Dinwiddie planning commission recommends two rezoning requests to supervisors; drainage and shared-driveway concerns raised

Dinwiddie County Planning Commission members voted unanimously to recommend approval of two separate rezoning requests — PD-25-1 and PD-25-2 — sending both cases to the Dinwiddie County Board of Supervisors for final action.

Staff presented both cases and recommended approval, saying the requested zoning classifications fit the county’s comprehensive plan and existing land uses. For PD-25-1, staff said the request would rezone roughly 1.5 acres along Route 460 from Agricultural General (A-2) to Residential Limited (R-1) so the owners can divide and sell the house without selling the entire property. For PD-25-2, staff said four lots that had been omitted from the earlier public notice should be included in the rezoning from R-1 to Residential Urban (RU) to allow consolidation and infill single-family development in the West Petersburg area.

Staff member Mark Bassett summarized the PD-25-1 staff report and said, “the requested zoning classification, R-1 residential limited, is compatible with the surrounding zoning pattern and surrounding land uses.” He also told commissioners that the existing on-site well and septic serve the current dwelling and that VDOT had “no objection to the proposed rezoning.”

On PD-25-1 the property owner, Ray Heller, said, “We have no objection to anything that Mr. Bassett said. We agree totally with that,” and offered to answer commissioners’ questions.

On PD-25-2, Bassett said the Dinwiddie County Water Authority had confirmed capacity to serve additional infill development in the area, and he noted previous rezoning recommendations for nearby parcels. Bassett also said VDOT prefers shared driveways where multiple lots create multiple entrances but that driveway approvals would be handled during the land-use/VDOT permit process.

Several commissioners and the applicant discussed the tradeoffs of shared driveways versus separate driveways. One commissioner said VDOT’s preference is “to reduce the number of entrances” to lower crash risk, but added that in a low-speed neighborhood the long-term risk of neighbor disputes over a shared entrance can be a concern. Bassett acknowledged both points and said the county has been flexible on shared-driveway arrangements and that driveway details would be addressed during permitting.

Drainage was a central topic in discussion of PD-25-2. Commissioners and a nearby property owner raised concerns about runoff from higher ground near an adjacent auto-body business. Bassett said those drainage and topography concerns had been raised at a Board of Supervisors meeting and that the board deferred the rezoning to allow more community interaction. Bassett said the developer and county would need to address drainage during later development and construction, including erosion- and sediment-control measures required before a certificate of occupancy is issued.

Applicant Teretha Rossi commented on the drainage concern: “We definitely want to make sure there's not excessive water runoff,” and said the applicant would perform the studies and design work needed when the lots are developed.

Commission action and votes

Both rezoning motions were made under the public-purpose language cited on the record from Virginia Code § 15.2-2286 (public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice). Commissioners voted 7-0 to recommend approval of PD-25-1 and later voted 7-0 to recommend approval of PD-25-2; both recommendations were forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.

Votes at a glance

- PD-25-1 (A-2 to R-1, ~1.5 acres along Route 460): Recommended for approval to the Board of Supervisors; vote: 7-0. - PD-25-2 (add four omitted lots to earlier R-1→RU rezoning request for infill in West Petersburg): Recommended for approval to the Board of Supervisors; vote: 7-0.

Why it matters

Rezoning to R-1 or RU changes allowable uses and, for PD-25-2, was presented as a way to allow modest infill and the ability to renovate existing homes that do not meet current R-1 setback standards. Commission approval is a recommendation; the Board of Supervisors has final authority.

Next steps and community engagement

Bassett told commissioners a community meeting was scheduled at 6:00 p.m. the following evening in the West Petersburg neighborhood (organized at the request of Supervisor Bonnie Bonner) to explain the differences between R-1 and RU zoning and to answer residents’ questions. He said drainage, topography and driveway access will be addressed during site-specific development review and VDOT permitting.

The planning commission’s recommendations will appear on the Board of Supervisors’ agenda for final decisions.