Matthews planning commission delays decision on proposed South Bay Haven park after residents raise safety, environmental concerns

The Matthews County Planning Commission on Aug. 12 voted to lay over for 30 days a determination on whether a proposed public park at county-owned South Bay Haven substantially accords with the county comprehensive plan.

The commission’s decision followed a public hearing in which more than a dozen Gwynns Island and South Bay Haven residents said the narrow road, shoreline erosion and environmental sensitivity make a public park inappropriate without a detailed plan and protections.

The commission’s motion to postpone the determination was made by Commissioner Wilton and seconded by Commissioner Riddle; the motion passed with a majority and two commissioners recorded as opposed. Recording Secretary Kelly read the roll call during the vote.

Why it matters: Commissioners and residents said the county currently lacks a parks and recreation master plan and that specific site details — traffic control, parking layout, erosion mitigation, policing/enforcement and a precise program of improvements — are needed before the commission can assess conformity with the comprehensive plan.

Residents stressed immediate safety and environmental concerns. Lisa Edwards of 75 Millstone Lane said the parcel is “flood prone” and “ecologically sensitive,” and that increased use could worsen shoreline erosion and harm nearby oyster grounds. John Hall, who lives at 831 South Bay Haven, said the road narrows to about 10 feet at one point and that the low-lying lot drains onto his property; he said vehicles already park on the shoreline and asked who would police the site. Jerry Ligon, whose leased oyster grounds lie offshore, said the parcel floods and recommended leaving it as green space.

Planning staff noted the county’s comprehensive plan contains limited language specific to parks. In a staff report, a staff member explained the county is a member of the Middle Peninsula Chesapeake Bay Public Access Authority (PAA) and cited guidance from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Virginia Outdoors Plan; staff also said the comprehensive plan notes roughly 2,000 acres in the county are dedicated to conservation or parks (about 3% of county land mass).

Commission discussion focused on the absence of a site plan. Commissioner Morgan said residents are “bracing for the worst” because the county provided no drawing or packet describing the project. Several commissioners urged the county to provide a written plan or sketch that shows proposed parking, hours, sanitation, policing/enforcement, and any pier or kayak launch details before the commission makes a determination.

Action taken: Commissioner Wilton moved to lay the item over for 30 days; Commissioner Riddle seconded. The motion carried. Commissioners Mead and Rausch voted nay; other commissioners voted to postpone. The commission recorded the outcome as a postponement (laid over 30 days) and agreed to pursue a workshop or meetings with Parks & Recreation and local residents to produce clearer plans prior to the next hearing.

Context and next steps: Several residents urged preservation of the parcel as green space or transfer to a conservation entity; some said they are seeking legal advice and FEMA coordination. Commissioners and staff said Parks & Recreation had provided a nonbinding concept email describing “low-impact” features (limited parking, no trailer parking, kayak launch, picnic area, small pier, natural screening) but that the commission had not received a formal site plan. Commissioners requested the county supply a written plan or drawing and agreed some commissioners would meet with Parks & Recreation and local residents before the next session.