Route 7 self‑storage rezoning left open; supervisors table application to second April meeting after heavy public comment

The Board of Supervisors on March 26 held a public hearing on Rezoning RZ‑11‑204, a proposal to rezone a 2.38‑acre Route 7 parcel from B‑1 (Neighborhood Business) to B‑2 (General Business) with proffers to allow a three‑story, approximately 40,000‑square‑foot self‑storage facility. After extensive public comment and questions about traffic, building scale and zoning intent, the board voted to postpone a decision until the board’s second meeting in April.

Why it matters: opponents — many of them neighbors in the Pioneer Heights subdivision — said the proposed B‑2 zoning and the large structure would be out of character with surrounding residential uses, could depress property values and would create unsafe traffic conditions on a constricted stretch of Route 7. The applicant said self storage generally generates low trip rates for its square footage and agreed to proffer out outdoor trailer storage and limit hours of operation.

Planning staff and the applicant described the proposal as constrained by site size and the project’s illustrative materials had shown a 42‑foot height, which staff and the applicant later acknowledged would exceed the B‑2 maximum of 35 feet. The applicant’s representative said trip-generation calculations used standard manuals keyed to total square footage rather than unit count and that VDOT and county staff had recommended turn‑lane improvements to mitigate traffic impacts. The applicant also agreed to a 50‑ to 75‑foot acceleration/deceleration lane and proffered lighting and screening commitments.

Neighbors said the property sits 900 feet from a school zone, fronts predominantly residential property and that a B‑2 district’s intent — “variety of business, office and service uses located on arterial highways and major intersections” — did not fit this parcel. Several neighbors, including Pioneer Heights residents and the owner of a nearby restaurant, urged denial.

Motion and result: after public testimony the board first considered a substitute motion to deny the rezoning; that substitute did not pass. The board ultimately voted 4–2 to table the application to the second meeting in April to allow the applicant and supervisors more time to address outstanding questions about traffic, height, unit count and buffering. The public hearing was closed at the March 26 session.

Ending: Staff will post updated materials and the application will return for board consideration at the second April meeting; neighbors and the applicant indicated an intent to continue outreach and provide more detailed traffic and design information before the next hearing.