We Like Dialogue

This question was recently submitted from a Farm Road 170 property owner:

Why wouldn't it be of best interest to everybody to have a major connection from the newly built 65 3 lane to the 60/65 development?

As Sara Ray is whom I Google with regards to property development, the following is her response:

Summary: Question is not whether they should be able to access 65. The question is the financial viability of the project, as zoned in 2009, and the potential negative impact to MANY private property owners as a result of that zoning classification.
1. A major connection from 65 to the 60/65 proposed development is just one issue. MODOT has granted a "conditional approval" for that event to occur (via a new interchange THEY will not pay for). One condition is connection to the county road system. It is now a debatable issue where and how that is to occur. And the city mandated in PD 330 a connection to FR 164.

ANY connection to the county road system has negative impact to many residential property owners. The vast majority of the area north of 60 and east of 65 has developed, over the years, in low density residential.

It is important to understand MODOT made that a requirement because of the very close proximity in distance to the Battlefield/65 interchange and the 60/65 interchange. It is there preference the distance for on/off traffic at those points be greater than this "potential" developer driven interchange provides. In the past they have set 2 miles as their minimum....preference being 5 miles.

2. With an understanding of current demand in the marketplace, challenges of financing, and the very huge upfront cost of the required infrastructure expense to this "proposed" development with the very HIGH density rezoning they requested, the big picture question is the viability of the development. Let's not forget this has been going on for 20 years....through good times.

I imagine the majority of us feel the property owner of the 500 acres should have the right to market their property to a developer. The rub comes with the lack of access and the environmental concerns of it draining to the James River when you attempt to go for the very high density (higher profit) scenario.

How Do YOU Interpret This Cartoon from the Community Free Press?

Please respond to this post by making a COMMENT at the bottom of this post.
UPDATE
During the last City Council meeting the vote on PD 330 (amendment to allow for a city park and changes to wording in the previous document) was tabled.
City, county and park department staff were to meet to discuss the situation, however, the snow situation may have pushed it lower on the list.
Some of us have continued to email/call council members and the County Presiding Commissioner, as well as the County Administrator.
Those actions should continue.
The Mayor has requested the PD 330 Amendment remain tabled and not be voted on at the Feb 7 meeting.
The Greene County planning commission has yet to resolve the issue on the designation of a road.