Planning commission rejects rezoning for 120-unit Fort Eustis apartment proposal

The Newport News Planning Commission voted 6-2 on Feb. 5 to deny a rezoning request that would have allowed a developer to build a 120-unit apartment complex at 628 and 634 Fort Eustis Boulevard.

The proposal by Fort Eustis Investment Partners LLC would have changed the property’s zoning from R4 (single-family dwelling) to R7 (medium-density multiple-family dwelling) for a combined 6.29 acres. Planning staff recommended approval, saying the project conforms to the One City, One Future 2040 comprehensive plan and proposing five voluntary proffers to guide development.

Planner Saul Garcia told the commission the comprehensive-plan designation for the parcels calls for medium-density residential uses with a density range of 12 to 24 dwelling units per acre and that the applicant proposed 120 units "in keeping with the comprehensive plan land use designation." Garcia also described proffers including a 20-foot landscape transitional buffer along the western and southern property lines, a 30-foot setback and transportation measures based on a traffic impact analysis by McPherson Consulting.

Residents who live adjacent to the property overwhelmingly opposed the rezoning during the public hearing. Teresa Craver, treasurer of the Woodcreek Homeowners Association, said residents fear increased traffic and a loss of enjoyment of their properties: "If you have 120 units, say every unit has two cars. Look at all the cars that are going to be coming and going." Lloyd Nepp and several nearby homeowners urged retention of single-family homes, saying the area has historically been single-family and that the proposed buildings would be taller than nearby houses.

Other speakers raised concerns about safety at nearby intersections and cut-through traffic. Shawn Fowler detailed turning and queuing constraints on Old Stage Road and Fort Eustis Boulevard and warned the planned access configuration and local street geometry could create more collisions and significant traffic backups during peak periods.

Commission discussion referenced the city’s comprehensive plan and recent housing data. One commissioner said the comprehensive plan recommends medium-density uses for the site but raised the possibility of re-evaluating the plan in light of new census and housing study data showing a high share of multifamily and income-restricted housing in the city. A motion to approve the change of zoning failed on a roll call vote: Commissioners Michelle and Shook voted in favor; Commissioners Williams, Stodghill, Dias, Black, Bowditch and Chairperson Taylor voted against. The chair recorded "Motion failed 6 to 2." The matter will be heard by City Council in February 2025.

The public record and staff report note the applicant voluntarily proposed five proffers and a conceptual plan showing four buildings, contemporary elevations, internal circulation, a pond/retention area, and traffic mitigation measures including a possible signal warrant analysis and roadway widening recommendations. The applicant said the project would be market-rate apartments, not built with tax-credit funding.

Neighbors submitted a petition with 66 signatures opposing the rezoning and asked the commission to consider less-dense alternatives, including single-family or senior housing. Speakers also asked whether tree and wildlife surveys (including for federally protected species) or stormwater impacts to adjacent backyards would be conducted; Garcia did not state that such studies had been completed and staff recommendations focused on site plan review and standard permitting.