Planning commission recommends denial of South Creek Village comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning after hours of public comment

The Powhatan County Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of a concurrent comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning application for a proposed South Creek Village development on roughly 26.8 acres off Batterson/Patterson Road.

Planning staff described the proposal as a concurrent comprehensive plan amendment (case 24‑17) and rezoning (case 24‑16) that would change the site’s designation from Gateway Business to Neighborhood Residential and rezone from A‑10 to a Village Center Planned Development (VCPD). The applicant proposed a master plan with up to 99 residential units in three phases, approximately 9.5 acres of open space, internal trails and a 2.5‑acre commercial pad that would revert to residential if no commercial permit is pulled within three years.

Planner and applicant presentations emphasized proximity to Flat Rock Elementary and Powhatan County High School, availability of water and sewer in the county service district and a cash proffer the applicant described as $5,000 per residential unit to address infrastructure impacts. Anne Miller, a planner with Balzer and Associates, told the commission the project would "expand housing availability" and create a walkable, community‑oriented neighborhood near utilities. Contract purchaser John Costello said the developer expects homes to start in the upper $300,000s, with plans that generally range from about 1,300 to 2,500 square feet.

Public commenters urged the commission to deny the plan amendment and rezoning. Speakers repeatedly raised concerns about traffic near the high school and along Route 60, potential strain on school class‑size ratios, water and wastewater capacity and the precedent of parcel‑by‑parcel amendments to the county’s comprehensive plan. Several speakers referenced the 2016 Timmins Route 60 East Corridor study and the county’s then‑new comprehensive plan and argued the site is appropriate for public uses such as school or park expansion rather than high‑density residential development.

Staff said the site lies within a utility service district and that wastewater/water connections exist; staff also noted an earlier traffic corridor study that showed variable levels of service in the study area and estimated the proposal would generate about 878 daily vehicle trips for the residential component and about 429 for the potential commercial component. Using a 0.5 student per household estimate, staff projected roughly 50 school‑age students from 99 homes and noted that while the county has overall enrollment capacity, small increases can strain class‑size ratios.

After deliberation commissioners voted on both items. For the comprehensive plan amendment the roll call was: Commissioner Hall (District 1) — Aye; Commissioner Boland (District 2) — Aye; Commissioner Winnall (District 3) — Nay; Commissioner Hughes (District 4) — Aye; Commissioner Hatcher (District 5) — Nay. The motion to recommend denial passed 3–2. The planning commission then voted to recommend denial of the rezoning by the same 3–2 roll call.

Both recommendations are advisory and will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors, which will hold the final public hearings and take the ultimate action on the comprehensive plan map amendment and any rezoning.