Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors deny Belmont Village rezoning for 72‑lot age‑restricted community after public hearing
Summary
After a planning commission recommendation to approve, the Board of Supervisors voted to deny a rezoning request (RZ 03‑2024) that would have converted a 9.8‑acre portion of a 20‑acre parcel from B‑1 (business) to PRD for a 72‑lot, 55+ townhouse development. Concerns about preserving a commercial frontage and unsettled VDOT comments were noted.
The Caroline County Board of Supervisors voted on March 25 to deny a rezoning request (RZ 03‑2024) that would have rezoned a 9.8‑acre portion of a 20‑acre parcel near Route 207 from B‑1 (business) to PRD (planned residential development) to allow a 72‑unit age‑restricted townhouse community called Belmont Villas.
Planning staff explained that the applicant proposed 72 two‑story attached townhouses in five clusters, with internal private roads, a 20×20 pavilion, a dog park and a walking trail around the stormwater pond. The applicant had proffered 55+ age restrictions, construction of Colonel Armistead Drive as a public road to connect to Traverse Street when that extension is built, and architectural conformance with the GDP. The planning commission had recommended approval on a 02/27/2025 vote after the applicant revised driveway lengths and added the pavilion and dog park.
Henry Wilton, representing the applicant, described the proposal as meeting an unmet local demand for age‑restricted homes and said the developer would construct Colonel Armistead Drive and make other site improvements; he also said the HOA would maintain private internal roads and site landscaping and would include reserve funding for roof and exterior maintenance.
Several supervisors raised concerns in the board meeting. They cited the original comprehensive‑plan intent for a commercial frontage along Route 207, outstanding VDOT review comments on the traffic and sidewalk layout, the proposal’s dependence on future extensions of adjacent roads, and whether the parcel should remain reserved for commercial development. After discussion, Supervisor Floyd Thomas moved to deny the rezoning; the motion was seconded and, following a roll call, the board’s majority voted to deny the application.
The planning commission’s recommendation and the applicant’s proposed proffers remain in the record. County staff noted the remaining undeveloped 10.3 acres of the parcel would stay zoned B‑1 and be available for commercial use. The developer may pursue other options, but the board’s action prevents the PRD rezoning as presented.
