Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents oppose rezoning for 109‑lot Riverdale-area development; council schedules final consideration
Summary
The council heard public opposition and an applicant presentation on a request to rezone 38 acres near Riverdale for a proposed 109‑lot subdivision; residents asked for road, stormwater and planning clarifications.
The county council heard lengthy public comment and an applicant presentation on Bill 53‑69 (RZ25‑01), a rezoning request to change about 38 acres from A (agricultural) to R1E (single-family residential) to allow a conceptual plan of roughly 109 lots.
Tom Hughes, manager for the applicant Charlestown Crossing (Teohu’s Homes), said the project is adjacent to existing Riverdale and The Grove developments and that the company designed lot widths ranging around 70 feet by 100–125 feet deep to provide lower-priced single-family homes. He told the council the development would use existing sewer and water infrastructure and aim to produce housing in the lower $300,000 range. "When we developed Riverdale...we had different lot sizes...our goal there is to replace some of the lots in Riverdale and try to get the housing prices into the low 3 hundred's," Hughes said.
Dozens of nearby residents urged the council to deny the rezoning or require further study before approval. Jennifer O'Connor of Riverdale asked the county to analyze Dyer Road and Riverdale Park Drive before approving additional homes: "So I would urge the county to maybe do a study on their roads, Dire and Riverdale Park Drive before making a, a decision on this bill." Other speakers cited drainage, potential flooding, the definition of "one home per gross acre" in the county master plan, emergency-response coverage and police staffing.
Multiple residents said the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6–1 against the rezoning. County staff told the council staff recommendation was to approve the application and explained that, per staff interpretation, the proposed development met the master-plan standard of "one home per gross acre" for that planning district. The applicant and staff said sewer taps and water service were available and noted prior work in the area — including a previously constructed treatment plant and water tower that served nearby developments.
Council discussion included remarks from a council member who said the community originally expected larger lot sizes and urged caution; another council member noted sales of one‑acre lots nearby and argued housing demand exists. The council scheduled the item for final consideration at a future meeting (the chair announced scheduling details during the session).
