Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies Wawa map amendment and preliminary development plan for former CVS site
Summary
The commission denied a proposal to create a planned development district and preliminary plan for a Wawa convenience store with fuel sales at 3445 Union Road (former CVS). Staff recommended denial citing minimum PD acreage, potential spot‑zoning, and the land‑use guidance for the East End Renaissance area.
The Middletown Planning Commission denied a developer’s request to rezone a former CVS parcel and approve a preliminary development plan to build a Wawa convenience store with fuel sales on a 1.767‑acre site at 3445 Union Road.
City planning staff recommended denial, citing several factors: the development code’s plan development district minimum site area is 5 acres; the application would create a small PD to allow a use (retail fuel sales) that is otherwise prohibited in the site’s BCH zoning, which staff characterized as spot‑zoning; and the parcel sits in the East End Renaissance Development Opportunity Area where the comprehensive plan envisions larger employment‑mixed uses and master‑planned business park development. City management also flagged the potential for fuel station oversaturation near an existing BP station and requested a tier‑2 traffic study and additional utility and boundary clarifications.
The applicant’s team — represented by planner Jonathan Woker and developer Troutman Doms — argued the 1.8‑acre parcel is uniquely constrained (three frontages, existing building and leases) and that a PD rezoning would allow productive redevelopment of a long‑vacant retail site, generating roughly 40 jobs and a multi‑million‑dollar investment. Wawa corporate representatives described the retailer’s food‑service focus, community donations, and planned site features such as EV charging infrastructure.
After deliberation commissioners raised concerns that the PD route would be used to permit a single‑building, vehicle‑oriented use that conflicts with the Event Center/BC district goals for a walkable mixed‑use gateway and that the application did not meet the PD acreage threshold and could constitute spot zoning. A motion to deny the map amendment and preliminary development plan passed (deny recorded by a majority of commissioners present). The commission recorded negatives citing the comprehensive plan’s Employment Mixed Use designation and the PD minimum acreage requirement.
The applicant may appeal the decision or pursue alternative routes (use variance, conditional use, or a different zoning/map strategy) and, if pursued again, would need to provide the requested traffic, grading and utility materials and address staff concerns about compatibility with the Event Center area.
