Smithfield council approves reduced-density Colleges at Battery plan, special-use permits

Smithfield Town Council on Monday voted to approve a proffer amendment and two special-use permits for the Colleges at Battery project, cutting the proposed number of units and allowing the developer to proceed to site-plan review.

The action matters because the revised plan reduces the formerly approved project from 150 units to 104 single‑family attached condominium dwellings and includes a series of proffers and conditions council said are intended to address neighborhood concerns about design and maintenance.

Planning staff described the application as a proffer amendment to allow 104 single‑family attached condominium units under zoning article 3 f b 2, plus two special‑use permits for deviations from standards on recreational‑vehicle parking and the number of attached units. Tammy Clary, planning staff, told council the revised proposal “reduces the number of previously approved units by 46 units, and does provide additional housing within town.”

Residents who live near Battery Park Road told council they remain worried about traffic and communication from the developer. Daniel Ballot, who said he lives in the Village of Smithfield, said neighbors feel they have not been kept fully informed and urged more traffic mitigation: “There's a problem there with traffic. You got 800 homes going in across from Wellington… That road is not set up for that kind of traffic.”

The applicant said he and his team altered their plan repeatedly in response to town input. Brian Mullins, representing the applicant, said the team reduced the number of special‑use requests and changed the product and density: “We have definitely changed our plans from the original as well as not just the volume or the yield, but the product in which we're producing. We have gone from 6 SUPs down to just 2.” He added the latest traffic study, prepared for a previous 130‑unit plan and still applicable after the reduction to 104 units, concluded no VDOT right‑of‑way changes were needed.

Council members focused on the trade‑offs between approving the lower‑density, proffered plan and the danger that rejecting it could allow the developer to build the higher, previously approved 150‑unit project by right. Town attorney comments during the meeting clarified that an approved proffer amendment supersedes prior proffers: whichever proffered plan council approves is the plan the applicant may build.

Councilman Jeff Bowman moved to approve the proffer amendment and the special‑use permits. The proffer amendment passed with council majority; Councilman Cutler registered the dissent on the proffer amendment vote. The subsequent votes to approve the two special‑use permits also passed.

Council discussed broader school capacity issues tied to concurrent and pending developments, with several council members urging coordinated work with the county schools and cautioning that the timing of which developer builds first can affect which project funds school impacts. Planning staff and the town attorney noted that school proffers and capital‑improvement plan documentation are provided by the school system and that the town’s ability to accept certain proffers depends on receiving that information.

The applicants must still submit a detailed site plan for staff review to verify conformance with the approved proffers and special‑use permit conditions before construction proceeds. The town manager and planning staff said they will circulate the site plan and continue coordination with VDOT and the schools as the project advances.

Council members who supported the approvals emphasized the net reduction in density and the added design commitments; those opposed or expressing reservations said they remain uneasy about traffic and long‑term school impacts.

The council’s approval sends the Colleges at Battery project to the site‑plan stage with the amended proffers and two special‑use permits in place.