Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public hearing held on rezoning request for 3.2-acre parcel at Old Buckingham Road; planning staff present monthly permit report
Summary
Planning staff presented a rezoning request to change a 3.2-acre parcel at Old Buckingham Road from R-2 (residential) to B-1 (business). Staff said the parcel sits on the northern edge of the Courthouse Village Center and currently uses well and septic; no final vote was recorded during the meeting.
Planning staff presented a rezoning request and the department’s monthly project update at the Jan. 14 Cumberland County Board of Supervisors meeting.
The application seeks to rezone a 3.2-acre parcel at 5 Old Buckingham Road (corner of Old Buckingham Road and Route 16) from R-2 residential to B-1 business. The owners listed in the application are George Lee Gavin III, Martin J. Boyd and Joellen Franklin. Planning staff told the board the existing residence on the parcel is expected to be demolished and the owners intend to sell the cleared site for future business development.
Staff showed maps from the county’s 2023 Comprehensive Plan and zoning maps indicating the parcel sits on the northern edge of the Courthouse Village Center, with existing B-1 zoning on properties to the east, west and northwest. Planning staff said the parcel is within the county’s mandatory public water and sewer connection area but is currently served by a private well and septic; the parcel may continue using those systems until connection is required.
VIA (Virginia Department of Transportation or other traffic review authority referenced as VIA in the packet) provided comments that the existing entrance on Route 60 does not meet commercial entrance standards; staff said any entrance improvements or turn lanes would be addressed at site-plan submission if the property is developed. The planning presentation noted no formal objections to the rezoning had been received by staff prior to the hearing.
Members of the board and the public discussed possible conditions the board could attach if it chose to approve the rezoning, and a member of the public raised unrelated concerns about the county’s comprehensive development plan (CDP), potential lawsuit notices and questions about growth and taxes.
The public hearing record and the planning packet were presented to the board for consideration; staff said the board could approve, deny or table action after the public hearing. The transcript does not record a final rezoning decision on this item during the Jan. 14 meeting.
Ending: Planning staff will continue with review and any site-plan requirements if and when a development proposal is submitted; the board did not record a final vote on the rezoning in the meeting transcript.
