Powhatan supervisors deny South Creek Village comprehensive‑plan amendment and rezoning after hours of public comment

The Powhatan County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 27 voted to deny a pair of linked requests to change the county’s future land‑use map and rezone roughly 26 acres off Batterson Road near Route 60 and Jutes Ferry Road. The applications — filed as CPA 24‑17 (comprehensive plan amendment) and REZ 24‑16 (rezoning to Village Center Plan Development, VCPD) — would have allowed a master‑planned mixed‑use project, referred to in materials and testimony as South Creek Village, including residential lots and a small commercial parcel.

Hundreds of residents attended the meeting and dozens of speakers during two extended public‑comment periods urged supervisors to reject the change. Opposition centered on traffic and safety on US‑60/Jutes Ferry, school capacity and services, loss of commercial‑zoned land within the county’s water service area, and the precedent of piecemeal amendments to the comprehensive plan. Supporters, including the applicant’s planner, argued the site sits inside the county’s utility service area and near schools and commercial corridors, and said the proposal would deliver a mix of housing types at lower price points while preserving open space.

The developer’s master plan showed approximately 96 single‑family lots, about 2.5 acres set aside for commercial uses, and roughly 35% of the total site as open space (about 9–10 acres). The applicant proffered design controls and a minimum of 20 residential units at or below 1,700 square feet, and offered two points of access — a channelized right‑in/right‑out on Batterson Road and a full access connection to Carter Gallier Boulevard. The applicant’s materials estimated the development’s daily vehicle trips at about 878 residential trips and about 429 trips tied to the small commercial area; county and applicant traffic analyses noted existing peak‑hour congestion at nearby intersections.

Supervisors said they were persuaded by the extensive citizen turnout and the citizen Working Group’s ongoing review of the county’s comprehensive plan and strategic priorities. The board first voted to deny the comprehensive‑plan amendment (CPA 24‑17) by a 3‑2 roll‑call vote; the separate rezoning motion (REZ 24‑16) to adopt the VCPD zoning with proffers failed on a 4‑1 vote after further discussion and a separate roll‑call. Board members asked staff and the applicant to continue conversations about possible alternatives and recommended the applicant participate with the county’s Comprehensive Plan Update Citizen Working Group.

Applicant representatives said they had modified their proposal during staff review to address buffers and open‑space placement and removed a prior three‑year commercial contingency from proffers after planning‑commission feedback. County planning staff had recommended approval with a set of conditions and emphasized that the comp‑plan designation requested (neighborhood residential) is intended to accommodate walkable, mixed housing types in areas served by public utilities, while the existing designation (gateway business) envisions master‑planned commercial development.

The denials will pause any rezoning activity for the site unless the applicant withdraws the denial or reapplies (a typical re‑application period applies). Supervisors said the board would watch the citizen working group’s recommendations — and the county’s strategic plan that staff approved earlier in the meeting — before considering similar map changes elsewhere. The applicant team said it would review options and seek next steps with staff.