Planning commission recommends amendment to comp plan to add 633 acres to Elliston‑LaFayette village expansion

The Montgomery County Plan Commission on March 19 voted to recommend approval of an amendment to the county comprehensive plan to reclassify approximately 633.72 acres around the Elliston‑LaFayette area from Resource Stewardship to Village Expansion, with 307.72 acres further designated as open space and 326 acres designated medium‑density residential.

Miss Hopkins, planning director, opened the public hearing by explaining the role of the comprehensive plan as a guiding, non‑regulatory document. Justin Sanders, planning staff, presented maps and staff analysis. Sanders said the request — submitted in the February application window — responds to changed conditions since the county’s 2004 plan: public water and sewer extensions related to the construction of Eastern Montgomery Elementary School and expansions of village boundaries provide infrastructure that was not available at the time of the last plan update. Sanders said staff concluded two of the comprehensive‑plan amendment criteria were met: (1) changed conditions since the last update and (2) the amendment would aid implementation of other comprehensive plan goals, notably providing additional housing opportunities within a village area.

The applicant’s agent, Steve Simonis of Balzer and Associates, described the proposed future development in general terms and said the family owners intend to preserve a large amount of open space around the historic Fotheringay (referred to as “Father and Gay” in the application) house and cemetery. Simonis said prior actions on the property include the Board’s 2021 approval to remove acreage from Agriculture and Forestal District Number 9 and a withdrawn 2022 special‑use permit application for a 5‑megawatt community solar facility on 35 acres.

More than a dozen residents spoke during the public hearing, overwhelmingly urging denial or more study. Speakers raised concerns about: potential impacts on traffic and local roads; limited local services and school capacity; increased property taxes; the scale and density of the proposed development; the adequacy of public water and sewer capacity; and the absence of an archaeological survey for unmarked burials associated with the estate’s history. Kelly Barker, a nearby resident who said the Fotheringay property is on the National Register of Historic Places, said the Department of Historic Resources (DHR) “has no record of a systemic archaeological survey” on the property and urged that archaeology and burial‑site concerns be addressed before further approvals. Resident speakers also questioned whether homes priced in the $285,000–$385,000 range would be affordable to current local households.

Staff recommended approval of the comprehensive plan amendment and said the application included proposed village expansion boundaries, open space acreage, maps and a description of altered conditions since 2004. Commissioners debated the difference between a plan amendment and the corresponding rezoning (the rezoning application was filed separately and will be considered at a future public hearing). After discussion the commission voted to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors. Roll call: Mister Kroll — yes; Mister Miller — yes; Sharp Robinson — yes; Simpkins — no; Secretary Lankes — no; Vice Chair Foster — yes; Chair Rice — yes.

Planning staff said the Board of Supervisors public hearing is scheduled for April 14 at 7:15 p.m.; the related rezoning public hearing was scheduled for April 9 before the commission and a Board of Supervisors hearing tentatively slated for May 12. Staff also noted the rezoning and site design will be considered separately; the comprehensive plan amendment does not itself change zoning or authorize construction.