Rural Villages /Stable Areas
                      One of the Plan's goals is the preservation of the County's existing stable
                      areas --residential pockets,  commercial nodes, institutional properties, and
                      public uses. Most of this type of development occurs in existing Rural Village
                      areas within the County. The small villages of Mattaponi and Walkerton
                      represent, for the most part. the County's "stable areas". The main feature of a
                      stable area is the existence of a sufficient critical mass of land development to
                      establish a definite character which is not likely to be altered by any reasonable
                      future development of the remaining vacant land in the immediate vicinity.
                      Because of the environmentally sensitive areas around these village settlements
                      and a lack of public utilities, their expanded development is unlikely in the near
                      future. However, this is not to say these areas are not subject to future
                      development pressures.

                      The protection and enhancement of "stable areas" involves taking actions to
                      reinforce the existing character of the area and preventing any compromise or
                      degradation of this character by poorly planned development. King and Queen
                      must pay careful attention to near-term pressures to both (a) expand and (b)
                      internally intensify eidsting stable areas. The Plan should carefully review any
                      development within villages and stable areas in the context of architectural
                      integrity, environmental impacts, transportation limitations, and
                      requirements for public infrastructure. Villages should be a focus of continued
                      study by the Planning Commission upon adoption of this Comprehensive Plan.
                      Corridor InflU /Transition Areas
                      The main feature that characterizes the "corridor infill /transition" areas is a
                      partially developed suburban quality or, for example, spot development such as
                      that which exists along Rt. 360 and Rt. 33. Such random development creates
                      opportunities for the incorporation of new and/or revitalized development
                      patterns within the context of the old. The Plan has primarly focused on the
                      "infill /transition" aspects of certain segments of more heavily travelled
                      highways for the purpose of devising strategies to ensure that new commercial or
                      residential development program is appropriately-scaled and buffered .

                      These areas, traditionally, are the most difficult for local government to control
                      through zoning and site plan review. Private landowners will attempt to benefit
                      from previous governmental land use "mistakes" (spot zoning, haphazard site
                      planning, insensitivity to the environment) by trying to establish "precedents"
                      for the continued, controlled infilling of areas which are losing their rural
                      flavor. Such infilling of existing transportation corridors creates reduced road
                      capacity and the potential for reduced coordination of future right-of-way

                The Cox Company                                                         Planning Process/ V- 3






                 CmTpehmsive Plan 199D                                                   King and Queen County


                        requirements. Since King and Queen will not be realizing major State funded
                        roadway improvements, it will be important that the County Pay close attention
                        to public road access issues along As rural corridors.
                        Agricultural/Undeveloped Areas
                        Within King and Queen County, undeveloped land generally has a well
                        established agricultural or forestal land use history and tradition which should
                        measurably influence and direct future land use decisions. Being stin very rural,
                        such areas make up the vast majority of the County. They are the dominant focus
                        of the current planning process which win chart the limitations and potentials
                        for the future use of these agarian properties. The Plan!s adopted- goals call for
                        the continued preservation of the agarian community, emphasizing the need to
                        control residential growth in these areas.           Correspondingly. the Plan
                        recommends that the current agricultural and rural residential zoning districts
                        be significantly strengthened if these goals are to be achieved. The long-term
                        protection of agricultural lands and open space is essential if King and Queen's
                        rural ambience is to be conserved for the benefit of future generations. With few
                        exceptions, there is little precedent for strong conservation zoning practices to be
                        found in the Middle Penninsula. and around the State's rural counties. Those few
                        cormnunities which have implemented meaningful conservation zoning have
                        been successful only because of the forceful backing of their Boards and
                        Commissions when considering incompatible development proposals. The
                        actions of King and Queen's Board over the next ten years will set the course for
                        all future growth in the County.

                        If a hassez faire mentality is taken in approaching rural area planning, King and
                        Queen will be vulnerable to the same destructive growth problems which have
                        adversely affected its neighboring counties to the east. At present, there is little
                        in King and Queen's zoning controls which will prevent scattered, uncontrolled
                        development of the County's prime agricultural lands. There exists an
                        immediate need to resolve the weaknesses in the zoning ordinance in concert
                        with providing resource protection controls for any development in these areas.


                 Planning Synthesis Process
                 Within the identified "Planning Areas". it is arguable that the inherent social and ecological
                 values represented by the natural processes are, In many cases, suitable for a multiplicity of
                 human uses: For example, moderately sloped and well-drained land may have the same
                 suitability for residential development as for active agricultural and/or recreational uses.
                 Similarly, areas of historic or scenic value could, at the same time. be highly desirable for
                 tourist- oriented waterfront or commercial development. The synthesis stage in planning
                 focuses on resolving any apparent conflicts which could exist for the individual citizen or
                 developer whose property is subject to the guidance of the new Comprehensive Plan. This is
                 accomplished through public workshops and hearings held prior to the adoption of the Plan.

                 The synthesis process will determine both the development potentials and limitations of the
                 land in each Planning Area. Based upon its inherent suitability for development, each
                 physical planning unit is viewed for its intrinsic suitabilities for a range of uses--urban (ie.
                 residential, commercial or industrial), conservation, agricultural. recreational, ecological, etc.
                 The synthesis effort makes It possible to assess each geographical area and designate an
                 "optimal use".

                 Superimposed on these measurements of development suitabilities are the social. market and
                 ecological values supported by the planning goals and economic realities in the County. These
                 examinations have revealed that the County's areas of prime development potentials can
                 provide abundant capacities and opportunties to absorb the community's projected growth well
                 beyond the next century. However, the reality of this "absorption capacity" must be balanced
                 with the County's vision for what it "wants to look like" in the twenty-first century and its
                 desire to maintain its strong agricultural tradition.



                                                                                           Planning Process/ V- 4
                 The Cox Company







                              Plan 1990                                               King and Queen County


                Land Development Suitabilities
                The physical components of the development suitability process allows the land to "speak for
                itself". Whereas most traditional zoning and comprehensive planning practices in Virginia,
                have allocated use categories and densities to the landscape in a uniform fashion, the process of
                employing scaled suitability rankings allows land use allocations to be a function of the
                specific character of the land to which they apply. Planning decisions can be drawn from this.,
                but must be tempered by King and Queen's open space and preservation objectives. For instance,
                flat land which works better than steeply sloped land for commercial development may be
                more appropriately allocated to long term agricultural uses due to the productivity of the
                underlying soils. Virginia's enabling statutes for planning and zoning lend support to this
                development suitability process which applies a somewhat more sophisticated approach to
                orchestrating and allocating County land uses. With the adoption of the Bay Preservation
                legislation, the County can establish performance criteria to Implement this concept.
                The planning process has identified the significant physical parameters to be included in the
                development suitability selection. This process would be initiated in the early stages of the
                land development process by the developer or land owner via the preparation development
                Impact assessments for new projects and subdivisions. Many of the features included in this
                list are land components which would be addressed. 7be County should require that the
                following physiographic and environmental attributes of the land be Identified, mapped and
                and fully integrated into any land development proposal:

                           1.  Slopes less than ten percent (1096) are generally suitable for
                               most land development, including agricultural and forestry uses.
                               Under normal conditions, under this slope range phystographic
                               rational cannot be used tojusttfy one use over another.

                           2.  Slopes in the ten to twenty percent range (1096-20%) begin to
                               restrict more intensive development potentials, certian land
                               uses and the overall physical capacities with a given project.

                           3.  Slopes in the twenty to thirty percent range (20%-3096) pose
                               significant capacity constraints for most types of development
                               and development theron should be restricted.

                           4.  Slopes greater than thirty percent (30%) are severely limited for
                               most development on the County's critical hillsides should be
                               greatly restricted and avoided to the extentfeasible.

                           5.  Areas of signiftcant geologic outcroppings and sinkholes pose
                               significant capacity constraintsfor urban uses and development
                               thereon should be avoided.

                           6.  Floodplains. wetlands (both tidal and non-tidal), shorelines,
                           4;  tributary streams, rivers, swamps and major drainage channels
                               constitute physical systems necessary to maintain hydrologic
                               equilibrium in a watershed and development thereon should be
                               avoided.

                           7.  Soils of low bearing capacity and high permeablilhi should have
                               restricted suitabilities for non-agricultural development and the
                               total allocable density thereon should be restricted.

                           8.  Soils of high erodability pose limitations on urban uses, and
                               scale, density and character of development thereon should be
                               allocated to restrict adverse environmental impacts.

                           9.  Signi/licant vegetative cover is a valued element of the County's
                               natural system and its ability to protect state waters by natural
                               means. The allocation of non-agricultural uses must respect the
                               maintenance and conservation thereof.

                The Cox Company                                                         Planning Process/ V- 5







                  i4vehensive Plan 1990                                                King and Queen County



                          10.  Future land uses adjoining existing built environments must
                               respect the scale   ', density and character of contiguous
                               uses as well as the potential environmental degradation thereof.

                          11.  Land areas for major public rights-of-way and easements to
                               accommodate the public infrastructure to service related urban
                               uses should be reserved as a part of private development
                               proposals.
                 County planners should carefully consider these land characteristics and use them as
                 evaluation parameters for development proposals. From this information certain conclusions
                 can be drawn with respect to: (a) the intrinsic suitability of the area for development, (b) the
                 range of most appropriate uses within the area, (c) the land-use carrying capacity of the area for
                 the identified urban uses, (d) sensitive environmental land units on which urban
                 (non-agricultural) uses should be restricted. and (e) specific land units which should be reserved
                 for facilities, infrastructure and other uses supportive of and benefitting the allocated urban
                 (non-agricultural) uses and densities.


                 "Net Developable Area!' Planning Concepts
                 The land-use yields (in terms of net densities/intensities) for any land development should be a
                 function of the comparative suitability ratings for each area. The concept of "net developable
                 arecC'will be introduced into the planning process, via site plan and subdivision review, to
                 provide County planners with a quantiflable approach to estimating the land carrying capacity
                 or suitability of each property for the proposed uses. This process potentially could be part of
                 the County's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program in compliance with the Chesapeake Bay
                 Preservation Act and Criteria Regulations.

                 The "net developable area" methodology enables the planner and landowner to establish a more
                 valid estimate of a given property's development capacity. For example, a Sub-Area with a
                 gross acreage of 100 acres, but having 30 net acres of land which have been identified as
                 unsuitable for development, would yield an intrinsic urban suitability rating equal to 70 "net
                 developable acres" (100 "gross acres" - 30 "unsuitable acres"= 70 "net developable acres"). If this
                 Sub-Area is designated as a Rural Village district (at 1.0 dwelling units per two net acres), the
                 land carrying capacity for the Sub-Area would equal 35 residential single family units (70 net
                 acres x 1.0 units/2 acres = 35 units).

                 For the purposes of recommending maximum development capacities for a given planning
                 Sub-Area or parcel in the County, "effective capacity ratings" should be assigned by County
                 planners to the critical environmental land units within the properties as they are proposed
                 for development. Environmental land units include floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes,
                 rights-of-way, and other sensitive ecological characteristics of a property. This method could
                 also be used to'implement the Bay Preservation criteria as the means of identi4ring land which
                 qualifies for either the Resource Protection Area or the Resource Management Area
                 designation. This concept enables the planner to critically assess the inherent land carrying
                 capacity based on the environmental limitations and vulnerabilities of a given property. The
                 1. effective capacity rating' Is a ratio establishing the percentage of the physical land unit
                 qualiFying for allocable density credit.

                 The product of the "effective capacity rating" and the area of the environmental (or ecological)
                 land unit in question, yields the net acreage to be applied in computing the "net developable
                 area" within a given property. As an illustration, 10 acres of a tract may be in a tidal wetland.
                 Based on Bay protection criteria, development within a tidal wetland should be prohibited.
                 Therefore, the Comprehensive Plan has established that the "effective capacity rating" of the
                 wetland area is zero (0.0); therefore, the product of wetland acreage and the "effective capacity
                 rating" is zero (10 acres x 0.0 effective capacity rating). Thereby, tidal wetlands do not
                 contribute to the "net developable area" of the property.
                 In continuing with this illustration, the same tract may have 5 acres of land with slopes
                 ranging from 100/6-20%. The Comprehensive Plan allocates an "effective capacity rating' equal
                 to 0.7 for slopes of 10%-20%. The product of the "effective capacity rating" (0.7) multiplied

                 The Cox Company                                                          Planning Process/ V- 6







                                     plan 1990                                                         King and Queen County


                   times the physical land unit area (5-acres) is 3.5. Thus, a net 3.5 acres of the 5.0 gross acres in
                   this land unit qualify for density credit in computing the development capacity of the
                   Sub-Area. Only upon a cumulative analysis of each physical land unit and its related "effective
                   capacity rating" can the total land holding capacity for a Sub-Area be determined.
                   Listed below are the physical land units and capacity ratings to be employed by the King and
                   gueen Comprehensive Plan in determining the "net developable area" and "land holding
                   capacities" for the any development proposal. The computation of "net developable areas" and
                   land use yields will be subject to detailed site engineering and environmental studies which
                   must accompany the preparation of private development application. All "enviromnental land
                   units" should be identified and their acreages determined.

                                  Environmental ImA Unit                                               Effwtive QW@ft Rating

                                  1.    Slopes M-10%)                                                            1.0
                                  2.    Slopes (100/6-20%)                                                       0.7
                                  3.    Slopes (21%-30%)                                                         0.5
                                  4.    Slopes (greater than 30%)                                                0.1
                                  5.    Sinkholes and Major Outcroppings                                         0.1
                                  6.    Public Rights-of-Way and Major Easements                                 0.0
                                  7.    Tidal and Non-Tidal Wetlands                                             0.0
                                  8.    Floodplains, Shorelines and Drainage Channels                            0.0
                                  9.    Erosion Control Facilities                                               0.0
                                  10.   Stormwater Retention Areas                                               0.0

                   To further illustrate this performance-oriented methodology for determining "net developable
                   area" and "development capacity', the following example may be helpful:

                           I. nlustration Assumptions:
                                     Planned Land Use:                                Rural Village
                                     Planned Net Density:                             1 Unit Per 2 Net Acres
                                     Sub-Area Gross Acreage:                          100 Acres

                           2. Compute Gross Area of Environmental Land units
                                     Planned Rights-of-Way:                            20 Acres
                                     Slopes (100/6-200/6):                              10 Acres
                                     Slopes (21%-30%):                                  5 Acres.
                                     Slopes (31%+):                                     2 Acres
                                     Sinkholes:                                          I Acre
                                     Total Gross Physical Unit Area:                    38.0 acres

                           3. Compute IlVet Developable Area" of Sub-Area's EAvironmental Land Units:
                                     Planned Rights-of-Way:                           20 acres x 0.0    =  0.0 acres
                                     Slopes (100/6-200/6):                            10 acres    x 0.7 =  7.0 acres
                                     Slopes (21%-30%):                                 5 acres    x 0.5 =  2.5 acres
                                     Slopes (3 1%+):                                  2 acres     x 0.1 =  0.2 acres
                                     ShAholes:                                         I acre     xO.O  =  0.0 acres
                                     Total Net Physical Unit Area:                                      =  9.7 acres

                           4. Compute Wet Developable Area!' of total Sub-Area:
                                     Gross Sub-Area Acreage:                                      100.0
                                     Total Gross Environmental Unit Acreage:                      _-am
                                                                                                  62.0 acres
                                     Total Net Environmental Unit Acreage:                        +9.7
                                     "Net Developable Acreage":                                   71.7 acres


                           5. Compute Planned Carrying Capacityfor 'Village Residential ITise.

                                     1.0 dwellings unit/ per 2 netacres x 71.7 acres= 35.9 units


                   The Cox Company                                                                        Planning Process/ V- 7







                              Phn L99D                                                King and Queen County


                The application of this "performance-oriented" methodology offers an environmentally sound
                process through which the land use carrying capacity of a given development proposal can be
                measured. When the "net developable area" concept is used in conjunction with site planning
                and subdivision for individual development projects, the zoning district regulations, in effect,
                will merge conventional zoning (euclidean) standards with environmental performance
                standards. The end result is a more sophisticated, high quality implementation process which
                is more responsive to the inherent physical and ecological determinants of the land. Thus, the
                land is truly allowed to "speak for itself'. and. in. so doing, the link between comprehensive
                planning and zoning application is more integrally established.

                One essential element of Virginia planning and zoning law Is "uniformity". The
                "perform ance-oriented" approach to growth management ensures a uniform process of
                applying regulatory design criteria and land holding capacity programming to land areas of
                varying size, physiographic character, and locational attributes.


                Comprehensive Plan Land Use Categories
                In the following chapter, a range of land use Planning Areas have been identified for the
                purposes of the County's Future Land Use Plan Map. Within each planning district, a base
                density based on net developable areas has been established for the particular principal use.
                For example, densities for residential areas are expressed in terms of "dwelling units per net
                acre" while Intensities for commercial and industrial uses are conveyed in terms of "floor area
                ratios" applied to net developable acres within a given property.


































                The Cox Company                                                        Planning PrGcess/ V- 8







        C*nmnDmlh(m@@w@ Rm n090               mimis mon ommom commsy?










                                 Chapter 6
                       FUTURE LAND USE - .
                      RECOMMENDATIONS













                D












        Una@ C,@z c@mjPmT







                 Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                King and Queen County


                                 FuTuRE LAND UsE RE;COMMENDATIONS


                 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Categories
                 For the purposes of designating the future land uses for the County's Comprehensive Plan.
                 generalized land use Planning Districts have been identified. Each district establishes a
                 central planning "theme" which addresses the dominant planning policies, the recommended
                 land uses, district development opportunities. and guidelines for the use of land within the
                 particular district. The Future Land Use Map will employ the district designations to establish
                 the land use recommendations for the County.

                 The Comprehensive Plan recognizes four major land use districts and one overlay district with
                 performance standards for economic development and industrial land uses. The major
                 planning districts focus on distinct real estate orientations which require separate planning
                 strategies and include the following:

                                      1.   Agriculture/Open Space Planning District
                                      2.   Rural Residential Planning District
                                           Waterfront Residential Planning District
                                      4.   Rural Village Planning District
                                      5.   Economic Development Overlay District

                 In the future, Chesapeake Bay overlay districts could be used in conjunction with the major
                 planning districts in order to properly designate ecologically vulnerable land. In this way,
                 special "overlay' design criteria could be applied to these environmentally distinctive regions
                 of King and Queen. Overlay districts could be the formal instrument by which "environmental
                 land units" are recognized and assigned their development capacity restraints. The Economic
                 Development overlay serves to require special attention to potential adverse impacts of air,
                 noise, and other negative land use attributes associated with commercial and industrial land
                 development.

                 Within these planning district, a base density range has been estab  lished for the principal land
                 uses. For example, the Rural Residential district has an average density of one unit per 4 to 8
                 net developable acres. The higher density of one unit to every four acres is the allowable
                 average density when developed lots are clustered in areas most suited for development. The
                 lower density of one unit to every eight acres is to be applied when lots are not clustered. The
                 concept of clustering is explained in more detail below. Densities for residential areas are
                 expressed in terms of "dwelling units per net acre" while intensities for commercial and
                 industrial uses are conveyed in terms of "floor area ratios" applied to net developable acres
                 within a given property. The generalized use categories and densities described in the
                 Comprehensive Plan should be reflected In a compatible fashion by incorporating specific
                 amendments into the zoning ordinance upon adoption of this Plan.

                 In recommending this set of balanced land use districts, the Comprehensive Plan has adopted
                 the following range of categories and guidelines which are more extensively addressed on the
                 following pages. These uses and related densities, provide the framework upon which
                 development strategies or alternative land uses in the Planning Areas can be measured, tested
                 and, ultimately, adopted. While the recommended districts reflect the general planning goals
                 and objectives for the County, it is also recognized that the County wants to encourage its
                 long-time residents to remain in the County and does not wish to impose hardships upon
                 families who wish to subdivide their land and give lots to their children who want to settle in
                 King and Queen County. Recommended provisions for Family Subdivisions and clustering
                 which are explained in full at the end of this chapter, should be used in conjunction with the
                 major recommended districts.






                 The Cox Company                                                         Future Land Use/ V1- I







                 Comprehensive Plan 1990                                               King and Queen County


                 L     Agriculture /Qpen Space Planning District
                 The County's agricultural, forestry and open space lands are its most valued resource. The
                 Comprehensive Plan recognizes this value as well as the need to take stronger steps to conserve
                 this land for future generations. Farming and forestry should be considered the dominant land
                 uses permitted within this planning district. All other uses should be considered to be
                 secondary and supporting. The primary form of non-agricultural development within the
                 Agriculture /Open Space District should be limited to supporting residential and assessory uses.
                 The residential development density within the district should be scaled to discourage
                 subdivision of land while allowing land owners the ability to divide certain portions of their
                 property on a limited basis.

                 Any land development, including farming, within the district should respect the County's
                 fragile road network by limiting access points. The clustering of residential dwellings on the
                 lands most suited for development, should be actively encouraged. While Virginia law does not
                 provide specific enabling legislation for the transfer of development rights (TDR), King and
                 Queen should actively explore the voluntary use of the TDR concept with respect to fulfilling
                 conservation objectives within the district.

                             Significant District Fea
                             I .The major land use goal in the district is to preserve and conserve the
                                agriculture andforestry land base of the County.
                             2. Residential development is secondary to the desired Primary farming
                                and forestry objectives.
                             3. Any residential development within the district should be encouraged
                                to use cluster site planning, with the goal of preserving the maximum
                                possible acreagefor continued agricultural use.
                             4. A maximum lot size for clustered lots should be considered at the time
                                amendments allowing clustering are made to the zoning ordinance.
                             5. Average district density: One dwelling unit per 30 net developable
                                acres. The average density may be increased to one dwelling unit to 20
                                acres if lots are clustered. The minimum size of clustered lots should
                                be 2.0-3.0 acres where soils exhibit prime percolation characteristics.
                             6. Residential uses on any given property should not exceed the district
                                average. Non-clustered lots should have a 30 acre minimal lot size.
                             7. Minor subdivision of land on smaller sized Lots for family transfer
                                and use purposes should be permitted within the district, provided that
                                no more than 2 lots are divided and built upon during any ten year
                                period. Family transfer should be accomplished only by special
                                permit application.
                                Both public and private access to existing State highways should be
                                strictly controlled and should be based on strict interpretation qJ
                                VDOT sight distance requirements.
                             9. As a aeneral ouide access design guideline, no more than an average oJ
                                one access point should be permit ted (cO for every one thousand feet qJ
                             ZI property owner's road frontage and (b) for any ten residential lots.
                                Clustering of residential units should be limited to new streets with
                                appropriately located public access points.
                             10. All use of land should respect the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
                                and the County's performance critertafor affected areas.
                             11. The County should initiate further studies pertaining to the voluntary
                                use of 7@-ansferable Development Rights within the district.
                             12. Existing zoning districts governing residential development oJ
                                designated agricultural land should be rewritten to enforce the
                                minimal density and design guidelines recommended by the
                                Comprehensive Plam
                             13. The County should develop a program to actively assist agricultural
                                and forestry operations in preparing land management plans for
                                existing properties within aflive year period.




                 The Cox Company                                                        Future Land Use/ VI- 2







                 Comprehensive Plan 1990                                               EIng and gueen County


                 2.   Rural Residential Planning District
                 The Plan recognizes that the scattered development of residential lots is a subtle but most
                 damaging influence on the County's agricultural and open space conservation goals. On the
                 other hand. the Plan seeks to intelligently accommodate the regional market demands for
                 ex-urban residential locations for retirement, second home and commuting residents. While
                 the location of new residential development should be channeled towards wen planned villages
                 and existing neighborhoods, the County will face pressures to permit subdivisions within its
                 prime agricultural areas. Thus, the Rural Residential Planning District is created to recognize
                 those limited areas where rural subdivisions can be tolerated without deleterious effects on the
                 Intended development patterns for the County.

                 Current zoning standards permit residential development on undersized lots anywhere in the
                 County, without sensitivity to location, environmental characteristics and open space policies.
                 The Rural Residential District is organized to provide enhanced control over non-agricultural
                 uses and to permit the limited subdivision of land within the County's rural areas. It is to be
                 employed as the principal planning district for establishing the location of rural residential
                 development. At the same time, it must be used prudently if the Agriculture/ Open Space
                 District objectives are to succeed. For the near term, Rural Residential Districts should be
                 allocated to only those limited areas of the County where development pressures are imminent,
                 where existing roads can accornmodate residential growth, and where there is little or no
                 chance of public uthties being feasibly implemented. Rural residential subdivisions should be
                 strongly encouraged to apply cluster planning principles.

                           Significant District Fea
                           1 .  Where recognized by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, the
                                district should be used to govern the limited residential subdivision oJ
                                the County's rural land.
                           2.   The development of land subject to this Rural Residential Planning
                                District should be permitted only via a rezoning process to a new,
                                compatibly designed zoning district. Proffer zoning principles and
                                environmental performance standards should be fully incorporated
                                into zoning applications.
                           3.   Any rural residential development should be required to use cluster
                                site planning with a percentage of the land set aside for permanent
                                open space and conservation uses. A minimum one hundred foot
                                buffer should be provided between any Agriculture/ Open Space District
                                and Rural Residential District land use.
                           4.   A maximum lot sizefor clustered lots should be considered at the time
                                amendments allowing clustering are made to the zoning ordinance.
                           5.   Average district density: One dwelling unit per 8 net developable acres
                                with a 5 acre-minimum lot size of 8 acres. A greater density of one
                                dwelling unit per 4 acres should be allowed if lots are clustered. The
                                minirnurn size of clustered lots is 2.0 acres where soils exhibit prime
                                percolation characteristics. Open land that has lost its development
                                rights should be platted as such and dedicated to open space.
                           6.   Minor subdivision of land on smaller sized lots for family transfer
                                and use purposes should be permitted within the district, provided that
                                no more than 2 lots are divided and built upon during any ten year
                                period. Family transfer should be accomplished only by special
                                permit application.
                           7.   Access to existing State highways should be strictly controlled and
                                should be based on strict interpretation of VDOT sight distance
                                requirements.
                           8.   As a general access design guideline, no more than an average of one
                                access point should be permitted (a) for every one thousand feet oJ
                                property ownees road frontage and (b) for every ten residential lots.
                                Clustering of residential units should be limited to new streets with
                                appropriately located public access points.
                           9.   All use of rural residential land should respect the Chesapeake Bay
                                Preservation Act and the County's performance criteria.



                 The Cox Company                                                        Future Land Use/ VI- 3







                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                               King and Queen County

                           10. Farming and timbering operations should coordinate with local
                               officials and prepare land management plans within a five year
                               period.
                           11. The County should Mitiatefurther studies pertaining to the voluntanj
                               use of Transferable Development Rights within the district.
                           12. Existing zoning districts governing residential development of land
                               should be rewritten to enforce the minimal density CEnd design
                               guidelines recommended by the Comprehensive Plan.


                3,    Waterfront Residential Planninf. Distric
                King and Queen, unlike many of its surrounding jurisdictions, has an excellent opportunity to
                preserve its environmentally sensitive shorelines from unkempt and scattered waterfront land
                subdivision. To date, the County's shorelines have not be faced with significant development
                pressures. However, if existing County shoreline development is a sign of things to come, the
                growth management program must create stronger mechanisms to ensure that King and
                Queen's limited waterfront resources will not be adversely depleted.

                The current zoning controls for waterfront subdivisions are weak and do not sufficiently
                address environmental conservation issues. Current zoning encourages 1.5 to 2 acre
                subdivisions, a pattern that will quickly use up open space along the waterfront and possibly
                strain the land's ability to support septic systems. Over the coming decades as demographic
                influences create stronger demands for this land, waterfront areas will take on increasing
                economic value. In the interim, the haphazard, large lot subdivision of this land under the
                current waterfront district zoning should be dissuaded The long term vision for this land
                should be one that includes more sophisticated clustered uses which would employ
                contemporary utility systems and extensive environmental protection measures.

                           ftnificant DisMet Fe
                           I . Where recognized by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, the
                               district should be used to govern the limited residential subdivision oJ
                               the County's shoreline and waterfront land. Landowners should be
                               encouraged to preserve and protect existing properties, while not
                               initiating the premature subdivision of these sensitive lands.
                           2.  The development of land subject to this Waterfront Residential
                               Planning District should be permitted only via a rezoning process to a
                               new, compatibly designed zoning district, employing the Chesapeake
                               Bay Preservation Bay Area overlays where applicable. Proffer zoning
                               principles should be fully incorporated into zoning applications for
                               waterfront use.
                           3.  Any waterfront residential development should be required to use
                               cluster site planning with a signftant percentage of the land set aside
                               for permanent open space and shoreline preservation uses. A
                               minimum one hundred foot buffer should be provided between any
                               Agriculture/ Open Space District and Waterfront Residential District
                               land use.
                           4.  Average district density: One dwelling unit per 10 net developable
                               acres, with a minimum lot size of 8 acres. Urnited clustering would be
                               permitted at a density of one dwelling unit per net developable acre on
                               a minimum of 3.0 acre lots, where central (public) water and sewer
                               service are not provided. Smaller lot sizes should be permitted when
                               served by public utlities to encourage property owners to coordinate
                               future development in a more sophisticated fashion.                 Such
                               development should employ planned unit development princ4)les and
                               be subject to special permit review. Such development should only be
                               allowed (f the parcel of land remaining after subdivision is put into
                               permanent open space.
                           5.  Residential uses on any given property should not exceed the district
                               average.
                           6.  Minor subdivision of land on smaller sized lots for family transfer
                               and use purposes should be permitted within the district, provided that


                The Cox Company                                                         Future Land Use/ VI- 4







                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                              King and Queen County

                              no more than 2 lots are divided and built upon during any ten year
                              period. Family transfer should be accomplished only by special
                              permit applicattom
                          7.  Access to existing State highways should be strictly controlled and
                              should be based on strict inteTpretation of VDOT sight distance
                              requirements.
                          &   As a general access design guideline. no more than an average of one
                              access point should be permitted (a) for every one thousand feet oJ
                              property owner's road frontage and (b) for every ten residential lots.
                              Clustering of residential units should be Limited to new streets with
                              appropriately located public access points.
                          9.  All use of land should respect the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
                              and the County's perfomutnce criteria.
                          10. Landscape plans and resource protection buffer plans should be an
                              integral aspect of any land development application. Landscape and
                              buffer improvements should be subject to County bonding and
                              long-term maintenance requirements.
                          11. The construction of docks should be considered only by special permiL
                              Docks within subdivisions should be developed for common property
                              owner's usage, with a requirement not to exceed an average of one dock
                              per everyflive residences.
                          12. The County should initiate further studies pertaining to the voluntary
                              use of IYansferable Development Rights within the district.
                          13. Existing zoning districts governing residential development of land
                              should be rewritten to enforce the minimal density and design
                              guidelines recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. A maximum lot
                              size for clustered lots should be part of any zoning ordinance
                              amendment process.


                4.    Rural Village Planning District
                The Rural Village Planning District Is intended to recognize and designate the location of
                existing and future pockets of village-scaled residential and commercial development. In King
                and Queen, as well as throughout the State, most small villages have evolved from farming
                communities as a place to provide affordable housing and services for a portion of the local
                agricultural workforce. Over the past few decades, villages within commuting distances of
                urban areas have taken on a dimension of serving non-agrarian residents. Village growth
                pressures from this new, evolving population base serve to place expanded demands on local
                government. At the same time, villages afford rural counties the ability to effectively channel
                growth into areas where more cost-effective municipal serves can be provided.

                In Mattaponi and Walkerton, the County has two unique rural villages which should be viewed
                has having separate and distinct land use characteristics. These communities represent good
                examples of the value of targeting growth in areas of established development. The Plan
                recognizes the need to preserve the scenic, historic, cultural and land use integrity of these
                special settlements in King and Queen, whiJe anticipating the reasonable expansion of these
                areas. In the future, other such villages may be deemed the most appropriate planning
                approach to effeciently accommodating new residential and commercial growth. In the
                traditional sense, the appropriate development of villages serves to limit residential sprawl
                into the rural countryside and strip commercial development along major transportation
                routes. Thus, it is recommended that the majority of future County development be absorbed
                into villages, both existing and proposed, as opposed to rural areas.

                Mattaponi, Walkerton and other small rural County settlements should be planned around
                traditional village land use concepts. The current zoning controls for residential subdivisions
                are weak and do not sufficiently address environmental and utility issues common to small
                communities. These need to be strengthened. Both Walkerton and Mattaponi have limited
                geological capacities for septic drainfields, and the continued development of these areas on
                private, sub-standard utility systems will eventually create public health problems. On the
                other hand, each of these villages has room for growth, both from within and in their outlying
                areas.


                The Cox Company                                                       Future Land Use/ VI- 5







                  Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                  King and Queen County

                  Over the coming decades, as demographic influences create stronger demands for residential
                  development in King and Queen, the undeveloped land in and around          ,the villages will take on
                  increasing economic value. In the interim, the subdivision of vacant land around the villages
                  should be carefully studied for its long term development feasibility. While it is outside the
                  scope of this Comprehensive Plan to recommend public water and sewer facilities, the long
                  term vision for the villages should be that of more traditional (grid) format, employing
                  contemporary public utility systems, small lot configurations, integrated business uses,
                  compatible' architectural and landscape forms, and extensive environmental protection
                  measures employing Cheaspeake Bay Preservation standards.

                             Significant District Fea
                             I . Where recognized by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, the
                                 district should be used to govern the residential subdivision and
                                 business development of the County's established villages and
                                 communities.      Detailed village planning should examine the
                                 expansion capacity of existing communities. Landowners should be
                                 encouraged to preserve and protect existing properties in a fashion
                                 compatible with traditional village planning principles.              Other
                                 locations should be studiedfor thefuture location of new villages as an
                                 alternative to locating residential and commercial growth in a
                                 scattered fashion thoughout the County's prime agricultural and
                                 environmentally sensitive areas.
                             2.  The development of land subject to this Rural Village Planning District
                                 should be permitted only via a rezoning process to a new, compatibly
                                 designed zoning districL Proffer zoning principles should be fully
                                 incorporated into zoning applications for village development.
                                 Mixed-use opportunities, such as combined residences and businesses,
                                 should be considered
                             3.  Any Rural Village residential development should be required to use
                                 small lot, grid planning principles while setting aside a signfficant
                                 percentage of the land on the "edges" of the villages for permanent open
                                 space, park land and preservation uses. A minimum one hundredfoot
                                 buffer should be provided between any AgriculturelOpen Space District
                                 and Rural Village Planning District land use.
                             4.  Average district density: One dwelling unit per 3 net developable acres,
                                 with a 2 acre minimum lot size. Limited clustering should be permitted
                                 at a one dwelling unit to one acre average density where it can be shown
                                 that prime soils existfor wells and septic systems, provided that the
                                 balance of the subdivided land be dedicated to managed community
                                 open space. Clustered lots should be a minimum of one acre.
                                 Residential uses within any village should not exceed the district
                                 average.
                             5.  Smaller lot sizes (2 to 4 units per acre) should be permitted when served
                                 by public utlities to encourage property owners to coordinate future
                                 village development in a comprehensive, townscape fashion. The
                                 Countys planning for such development should be the subject of
                                 ongoing studies targeted to the needs of each particular village or
                                 community.
                             6.  Minor subdivision of land for family transfer via smaller sized lots
                                 should be permitted within the district, provided that no more than 2
                                 lots are divided and built upon during any ten year period. Family
                                 transfer should be accomplished only by special permit application,
                                 and the permitting of building lots should be tied to a maximum time
                                 limit for construction.
                             7.  Access to existing State highways should be strictly controlled and
                                 should be based on strict interpretation of VDOT sight distance
                                 requirements. The capacity and design of existing village public street
                                 intersections shDuld be evaluated to ensure that new development does
                                 not create adverse traffic impacts.
                                 New development in villages should respect the geometry and ordered
                                 setbacks of existing site development, provided that where existing

                  The Cox Company                                                          Future Land Use/ V1- 6








                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                 Mng and Queen County

                               development presents poor design characteristics, traditional village
                               planning principles should be followed.
                           9.  Parking areas and garages should be encouraged to locate in side and
                               rear yards. preserving the property frontages for yards and
                               landscaping. Storage and. accessory uses should be screened from
                               public street views along with the buffering and appropriate location oJ
                               refuse disposal and collection containers.
                           10. Street tree plantings should be included in the landscape planning for
                               village lot development. Existing, mature vegetation should be
                               conserved.
                           11. Business and limited commercial development should be integrated
                               into village land uses, with the spec(fic mix and density subject to
                               further planning studies by the County. Home occupations should be
                               permitted within residential dwellings.
                           12. All use of land should respect the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
                               and the County's performance criteria.
                           13. The County should initiate further studies pertaining to the voluntary
                               use of Transferable Development Rights within the district, with the
                               goal of reducing by-right development within the Agriculture/Open
                               Space Planning Districts.
                           14. Existing zoning districts governing residential development of land
                               should be rewritten to incorporate performance zoning and design
                               review. A spectal district should be drafted whichfocuses on village
                               development standards and criteria.
                           15. Site design standards and sign ordinances should be refined to provide
                               necessary guidance for village development while recognizing the
                               historical and visual qualities of these communities.
                           16. Future planning should examine the feasibility of public facilities,
                               utilities and other appropriate services which would be compatible
                               with village planning principles.

                M     Bconomic Development Overlay District
                The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that future non-agricultural industrial growth may create
                additional demands for the use of the County's environmentally sensitive lands. At present,
                commerce and industry are very limited and are located in scattered sites throughout the
                County. The near-term future growth trends in King and Queen's non-agarian businesses will
                likely to take on dispersed locational attributes. Also, there may be pressures to extend the
                boundaries of existing economic development- uses and to accommodate new business uses.
                adjacent thereto.

                At the present time. there is no compelling reason to establish on the Comprehensive Plan
                site-specific locations for major economic development uses, but the location of existing
                uses--including the new County landfill- -should be recognized. While in future decades,
                regional corporate business growth may view the County as a candidate location. current
                industrial market demands are limited to small scale operations. In accommodating new
                economic development, the County will be faced with entertaining industrial and commercial
                rezoning applications at locations throughout the County. Thus, the overlay concept provides a
                mechanism to apply sound economic development locational and master planning principles
                while, at time same time, allowing certain flexibilitles in permitting locational choice for
                these uses.

                The overlay is not intended to serve as a Comprehensive Plan         'blessing" of spot zoning for
                industry. In particular, the Economic Overlay designations that are recorrimended along Rt.
                360 and Rt. 33. are strategic locations where County should encourage well planned and
                landscaped commercial developments that have limited access to State roads. The County
                should avoid spot zoning along the highway and other practices that encourage strip
                development and unsafe traffic patterns. The overlay zone sets forth a policy that all new and
                expanded industry must provide a thorough locational, engineering, traffic and environmental
                impact assessment prior to zoning approval of business uses. Locational decisions must be
                selectively reviewed based on the specific characteristics of the proposed use and conditioned

                The Cox Company                                                          Future Land Use/ V1- 7







                Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                King and Queen County

                on the unique characteristics of the particular use.                 The specific impacts of
                industry-neighborhood compatibility, traffic, noise, air quality, water quality, Infrastructure
                requirements, environmental compatibility, etc.--should be the guiding factors in the Countys
                growth management decision process.

                From an implementation standpoint. the Plan's Economic Development Overlay District
                objectives should be incorporated into revisions to the existing zoning, subdivision, and site
                plan ordinances. Detailed definitions for establishing the impact assessment process should
                be an integral aspect of the revised industrial zoning district documentation. Requirements for
                industrial performance standards, traffic and engineering impact studies and environmental
                design criteria should be included in the ordinance update.

                Additional Recommended Provisions
                       Clustering - It is recommended that a provison encouraging the clustering of
                       newly created lots be implemented for each of the recommended land use
                       districts. Such a provision would allow the subdivision of property into lots that
                       are smaller than that which is allowed normally in the district. Clustering does
                       not give a property owner more development rights, but it allows him to develop
                       his land in a more cost efficient and environmentally sensitive manner. and at
                       the same time retain the major portion of his land in its horticultural or open
                       space use.

                       If a farmer has 240 net developable acrea that are within the Agriculture/ Open
                       Space district, he has 8 development rights ( 1 unit per 30 net developable acres x
                       240 acres). If the land owner/farmer decided that he must subdivide his land in
                       order to raise cash, he has several options. If he chooses to subdivide in the
                       conventional manner, he may subdivide the 240 acres into as many 30 acre
                       parcels as needed. However. if the owner chooses to cluster these lots on one
                       corner of his property which is particularly suited to development, he may
                       develop at an average density of 1 unit per 20 acres. At this density he has 12
                       development rights (1 unit per 20 acres x 240 acres). Depending on the ability of
                       the given soils to support development. lots as small as 2 to 3 acres may be
                       created. In this scenario. the land owner might be able to subdivide his land into
                       11 small lots of 3 acres and retain the balance of the land (207 acres) in
                       agricultural use. The 207 acres has lost its development rights, as will be noted
                       on the plat, but it retains its value for other uses.

                       The ability to cluster benefits all three parties involved, the land owner/farmer,
                       the County and future owners. The land owner is able of subdivide and develop
                       more effeciently and economically because the cost of roads can be shared and
                       septic systems and wells can be centralized. The farmer/owner is also able to
                       keep most of his land in its original use. The future owners of the subdivided
                       parcels. also benefit from these effeciencies and will able to purchase smaller
                       lots in well planned neighborhoods. The County benefits because development is
                       concentrated on the most suitable soils and vast areas of open space In the
                       County are preserved. Furthermore, by requiring that clustered lots be serviced
                       by a central road. a safer traffic environment is created and the County's scenic
                       roads are preserved.

                       Family Subdivisions - The purpose and intent of the King and Queen
                       Comprehensive Plan is to foster opportunities for current landowners to
                       maintain the productive and economic use of their existing agricultural
                       properties. While the Plan recommends an increase in the minimum lot size for
                       the subdivision of large properties, it recognizes that existing landowners should
                       have the oportunity to transfer property to members of one's immediate family
                       without being subject to all of the requirements for a major subdtvision.

                       The Plan recognizes the positive benefit of landowners and their families
                       maintaining their agricultural operations and their place of residence in King
                       and Queen. The strict application of conservation zoning and enhanced
                       subdivision regulations can present hardships on the ability of landowners to

                The Cox Company                                                         Future Land Use/ Vl- 8







                 Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                 King and Queen County

                       provide for their offspring. Accordingly, zoning and subdivision requirements
                       for the transfer of land to family members should be relaxed in the following
                       areas.

                             1. Lot Size: Family transfers (subdivision) of land should be allowed
                             for lots of two (2.0) acres and greater regardless of the underlying
                             zoning district. Thus. if the Agriculture/ Open Space District specifies a
                             minimum 30 acre lot size, a 2 acre lot may be developed under this
                             family subdivision exemption.

                             2. Frequency of Family Transfer: Two transfers of family land may be
                             permitted in any ten year period. These two transfers are development
                             rights in addition to any existing development rights of a piece of
                             property. This privilege shall be conditioned on the transferred land
                             being duly recorded in the name of the immediate family member with
                             a residence constructed and occupied by the family member within a
                             five year period. The intent is that the family subdivision exemption
                             not be used as a "loophole" to continually subdivide small lots in
                             inappropriate locations.

                       The family subdivison exemption can be implemented via its adoption into the
                       zoning and subdivision ordinance of the County. This should be done at the time
                       other provisions of the zoning and subdivision ordinance are amended to be
                       compatible with the 1990 Comprehensive Plan.





































                Ibe Cox Company                                                          Future Land Use/ VI- 9






        c@mjPmDa(Dm@@w(g Ram NO@                Ums mm(f 2meem cmmey,









                                   Chapter 7
                        IMPLEMENTATION













                 b













        'x1he com Cgmgmmy?








              Comprehensive Plan 19W                                                  King and gueen County


                                               IMPLEMENTATION


              Comprehensive Plan Implementation
              The adoption of this Comprehensive Plan serves as only one element of a continuous growth
              management process for King and Queen. In pursuit of a growth management policy which
              emphasizes both environmental preservation and rural-area conservation, land use
              implementation responsibilities must be shouldered by both the public and private sector
              alike. However, this process must be carefully orchestrated inasmuch as development occurs
              incrementally. The Comprehensive Plan serves as the framework around which relevant
              future land use decisions are based. Its implementation must be directed by growth
              management tools--zoning, subdivision and site plan ordinances, architectural guidelines,
              etc.--which are fully integrated into the Plan's "vision" for the County. The concept of
              "linkage" between the Plan and these management tools has been and must continue to be a
              dominant planning theme in this effort.

              One of the most valuable lessons learned during the update of the Comprehensive Plan is that
              the pursuit of quality environments and rational development programs require exhaustive
              work by both the private sector and the public sector. The Plan, standing alone, is insufficent
              to implement "good development": neither can the current zoning and subdivision
              ordinances fully ensure that private development be created sensitively and with respect to
              the sensitive Bay preservation issues.

              For King and Queen to preserve its rural ambience and sensitive environmental areas, it will
              take hard work and a strong political commitment to the Plan's land use goals. Growth
              within the County is inevitable, and, in all likelihood, will occur in the same haphazard
              fashion as evidenced in other rural Tidewater localities which have 'subcumbed" to
              suburban development pressures. The lesson to be learned from these past growth
              management failures is very simple: The proper planning and control of growth in
              agricultural jurisdictions requires the same level of focused governmental planning
              attention as found in urban locales. While different principles apply between slow-growth
              rural areas and rapidly expanding suburban communities, no less effort is required, for
              example, to ensure that local roads are not dealt irreparable damage by the uncontrolled
              subdivision of frontage properties.

              For King and Queen to successfully fulfill its stated land use objectives. the development of
              each parcel of land must be viewed within the framework of both short-range and long-range
              planning goals. As King and Queen develops, the full effect of the Plan will be measured by
              the success or failure of any given site development project or subdivision. The Plan's
              "vision" is defined by the many discrete decisions (both public and private) which address the
              matter of the location, density, scale, environmental preservation. visual quality and
              phasing of any particular land use application. Accordingly, the tools and methods to be
              incorporated into growth management efforts must focus on each aspect of the land
              development 'process.

              If future growth is to be orchestrated with stren    gthened linkages between the planning
              process and land development controls, both public officials and private
              landowners/ developers must embrace the concept of "design partnerships". This Plan seeks
              to identify a mechanism for an enhanced public/private dialogue at the project inception
              stage. Similarly, in promoting communications between the developer and regulator of the
              land use process, the County does not want to place an undue burden on any applicant.
              Therefore, this process is structured so that the Involved parties can fully explore planning
              issues, concerns and site opportunities at the pre-planning level. As cited in this chapter,
              .pre-planning conferences" should be conducted prior to the preliminary plat, site plan
              and/or subdivision stage in the existing growth management process.

              The balance of this chapter explores ways to improve King and Queen's implementation
              systems and land use regulations. The current subdivision and zoning ordinances are
              reviewed, along with suggestions for updating them to be consistent with the Plan's goals.

              The Cox Company                                                           Implementation/V11-1







              Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                King and gueen County


              The essential components of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act are summarized, and
              other recommendations for enhancing the County's land development regulations are made.

              Subdivision Ordinance Regulations
              The subdivision ordinance is one of the principal land use Implementation tools available to
              the County. It is used to establish the criteria for property development whenever a parcel of
              lot is divided for the purposes of transfer of ownership. Over the years, the subdivision
              ordinance will become increasingly more important as King and Queen faces the pressures
              related to the subdivision of its rural countryside.

              A detailed review of the County's Subdivision Ordinance (as adopted October 12, 1988), found
              that it was competently drafted and is responsive, for the most part, to most near-term land
              use issues which the County will face in the future subdivision of its land. However, for it to
              provide sufficient protection to the County's rural environment when challenged by the
              pressures of suburbanization, it should be strengthened. This section serves to critique the
              ordinance and to offer suggestions as to where it may be improved by the future actions of the
              Commission and Board of Supervisors. The review comments herein reflect the experience
              and precedents of many other Virginia localities in working with subdivision controls
              within both rural and urban communities. However, these recommendations are focused on
              the potentially hannful land use impacts which may occur in King and Queen in the absence
              of ordinance enhancements.


              L Private Streets
              Throughout Virginia, the     issue of private streets is extremely controversial. Many
              communities want them, some do not. From the standpoint of public equity, private streets
              should not be eliminated, in our viewpoint, from any subdivision ordinance.
              Notwithstanding that private streets are permitted only in minor subdivisions, King and
              Queen officials should acknowledge the common problems associated with private streets,
              their design criteria, construction, and maintenance. In turn, the subdivision ordinance
              sections pertaining to private streets should be significantly enhanced.

              With respect to pavement design, a private street should differ little from a street which
              would otherwise be dedicated for public use. Private street pavement standards should
              correspond to VDOT criteria as related to pavement wearing surfaces, sub-base materials,
              compaction standards and appurtenant drainage improvements. The design standards for
              the horizontal and vertical geometry of private streets, on the other hand, can be relaxed
              somewhat from conventional VDOT criteria.

              King and Queen should incorporate both geometric guidelines as well as pavement design
              criteria for private streets based on the actual anticipated traffic loading and topognaphic
              constraints impacting the subject street. Final engineering requirements for private streets
              should include standard plan and proffle designs, curb and/or ditch hydraulic calculations,
              grading studies, and erosion and sediment control measures.

              Private streets are successful where subdivisions are properly designed, financed and
              maintained. The latter point Is essential for the long-term success of private street
              development in King and Queen. Many developers leave urban areas to develop in rural areas
              because they sense that it is "easier to build" in remote localities. In many instances, second
              rate development is promulgated in rural areas by developers who do the absolute minimum
              necessary to get their subdivisions platted. On the other hand the County does not want to
              unduly burden landowners who wish to create. over time, a small clustered subdivision and
              who may not be able to afford to build a private road before selling several lots. Private
              driveways should be allowed for a small number of lots (3 for example). As more lots are sold
              off the road should be upgraded to the standards described in the above paragraphs. The
              County should also take measures to insure that this leniency is not used as a loophole for
              individuals who do not wish to pay the expense of a private road and create several small
              subdivisions with private roads. Such practices will not yield the benefits of clustering and
              will continue to chop up road frontage.



              The Cox Company                                                          Implementation/V11-2








              Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                  King and Queen County


              In some communities, the "rule of thumb" on private streets is that they may be pen-nitted
              where is it not feasible to build public streets. but, always leaving the burden of proof on the
              applicant to establish why the public street won't work. The argument of economic hardship
              by the developer does not always hold up in this instance. Thus. the ordinance should be
              amended to give the Commission authority to approve or reject the use of private streets in
              any given subdivision application.
              Subdivision "success stories" are found in Virginia's rural communities having strong design
              and maintenance standards. Maintenance needs to be addressed from the standpoint of
              requiring developments with private streets to have legally constituted homeowners and
              maintenance associations. In Virginia, homeowners associations are created for the
              principal purpose of funding and maintaining commonly owned property and facilities
              within a private comrnunity. Our recommendation, in this regard, is that no private street
              subdivision be approved without a legally viable homeowners association and officially
              constituted articles of incorporation for that subdivision.

              In summary, the County should not approach every application for minimally designed
              private streets with the mentality that private streets are an "endowed right". To do so will
              place long-term economic burdens on the County and the eventual homeowner. There are
              many sad tales where property owners living on private streets have had to absorb
              tremendous expenses to maintain poorly built private access routes. Streets, by their nature,
              are public improvements. New minor subdivisions in King and Queen should be spared the
              potential problem of inadequately constructed private streets.

              2. Public Street and Road Design Standards
              All public streets within the County are subject to the design requirements of the Virginia
              Department of TYansportation. However, fle-xibility as well as additional requirements in
              standardized VDOT design standards can be incorporated into local implementation
              documents. The existing County ordinance should be continually updated as new road design
              critieria is established by the State.

                        A. Alignment and Layout: Street alignment and layout should be based on the
                        functional classification of the proposed street, the anticipated future traffic
                        demands on that street. and the physiographic conditions impacting the
                        construction of that street. Horizontal and vertical alignment criteria for proposed
                        streets shall conform with the latest standards of the Virginia Department of
                        Transportation. The cur-rent VDOT criteria for such was upgraded on January 1.
                        1990. and these new design regulations should be adopted by reference into King and
                        Queen's growth management program.

                        B. Street Intersections: Street intersections should be spaced such that (a) two
                        minor streets shall not intersect with a major (collector or arterial) street at a
                        separation distance of less than two hundred feet, (b) major (collector or arterial)
                        streets shall not intersect with a major (collector or arterial) street at a separation
                        distance of less than six hundred feet.

                        C. Approach Angle: Public streets shall approach other public streets at an angle of
                        not less than ninety degrees, unless the agent upon reconunendation of VDOT shall
                        approve a lessen angle of approach.

                        D. Affinimurn Widths: Public right-of-way widths and pavement widths shall
                        conform to the most recent VDOT standards.

                        E. Cul-de-Sacs: Oftentimes, cul-de-sac street development can be employed
                        creatively to lessen the impact of strip development along the County's existing
                        secondary roads. Short cul-de-sacs should be employed where feasible as an option
                        to single family residential development on these existing frontage roads. Cul-de-
                        sacs should be no longer than six hundred feet unless the agent upon
                        recommendation of VDOT shall approve a greater length. The cul-de-sac length


              The Cox Company                                                            Implementation/V11-3







              Comprehensive Plan 19W                                                  King and Queen County



                        shall be measured as the horizontal distance along the centerline of the cul-de-sac
                        from the radius of the cul-de-sac bulb to the centerline of the intersecting through
                        street.

              3. General Subdivision Guidelines

                        A. Stormwater Management: The subdivider shall provide for on-site stormwater
                        management facilities in areas of the County designated for mandatory stormwater
                        management. These facilities should be designed in keeping with the new CBLAB
                        regulations. On-site stormwater management facilities shall be designed to retain
                        the increased runoff from the 10-year post development storm. Stormwater
                        management facilities should be analyzed and designed by a registered professional
                        engineer and such designs shall conform with VDOT and other contemporary design
                        criteria. As a minimum design criteria. the quantity and quality of stormwater
                        runoff for newly developed properties should be equal to or less than the runoff from
                        the property in its pre-development condition. Design analysis should address the
                        management needs for 2. 10, and 100 year rainfall events.

                        B. Easements* Easement widths for public utilities should vary depending on the
                        size, type and location of the given underground utility line. The ordinance should
                        be amended to provide guidelines for a variable width utility scale.

                        C. Erosion and Sediment Control: The subdivider of any major or minor
                        subdivision shall provide for on-site erosion and sediment control in accord with
                        the standards and criteria provided for in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment
                        Control Handbook. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be prepared by a
                        registered professional engineer and submitted with any subdivision application.
                        Erosion and sediment control plans must include an analysis of site soils and a
                        land management program addressing temporary (in-construction) and permanent
                        erosion control measures. Further. the E & S plan should be coordinated with the
                        new Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act requirements.

                        D. Preliminary Sketch Plan Process: From the perspective of the County Planners,
                        the sketch plan is arguably the most important step in any subdivision application
                        process. It offers the opportunity for the County to provide comprehensive planning
                        input to any given project and to offer the developer substantive guidelines which
                        should improve the overall quality of a given project. Over the long haul, the sketch
                        plan process will become very' important in King and Queen's growth management
                        efforts. There are several refinements. which we suggest be incorporated into the
                        current sketch plan requirements.

                        The sketch plan should provide both a graphic and narrative statement of the
                        proposed subdivision concept. General standards for the submission of a sketch
                        plan shall address the following: (a) size and density of development, (b) conformity
                        with County zoning and planning, (c) proposed water and sewer facilities, (d)
                        proposed traffic circulation plan and traffic impacts, (e) environmental impacts
                        relating to Chesapeake Bay standards and criteria, (d) proposed stormwater
                        management facilities. (e) phasing of development, and (f) impacts of adjoining
                        properties.

                        The graphic exhibit for the sketch plan should be prepared at a scale not greater
                        than 1"=100'. Where topographic information is available, it should be shown on
                        the sketch plan. A formal sketch plan review should include both County and State
                        personnel (VDOT, SCS, Health Department) where possible.

                        E. Preliminary Plat: The requirements for the preliminary plat submission should
                        be expanded to include more detailed information. A representative "check list" for
                        the preliminary plat should be developed by the County and distributed for use by
                        any potential subdivider of land. The current King and Queen ordinance refers to

              The Cox Company                                                          Implementation/V11-4








               Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                King and gueen County


                        certain design plans being required at this stage. It is assumed that Only
                        preliminary designs are required with the preliminary plat. Normally. the time,
                        expense and energy to prepare final engineering drawings for a subdivision does not
                        occur until the preliminary plat has been approved. Thus, there should be a clear
                        delineation between the preliminary and final plat requirements for the level of
                        design detail for public improvements.

                        F. Final Plat: As with the preliminary plat, the requirements for the final plat
                        submission should be expanded to include the more detailed engineering
                        Information. Since the preparation of engineering designs and construction
                        specifications comes into play with the final plat, there should be a more
                        comprehensive listing of design-related requirements and specifications.
                        Specifically, requirements should be included addressing public improvements
                        final designs (streets, water, sewer, drainage, etc.) stormwater management, site
                        grading, development phasing, erosion and sediment control, floodplain
                        identification and computations. etc. A representative "check list" for the final
                        plat should be prepared for use by all subdividers of land.

                        The State Library Board now stipulates that record plats be submitted on copies
                        ranging in size from 8.5"xl I" to 24"x36". The Clerk of the Court may wish to
                        reconsider the current 18"x23" maximum size required in the County ordinance. If
                        a smaller size for recordation is desirable, then the ordinance should be amended to
                        specify the smaller size. It is recor=ended that the County adopt the smaller
                        format, but require that the public Improvement plans be prepared at a sufficiently
                        large scale W=50'niinimum) to show the entire subdivided property.

                        G. Subdivision and Public Improvements Bonding: The County may wish to
                        consider expanding its conditions of plat approval. They are currently written to
                        either require full completion of improvements or, in lieu of this. the posting of a
                        bond. Our experience has been that bonds should always be required inasmuch as
                        they establish that the subdivider has the financial ability to complete his work
                        before he starts it. Bonds come in different shapes and sizes. A performance bond
                        (as noted in the ordinance) is not as secure an instrunient as a subdivision bond
                        (which is not noted in the ordinance).

                        The ordinance does not provide for means by which the bond can be released, based
                        on performance and satisfactory completion. A bank or bonding agency will not
                        issue a bond for an unrestricted period of time. Thus, the County should ensure that
                        all subdivision bonds are issued for a time period sufficient to cover the Project
                        development. Provisions for the extension of bonds should be included to recognize
                        instances where a developer cannot complete a project due to unforseeable and
                        unavoidable circumstances.          In. any event. bond procedures must be
                        comprehensively defined to be fully effective instruments in insuring the County
                        against having to complete an abandoned or bankrupt subdivision. The current
                        Codrity bonding provisions are very open ended. Further, recent State.law
                        pertaining to subdivisions (Section 15.1-466(l)) creates further provisions which the
                        County may want to enact.


               Agricultural and Residential Zoning District Regulations
               Th6 County's zoning ordinance should be strengthened in the areas of conservation and
               agricultural zoning regulations. These districts do not sufficiently focus on environmental
               impacts associated with the development of rural farms into rural subdivisions. Further, the
               zoning districts do not provide an adequate mechanism to implement the strong
               conservation goals which have been adopted by the Planning Commission.

               To achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning ordinance should be
               substantially rewritten. These new zoning districts should be compatible with the goals and
               objectives for each of the four major planning district designations presented in the
               preceding chapters- -Agriculturel Open Space, Rural ResidentiaL Waterfront Residential. and

               The Cox Company                                                          Implementation/VH-5








              Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                  King and Queen County


              Rural Village. While it is not the task of this study to undertake such a rewrite, the County
              should pursue the preparation of a new zoning code in conjunction with the ongoing adoption
              schedule for the Chesapeake Bay regulations. In the following section, each of the major
              zoning district regulations have been analyzed with respect to their internal consistency
              with the Plarfs goals and objectives as well as their relationship to the other districts.

                     1.   Conservation District

                     A.   While the "intent of district" section is well founded, it appears to be insufficient
                          to address the needs of the Chesapeake Bay Criteria. For example, additional
                          definitions pertaining to conservation areas should be added to the ordinance if it
                          is to be maintained "on the books". Due to the structure of this district, it is
                          important to more clearly emphasize that the C-District is Intended to address
                          critical environmental areas (unsuitable for urban development) and that it is not
                          necessarily a district oriented for agricultural land preservation.

                     B.   The methods by which C-District land is analytically specified should be added to
                          the district regulations. For example, if floodplains are to be included in
                          conservation district land, then it should be specified what degree of floodplain
                          qualifies (such as a 50, 100, or 500 year flood elevation). Since FEMA regulations
                          are not comprehensive, the County should require flood plain mapping of 50, 100,
                          and 500 year floodplains, as part of the site plan approval process.

                     C.   With the addition of new Chesapeake Bay guidelines, the thoughtful redraft of the
                          C-District could be the preferred section the ordinance for the incorporation of
                          lands impacted by the CBLAB regulations. If this is the case, then the C-District
                          could be rewritten as two overlay districts employing CBLAB guidelines.

                     2.   Agricultural District

                     A.   While the "intent of district" section clearly states that the A-District serves to
                          promulgate forestry and agricultural land uses. certain regulations within the text
                          do not complement this objective. Most notable is the minimum lot size of five (5)
                          acres per residential unit. The typical 5-acre lot serves to rapidly deplete and
                          increase the propensity of large tract owners to subdivide their land. This lot size
                          .eats up" road frontage and does little to promote agricultural interests.

                          If the A-District is truly intended to serve agricultural preservation objectives,
                          then a much larger minimum lot size should be introduced. Some jurisdictions in
                          Virginia employ a "sliding scale" for minimum lot size and development rights.
                          For example, Albemarle County allows for only a maximum number Of five
                          development rights of "small lots" with the balance of one's land required to be
                          divided into 21 acre lots. Clarke County requires @ increasingly large lots and lower
                          net development rights the larger the tract. Both of these systems have been
                          castigated for being non-uniform, and we tend to agree. However, neither system
                          has been challenged to date in court.

                          For a minimum lot size in King and Queen, we recommend that 20 to 30 acres be
                          considered by the Commission. Obviously, there is broad fleidbility in how we
                          treat these regulations, but our overriding objective should be to increase the
                          ability of large landowners to market their land in a piecemeal fashion.

                     B.   The minimum lot width should be increased to 400 to 500 feet if the minimum lot
                          size is increased. There aren't many farms that are narrower. In this regard,
                          clustering should be introduced to enable a subdivider the obtain optimal lot
                          proportions while minimizing the impact of "frontage" development on the
                          existing State road network.

                     C.   Conceptually, the Commission should think of the A-District in terms of
                          minimum district size. For example, it is desirable A-Districts should cover

              The Cox Company                                                            Implementation/VH-6







              Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                   King and Queen County


                          several thousands of acres uninterrupted by other, more intensive use districts.
                          Thus, in considering any new Zoning Map for King and Queen. the broader
                          planning objective should be to maintain and, possibly. broaden the land area
                          coverage of the A-District.
                     D.   Livestock auction markets should be a conditional use due to the potential of such
                          facilities to cause runoff and non-point water quality problems within sensitive
                          environmental areas.

                     E.   Public solid waste transfer sites should be a conditional use for the same reasons
                          as above.

                     F.   For more effective implementation, this district should be abandoned and
                          replaced by a new Agriculture/ Open Space zoning district which is more
                          compatible with the recommendations presented for the Agriculture/ Open Space
                          Planning District (see preceding chapter).

                     3.   Agricultural/Low Density Rural

                     A.   For more effective implementation, this district should be abandoned and
                          replaced by a new Rural Residential zoning district which is more compatible with
                          the recommendations presented for the Rural Residential Planning District (see
                          preceding chapter).

                     B.   The A/LDR District concept, in essence, recognizes the necessity to 'spot" zone
                          certain uses within the less dense Agricultural District. In the application of this
                          district, great care must be taken to maintain "uniformity" with respect to its use.
                          If the ordinance is to be rewritten, this district should be replaced by a more
                          flexible, cluster-oriented approach to rural subdivision.

                     C.   Commercial uses are not recommended in the Rural Residential Planning
                          District. However. if the A/LDR district Is retained additional regulations for
                          general stores should include (1) requirements for landscaped screening of
                          parking from public roads and adjacent "ag" land, (b) additional front yard
                          setbacks for parking lots, and (c) additional side yard setbacks when store is
                          adjacent to "ag" land. With these stipulations, the general store might best be
                          placed into the district as a conditional use (requiring a site plan to show the
                          proper placement and application of the additional requirements.)

                     D.   Accessory use yard requirements are minimal. These could easily be increased to
                          twenty five to thirty feet if the Conunission so desires.

                     4.   Residential (R) District

                     A.   There is little difference between the R-District and the A/tDR District with
                          respect to area, yards, widths and setbacks. The County needs to establish
                          distinguishing rationale between these two districts in order to effectively apply
                          one or the other to a given piece of property. It is likely that the use of the A/LDR
                          District could easily be challenged by a private landowner desiring this next
                          higher density. Our recommendation would be to either (1) Increase the A/LDR
                          minimum lot size, (2) decrease the R-District lot size, (3) or to blend the R- and
                          A/LDR Districts into a single zone.

                     B.   The option to develop "cluster subdivisions" could be included in the A/LDR-
                          District. In areas where soils conditions are suitable, clustering could be
                          encouraged in conjunction with preservation goals for sensitive environmental
                          properties which might not otherwise fall under CBLAB regulations. For example,
                          the minimurn lot size could be reduced to 30,000 SF where it can be shown that (1)
                          the overall subdivision density does not exceed one unit per acre, (2) there is ample
                          room on each lot for a "reserve" drainfield, (3) increased setbacks from stream

               The Cox Company                                                           Implementation/VII-7







              Comprehensive Plan IL990                                                King and 9=en County


                         valleys can be- achieved. (4) reduced overlot grading impacts would be achieved,
                         and (5) minimized disturbance of tract (including reduction in Jinpervious area) is
                         readily attainable.
                     C.  Since two-family dwellings are pennitted, the minimum lot area should stipulate
                         that adequate area exists for a "reserve" drainfield for each unit. On the other
                         hand, the County should seriously reconsider the viability of any two-family
                         dwellings in the rural countryside. Such uses are normally associated with
                         village and town-scaled development.

                     D.  For more effective implementation, this district should be abandoned and
                         replaced by a new Rural Residential zoning district which is more compatible with
                         the recommendations presented for the Rural Residential Planning District (see
                         preceding chapter).

                     5.  Waterfront Residential MR) District
                     A.  All yard regul&ions (front, side and rear) may need to be amended to meet future
                         min.imum CBIAB design criteria. In this case Section 6-A-8 would have to be
                         expanded.

                     B.  In many instances, the only difference between "conservation" land and
                         "waterfront residential" land will be the development objective of the landowner.
                         Thus, the areas within the County for the geographical application of this district
                         must be carefully defined- otherwise the Commission will be hard pressed to deny
                         a "WR" application.

                     C.  Given the land use goal of reducing waterfront development, the V%7R District
                         appears to be its own worst enemy. To maintain compatibility with the
                         Comprehensive Plan. waterfront development should be implemented only where
                         environmental issues can be satisfied. There is little evidence that development
                         employing well and septic field utilities should be permitted along the County's
                         senstive waterfront areas and other wetlands. For this reason, the County might
                         consider a policy of permitting waterfront subdivision only where central water
                         and sewer systems could be economically developed.

                     6.  Residential Village (RV) District

                     A.  Unlike the R-District, this district does not permit two family dwellings. If this
                         district is to survivie, these should be included, but as a conditional use.

                     B.  Nursing homes and group homes should be conditional uses requiring both public
                         (or centralized) water and sewer. There is no provision for density controls for
                         th ese uses, which creates the potential for abuse of this regulation.

                     C.  This district should only be used where public (or centralized) water and sewer
                         facilities are in place or are planned. The area regulations for non-centralized
                         utilities are not unlike the R-District. This presents redundancy and win cause
                         problems down the road with implementation.

                     D.  The 24,000 square foot minimum lot size Is too large to economically develop as a
                         'village" residential use and yet, it is too small to accommodate development on
                         well and spectic systems. One or more single family detached districts of varying
                         lot size could replace this district. Normally, a "village" density corresponds to a
                         half-acre (or 20,000 SF) lot, while a "suburban" density corresponds to a quarter-
                         acre (or 10,000 SF) lot. In no instance, however, should such densities be
                         permitted without public utilities and adequate subdivision improvements.

                     E.  There are no provisions in the residential districts for attached housing.
                         condominium housing, apartment housing and other residences which could be

              The Cox Company                                                           Implementation/VH-8








              Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                 King and Queen County


                         developed in a *village" or "suburban" orientation with public utilities. We
                         recommend that two new districts covering these uses be incorporated Into the
                         zoning ordinance. These may not be used for quite some time to come, but they
                         should be an integral part of the overall ordinance.

                    F.   For more effective implementation. this district should be abandoned and
                         replaced by a new Rural Village zoning district which is more compatible with the
                         recommendations presented for the Rural Village Planning District (see preceding
                         chapter).

                    7.   Manufactured Home Park OdHP) District

                    A.   Given the environmental hazards posed by mobile home parks that contain small
                         lots and use well and septic systems, there should be very compelling reasons to
                         develop parks using public water and sewer systems. The current ordinance does
                         not provide a sufficient "carrot" to encourage public utilities. More density,
                         smaller lots and clustering should be discussed as an option when public utilities
                         are obtained.

                    B.   Conversely, a manufactured home creates similar impacts as a single family
                         residence. Thus, there is little reason to permit the development of mobile homes
                         (served by well and septic) on lots any smaller than a normal residential dwelling.
                         A minimum 40,000 SF per lot should be considered.


              Additional Implementation Considerations

              1. Cluster Subdivisions
              Conventional rural lot development is subject to the criticism that it does not foster
              environmentally sound environmental practices. As an alternative, the clustering of
              residential lots is a means of permitting a developer to take best advantage of the prime
              developable portions of a property while conserving those areas which are environmentally
              sensitive. The net result is that the County achieves better development and the land owner
              is able to produce the development more cost-effectively. Unfortunately. King and Queen' s
              ordinances do not afford this option.

              Clustered residential development- will likely become an issue as growth pressures in King
              and Queen increase. For example, the County may want to encourage cluster subdivisions as
              a mechanism to limit the "eating up" of road frontage along the major traveled routes in King
              and Queen. Similarly, clustering is one means of introducing "equity" into the County's
              growth controls while adhering to the more restrictive aspects of the Chesapeake Bay
              regulations. Additional language should be added to both the subdivision ordinance and the
              zoning ordinance to address this concept. In some instances, cluster development should be
              required, while in others. cluster development should only be permitted as a conditional use.

              2. Pro-Rata Share for Public Utilities
              Virginia legislation provides for regional as well as joint development approaches for the
              construction and financing of public water, sewer and drainage improvements. The County
              may wish to expand its planning to identify and include geographical "target areas" where
              the pro-rata share legislation. would be effective. Section 15.1-4660) now allows for public
              water to be included in pro-rata share programs. The County ordinance recognizes only
              sewer and drainage as inclusive in this concept.

              3. Storm Drainage and Floodplain
              The ordinance should provide a more explicit definition of adequate storm drainage as well
              as floodplain identification techniques. The purpose of this would be to place the
              responsibility on the applicant's engineer to clearly establish sound subdivision designs
              which respond to health and safety issues related to drainage. In this regard, the
              establishment of flood plain easements and storm drainage improvements criteria should be
              included in the subdivision ordinance. Construction standards and engineering

              The Cox Company                                                          Implementation/V11-9








              Comprehensive Plan 1990                                               King and Queen County


              specifications should be referenced to current published VDOT design guidelines. The current
              VDOT Highway Drainage Manual should be identified as an adopted resource for preparing
              designs for drainage improvements within public rights-of-way. Also. the State s Best
              Management Practices Guidelines should be employed for all land development activities.
              Engineers should be required to submit hydraulic designs computations on standard VDOT
              work sheets.

              4. Wetlands and Critical Environmental Areas
              As noted throughout this document. the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board has recently
              finalized the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations. These regulations require that
              all impacted Tidewater jurisdictions--including King and Queen--amend local ordinances to
              implement the policies of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Art. During the first year of the
              Board's program, certain minimum requirements must be addressed by King and Queen.
              These include the preparation of environmental data, the local designation of the County's
              preservation areas, the adoption of interim environmental performance standards and
              design criteria, and the designation of "Intensely developed areas" if any exist.
              During the second year of the Bay program, localities will be required to fully implement the
              balance of the CBLAB criteria. At this time. the King and Queen subdivision and zoning
              ordinances must be modified to reflect the adopted CBLAB environmental design criteria.
              Other County land use guidelines will be affected, including the erosion and sediment control
              ordinance. procedures for requiring environmental impact assessments for new
              development, floodplain controls, and stormwater management guidelines.

              The CBLAB has recently issued a "local implementation manual" which will detail how
              localities can work with the new State regulations. While certain basic performance
              guidelines will be mandated, it will be generally left up to the Planning Commission to
              determine how best to apply this work to King and Queen's growth management regulations.

              5. Majo r and Minor Subdivisions
              The subdivision of land can take on varying scales and proportions. The County's
              subdivision ordinance should be sufficiently flexible to recognize that certain regulatory
              differences exist between a 200-acre subdivision and a simple division of family land for use
              by family members. Similarly, the subdivision standards should provide for "minor
              subdivisions" which need not go through the "bureaucracy" normally associated with larger
              scaled developments. The intent is to allow the owner of a small parcel--say ten to twenty
              acres--to either give or sell a small portion of one's land to family members without having
              to meet all normal subdivision stipulations. On the other hand. "major subdivisions"
              regulations should maintain and respect all legislatively mandated review requirements.

              6. Public Road Frontage Conservation
              At present. King and Queen's public road system provides adequate levels of service to the
              existing population. While many existing State secondary roads have major alignment
              deficiencies- -both vertical and horizontal--due to any given road alignment's particular
              agrarian orons, there is no compelling reason for these roads to be upgraded as long as
              development pressures do not overcome the rural countryside. Due to economic realities,
              VDOT road funding mechanisms and priorities do not place the County in a good position to
              receive extenstve funds for new and improved roads. Thus. it is extremely Important for the
              County to view their existing road system as a reasonably "fixed" resource.

              The uncontrolled development of private access points onto State roads is a significant
              factor in reducing the capacity of the road network. Since most residential land development
              in King and Queen is created on lots with direct frontage on existing secondary roads, the
              effective carrying capacity of these roads is being gradually eroded. At the same time, these
              residential lots absorb valuable frontage real estate while doing little to complement the
              rural ambience of the road network. Over the long-term, frontage lots severely damage the
              continuity of rural roads--from both a functional and aesthetic standpoint-- and, thereby,
              create the stark potential for King and Queen@s attractive agricultural enviromnent to take
              on the look and feel of poorly conceived, piecemeal development.


              The Cox Company                                                       Implementation/VU-10







               Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                    King and gueen County


               To offset this potential, the County's subdivision and zoning ordinances should be
               restructured to encourage non-frontage development, while, at the same time. placing
               restrictions on the strip development of residential lots along vulnerable existing roads.
               Zoning techniques- -such as cluster planning, performance zoning, density bonuses and
               increased minimum lots widths on public streets--can have the net impact of controlling
               highway access points and lessening the adverse traffic characteristics of rural land
               subdivision.

               The subdivision ordinance should be strengthened to mandate preliminary sketch plans and
               work sessions with the Zoning Administrator to explore alternative subdivision layout
               schemes. New subdivision standards should address a scaled system of permitted road access
               points from private land. Such a system would take into consideration the unique
               characteristics of a given property, including (a) the total length of road frontage, (b) the total
               land area to be developed, and (c) the physiographic characteristics of the land. The net effect
               would be to effectively link site-specific performance criteria to traditional subdivision
               standards. The adoption of the Chesapeake Bay regulations wilL for the most part, require
               that the County establish a performance approach to subdivision and site plan review.


               Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations
               On September 20, 1989, the Chesabeake Bay Local Assistance Board adopted and issued the
               final regulations regarding Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area management and designation
               guidelines. These regulations will have an immediate and immense impact on the
               traditional systems of Land use governance in rural areas such as King and Queen. Further,
               the new 'laws require full and timely jurisdictional compliance with respect to incorporating
               minimal management and preservation area protection practices into local zoning and
               subdivision controls.

               The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board (CBIAB) regulations are incorporated into a six
               part format developed by the State which address the following chapters: (1) Introduction
               and purpose, (2) local government programs. (3) preservation area designation criteria. (4)
               land use and performance criteria, (5) Implementation and regulatory consistency, and (6)
               enforcement.

               'Me timing of CBLAB implementation requirements will be an important concern for the
               County and one which is certainly integral to this Comprehensive Plan. With respect to the
               current comprehensive plarming process for King and Queen County, it will be necessary to
               incorporate several aspects of the CBLAB guidelines within a two year period. However,
               Preservation Area designations and development performance criteria must be incorporated
               into County ordinances within twelve months from the date of CBLAB enaction, or
               September 20, 1990.

               Summarized below are the essential findings for each of the six CBLAB regulatory mandates.
               These portions of the new regulations should receive the County's immediate attention,

                     Part 1. Introduction
                     A. All towns, counties and cities in the Tidewater shall adopt these regulations. while
                     other local governments outside the Tidewater have the option to adopt the same. King
                     and QueeWs boundaries are fully located within the impact area.

                     B. The principal purpose of the regulations are to both protect and improve water
                     quality in the Bay via the definition and protection of designated areas to be known as
                     Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas.

                     C. In essence, the new regulations establish a model for localities to draft and adopt
                     growth management regulations for the Preservation Areas. Zoning, subdivision.
                     erosion and sediment control, and comprehensive planning are to serve as the
                     mechanism through which localities enact the State mandated requirements.



               The Cox Company                                                             Implementation/V11-11







              Comprehensive Pbm 1990                                                   King and Queen  .County

                    D. A comprehensive set of definitions are provided in CBLAB's Part I regulations.
                    These definitions should be amplified and refined to meet the needs Of King and Queen
                    county planning process, and, thereupon, should be adopted Into the language of the
                    zoning ordinance -and the subdivision ordinance (or in a separate CBP ordinance). A
                    copy of these definitions are appended to the Comprehensive Plan.

                    Part 11. Local Government Proar-ams
                    A. This chapter examines the goals and objectives for the development of local
                    governmental programs addressing the CBLAB regulations. The County should
                    incorporate by reference the five goals stated in 2.1 into the King and Queen
                    comprehensive planning goals.

                    B. King and Queen shall be required to adopt two elements of the program within a
                    twelve month period. These include (1) a map delineating Chesapeake Bay Preservation
                    Areas. and (2) land use performance criteria applying to these areas. The dominant
                    thrust of the County's planning activities upon adoption of this Comprehensive Plan
                    should be to initiate all studies and requirements towards meeting the CBLAB
                    timeframes. This work should be coordinated through the Planning District
                    Commission in concert with approved planning grants provided to that agency by the
                    State.

                    C. The remaining elements of the CBLAB program must achieve local compliance
                    within a second twelve month period. These include (1) a comprehensive plan revision
                    that incorporates the protection of the Preservation Areas and the quality of State
                    waters, (2) a zoning ordinance (or revision thereto)..that incorporates measures to
                    comply with CBLAB guidelines,(3) a subdivision ordinance (or revision thereto) that
                    incorporates measures to comply with CBLAB guidelines, (4) an updated erosion and
                    sediment control plan, and (5) a set of administrative policies and permitting
                    procedures that ensure effective management and quality control of development by the
                    locality, specifically a "Plan of Development" process.

                    Part M. Preservation Area Designation Criteria
                    A. CBLAB regulations provide for two levels (or designations) of Chesapeake Bay
                    Preservation Areas: (1) Resource Protection Areas and (2) Resource Management Areas.

                    B. Resource Projection Areas (RPAs) apply to lands at or near the shoreline. These
                    lands are valuable due to (a) their ecological function in removing or reducing adverse
                    impacts of runoff entering the Bay and its tributaries and (b) their extreme
                    environmental sensitivity to the disruptive influences of urban development. RPAs
                    include tidal wetlands, tidal shores, nontidal wetlands contiguous to tributaries and
                    tidal areas and defined buffer areas.

                    C. The buffer area is defined as a 100' strip of land located adjacent to and landward of
                    the above defined Resource Protection Areas. For example, the RPA for an
                    environmentally sensitive tributary stream would encompass a 100' strip of land.on
                    both sides of the stream, resulting in a total width of 200'. Nothwithstanding these
                    minimum setbacks, there Is nothing to preclude the County from increasing setbacks to
                    distances more compatible with rural development practices.

                    D. Resource Management Areas (RMAs) represent the second tier of Chesapeake Bay
                    Preservation Areas. RMAs are defined as those environmentally sensitive land types
                    that have a potential for causing water quality degradation if improperly used or
                    developed.

                    E. In establishing Its local definition of RMAs, King and Queen County must consider
                    the following land categories for inclusion: (1) floodplains, (2) steep slopes, (3) highly
                    permeable soils, (4) nontidal wetlands not included in the primary Resource Protection
                    Area definition and (5) any other lands on which active development would degrade or
                    diminish the functional environmental value- and quality of the area.


              The Cox Company                                                          Implementation/M-12







              Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                 King and Queen County


                   F. This part of the Bay regulations also defines "intensely developed areas-. Basically.
                   Intensely Developed Areas "grandfather' all existing development, but are established
                   to view new development or infill (redevelopment) as being subject to CBLAB
                   regulations. IDAs are assumed to have (1) public water and sewer and (2) a minimum
                   development density of four units per acre. While there is currently no land in King and
                   Queen which would meet this definition, IDAs should be fully understood in
                   conjunction with their potential impact on the comprehensive planning process.

                   Part IV, Land Use and Develgpment Performance Criteria
                   A. The major goals of the State act are to (1) prevent a net increase in nonpoint source
                   pollution from new development, (2) achieve a 10% reduction in nonpoint source
                   pollution from redevelopment, and (3) achieve a 40% reduction in nonpoint source
                   pollution from agricultural and silvicultural uses. The County must prepare essential
                   design criteria for adoption by September 20, 1990.

                   B. It is incumbent upon the County to ensure (1) the adoption and implementation of
                   local regulations to achieve these goals and (2) compliance with local regulations upon
                   their.adoption. This Comprehensive Plan establishes the framework for these
                   regulations, and subsequent State funded programs by the Planning District
                   Commission will provide the County with additional support, such as mapping and
                   environmental inventories.

                   C. King and Queen has certain latitude and range in making judgments in determining
                   the site-specific boundaries of the designated areas based on the minimal level of
                   sophistication of local mapping. At this point in time, the County does not have
                   appropriately scaled and sufficiently detailed topographic, soils, and other
                   physiographic maps to accurately map RPAs and RMAs. However, a developer's site
                   plan prepared at a nominal scale of 1"= 50' to 60' can delineate wetlands boundaries and
                   steep slopes to the degree of accuracy needed to make basic site design decisions. In this
                   regard, the most effective and efficient growth management mechanism is to require
                   the private landowner to establish these boundaries based on a carefully defined set of
                   mapping and site design parameters to be adopted by the County.

                   D. The recently issued State guidelines provide a "model" set of performance priorities,
                   policies and generalized environmental design criteria which must be finetuned by King
                   and Queen. This model addresses performance standards to (1) minimize erosion and
                   sediment potentials, (2) reduce the application nutrients and toxics on land, (3)
                   maximize rainwater infiltration, and (4) sensitize new development to natural systems.
                   It will be incumbent upon the County to adjust this model to local requirements within
                   the context of the rural geographical setting.

                   E. King and Queen will have to incorporate certain basic "minimums" into its
                   performance   'standards, as per section 4.2 of the Regulations. Also, these "minimums"
                   should respect the "environmental land unit" and "net developable acreage" concepts
                   presented in the Planning Process chapter of this document.

                   F. As an illustration of the baseline, minimum standards to which the County must
                   adhere, the following criteria are included in the Act: (1) All development exceeding
                   2500 square feet of land disturbance must be subject to a formal development plan
                   process (which can be appended to either the site plan, subdivision plan and/or the
                   erosion and sediment control process), (2) septic systems must be pumped out every five
                   years, with sufficient on-site area reserved for a second (reserve) septic field for any
                   newly recorded subdivision development, (3) post- development nonpoint pollutants
                   projected for any land disturbing activity cannot exceed pre-development pollutant
                   levels (this requires the formulation of Best Management Practices), and (4) all
                   agricultural lands will have to have an approved soil and water quality conservation
                   plan by 1995.

                   G. The County will be required to establish guidelines for "water quality Impact
                   assessments" for any new or proposed development situated within Resource Protection

              The Cox Company                                                          implementation/VH-13







               Comprehensive Plan 1990                                                King and Queen County


                    Areas. Developers will have to prepare these environmental "impact" statements as a
                    condition of development approval. The minimum 100* buffer strips must be delineated
                    in these impact studies. Also. Best Management Practices and landscape preservation
                    areas must be defined relative to their pollutant reduction potentials. Certain
                    provisions can be included in the local regulations to reduce the buffer strip
                    requirements, but there must be a resultant equivalent that provides the same water
                    quality benefits as the 100' buffer. Given the rural nature of King and Queen, on the
                    other hand, the County could consider adopting more stringent buffer criteria (i.e. in
                    excess of 100') to ensure the preservation of water quality.

                    H. King and Queen may incorporate provisions for waivers and exemptions to the
                    requirements of the Act, provided that (1) there shall be no net increase in nonpoint
                    source pollution from the continuation of any existing land use activity and (2) erosion
                    and sediment controls are adequate and in compliance. It is important to note that the
                    County's erosion and sediment control ordinance in no way replaces the requirements
                    of the Act. With the Bay regulations, the erosion and sediment control ordinance must
                    be fully implemented along with the newly adopted preservation and management
                    criteria. In effect, the County will now have a 'two-pronged" mechanism with which to
                    address the inherent problems associated with water quality, water runoff and erosion
                    and sediment control measures.

                    I. Passive recreation areas (such as County parks). nature trails, and historic areas are
                    considered exempt from the Act.

                    Part V. Implementation, Assistance and Determination of Consiste
                    A. In Decemberl.989, the State issued a "local assistance manual" to provide additional
                    program guidance to King and Queen and other localities. The manual focuses on
                    techniques and methods for delineating and establishing Chesapeake Bay Preservation
                    Areas. These methods are based, for the most part, on the use of existing and readily
                    available data resources.

                    B. CBLAB will establish a "liaison" with each local government in the State for the
                    purpose of providing financial and technical assistance in developing local regulations.

                    C. CBLAB will review and recommend upon all locally designed programs. This will be
                    done within a 60 day period.

                    D. King and Queen will be required to hold public hearings on the "first year" program
                    requirements and to provide copies of these requirements to the CBLAB.

                    E. The "second year" requirements must also meet CBIAB reviews and approvals. Local
                    public hearings on these must be held. Part 5.6 provides the generalized requirements
                    of what must be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, subdivision ordinance and
                    zoning ordinance update.
                    Part VI: Enforcement
                    A. CBLAB has adopted regulations which will enable them to monitor each locality's
                    compliance with the Act. Appeals and enforcement procedures have been incorporated
                    into these regulations.

               Chesapeake Bay Act Implementation Summary
               The "first year" CBLAB program (performance standards and mapping of designated areas)
               are the most pressing task for King and Queen. The performance standards should be Integral
               to the preseration area designations. The mapping process could be very time consuming,
               but, hopefully, the results will yield the type of information which will enable the County to
               make better land use decisions for the future land use plan.





               The Cox Company                                                         Implementation/V11-14















                         Chapter 8
                PRESERVATION AREA
              CRITERIA AND DISTRICTS









  I

















                    Reserved for Future Use

















              a









  ]:,: e-
       ozmjp=i@mewe mm neso             mms mmt 2malm C@Msy,











                           APPENDIX





























       ,xna(B Qgm coam]P&MY,







                                                                                                                                      OAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                                                                                     3 6668 14112797 9