Board approves comprehensive-plan amendment for Father and Gay property after extensive public comment

The Montgomery County Board of Supervisors voted 5–2 on Thursday to amend the county's 2025 comprehensive plan to re-designate portions of the Father and Gay property from Resource Stewardship to Village Expansion, including about 326 acres slated as Medium Density Residential and roughly 307.72 acres as Open Space.

The amendment was debated at length after a large public-address period in which more than a dozen residents from Elliston, Shawesville and surrounding areas urged supervisors to deny the change. Tim Thornton, who identified himself as a Charlottesville resident, told the board the Resource Stewardship designation exists to protect "rural areas with high resource value" and that the land "has not changed since it was protected by this designation." Henry Lawrence Bridal, a lifelong Alliston resident, said the site's historic value outweighs development and urged an archaeological study. Several speakers, including Paige Williams and Josh Williams, said the proposed development would accelerate gentrification and raise property taxes for long-time residents.

Staff and the applicant said the change responds primarily to the recent availability of public water and sewer near the site. Bree Hopkins, the county's planning director, told supervisors that the county's review found the request met the limited criteria required for a comprehensive-plan amendment, noting that construction of Eastern Montgomery Elementary and High School extended village boundaries and made utilities available to the property. Hopkins said the Medium Density Residential designation generally suggests development on the order of up to about five units per gross acre and that, if the plan amendment were approved, any future rezoning application would be evaluated against zoning standards and site-specific requirements such as stormwater, road access and school capacity.

Members of the public voiced a range of concerns. Susan Creasy Moffitt said the site "has never undergone a formal archaeological survey" and warned that unmarked graves of enslaved people are likely to be encountered. Kitty Rakes, who said she and her husband own property that adjoins the site, described worries about runoff and private-road access and asked supervisors to "listen to us". Residents also raised potential impacts to local schools, traffic and flood risk. Josh Williams warned the project appears to be aimed at higher-priced housing, not local affordable homes; he said the development team includes firms now owned by out-of-area private equity.

Hopkins reminded the board that the amendment does not itself rezone property. She said development under the current Agricultural A-1 zoning would remain permitted by right and that, based on available parcel data, the property owners could currently build an estimated 52 dwellings under existing A-1 rules. She said a separate rezoning application would be required for development that differs from A-1 allowances and that such a rezoning would trigger more detailed reviews of stormwater, traffic, school capacity and archaeology.

The Montgomery County Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the amendment on March 19 by a 7'0'2 vote, with two members absent.

On the board floor the motion to adopt the comprehensive-plan amendment carried 5'0'2. The roll call recorded: Mr. Kitts, Mr. Fidzikowski, Mr. King, Miss Biggs and Ms. DeMott voting aye; Mr. Grafsky and Miss Bone voting no.

The board and staff said the next step for the property, if the applicant pursues changes beyond by-right A-1 development, would be a formal rezoning application. Hopkins said that rezoning would require detailed stormwater plans, traffic studies and, where appropriate, archaeological notifications and coordination with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.

Votes and next steps on any rezoning have been postponed while the applicant has requested a hold on zoning hearings. Hopkins said no rezoning is expected before June and that the county will re-advertise any future hearing dates.

The board's action updates the comprehensive-plan map but does not itself authorize construction or change existing zoning on the ground.