Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rezoning Residential topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission backs two West Petersburg rezonings to allow small‑lot single‑family homes

3111451 · April 9, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission recommended two rezoning requests in West Petersburg (PD‑25‑4 and PD‑25‑5) from R‑1 (Residential Limited) to RU (Residential Urban) to allow subdivision and single‑family development; both were recommended to the Board of Supervisors unanimously.

The Dinwiddie County Planning Commission on Tuesday recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve two separate rezoning applications (PD‑25‑4 and PD‑25‑5) to change four lots in each case from R‑1 (Residential Limited) to RU (Residential Urban), clearing the way for small‑lot single‑family homes in the West Petersburg neighborhood.

Staff presented both cases and said each parcel lies within the county’s Town Center area of the northern development area on the comprehensive plan and that RU zoning is consistent with the plan’s guidance for medium‑density residential infill. Planner Mark Bassett told the commission the land development committee had no specific concerns for either application and that both sites have access to Dinwiddie County Water Authority water and sewer.

The applicants described modest single‑family houses. Sonia Henshaw (PD‑25‑4) said she plans two new homes on an existing lot and added that a prior house had occupied the parcel; she said she intends to keep the properties and build homes that match neighborhood character. Randy Kramer (PD‑25‑5) told commissioners he plans three‑bedroom, two‑bath homes and agreed with staff’s recommendation.

Commissioners discussed compatibility with existing homes and the neighborhood. Bassett noted a prior rezoning (22‑4) had been denied because existing single houses on either side made infill inconsistent there; commissioners contrasted that prior denial with the present applications and said the RU classification fits the surrounding pattern.

Both motions to recommend rezoning to the Board carried unanimously. The commission recorded the recommendations for referral to the Board of Supervisors; Bassett told applicants to expect the usual Board hearing and to coordinate with staff if needed.

Votes and formal outcomes: PD‑25‑4 and PD‑25‑5 were each recommended to the Board of Supervisors by unanimous votes of planning commission members present.