Planning commission backs exception to allow 9x12 bay door in Commerce Corridor overlay, forwards to supervisors

The New Kent County Planning Commission voted April 21 to forward to the Board of Supervisors a staff‑recommended favorable recommendation for an exception request by property owner Gary Moran that would allow a single 9‑by‑12 work bay door facing Farmers Drive on a new storage building at 18901 Eltham Road.

The exception request seeks relief from Commerce Corridor overlay design standards in the county code that prohibit large work area doors or open bays facing public rights of way. Patrick Silva, principal planner with the Department of Community Development, told commissioners the proposed one‑story wood‑frame storage building otherwise meets the Commerce Corridor design regulations and that staff found the site constraints — a corner lot with limited rear access and proximity to the Washington Burgess Inn — supported the exception. Silva said staff "is ultimately recommending approval." Gary Moran, the applicant, told the commission, "it's gonna be clean. It's not gonna be a tacky door."

Why it matters: the Commerce Corridor overlay imposes architectural controls intended to shape the appearance of buildings along key roadways. Allowing a roll‑up bay door on a frontage could affect visual character and how loading functions on the site; staff recommended orienting the door toward Farmers Drive rather than Eltham Road and said proposed landscaping would further screen the door from view.

Commission discussion focused on whether the door and associated loading would conflict with the district's design intent. Commissioners asked staff to confirm that loading would not occur in the primary front area and discussed options for additional mitigation such as enhanced architectural detailing or screening around a dumpster pad. Silva said staff supports orienting the bay door to Farmers Drive because Eltham serves as the district's primary frontage and because the site's configuration limits alternative orientations.

Formal action and vote: Commissioner Dr. Schmidt moved to adopt Resolution PC‑05‑25 forwarding the exception request with a favorable recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The roll call recorded one abstention (Commissioner Moyer); the motion passed with the remaining commissioners voting aye.

Next steps: The Planning Commission’s favorable recommendation and the record of the hearing will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for its public hearing and final decision. The Board will consider staff materials and the commission’s recommendation when it takes up the matter at a scheduled meeting.