Harrisonburg council delays vote on Smithland Road rezoning after staff, neighbors raise engineering and connectivity concerns

HARRISONBURG — The city council on April 8 voted to table a rezoning request for about 10 acres along Smithland Road after staff and nearby residents raised concerns about the proposed street layout, steep grades and potential stormwater impacts.

The item would have rezoned the parcel from R-1 to R-8C, allowing up to a proffered 55 dwelling units and up to 20% duplexes. The applicants presented a revised concept and proffers that reduced the proposed maximum density from 70 to 55 units and pledged public street connections, a shared-use path, right-of-way dedication along Smithland Road and on-site open space or recreational area.

City staff said they appreciated the developer’s effort to address previous questions but remained uneasy about several engineering unknowns — notably a section with roughly 14% grade where the city’s maximum is 10%, a street network that may produce a cul-de-sac length at or just over the city’s 800-foot guideline, and stormwater detention that looked small based on conceptual contours. Adam (community development staff) told council the layout “could very well be” buildable but warned there has not yet been enough engineering to confirm conformity with the subdivision ordinance and the city’s design and construction standards manual.

Developer representatives said their partner, D.R. Horton, will perform detailed engineering only after zoning is in place. David Gast, principal with Riverbend Companies, said that by-right development under R-1 would produce far fewer homes (roughly 20–25) and homes priced substantially higher, and that the R-8 option would yield more attainable, for-sale homes intended for first-time buyers. Jack Scanlon, the project civil engineer, said the most recent concept was prepared to meet city code and the VDOT roadway manual where possible and that a preliminary plat would be the venue to confirm grade, stormwater and intersection spacing.

Neighbors and several nearby property owners voiced objections. Dan Ribley, who lives on Smithland Road and represents the neighborhood, said a petition of 29 residents expressed concern about traffic safety on the narrow, shoulderless two‑lane road, loss of mature trees and changes to the area’s character. Ribley emphasized that the comp plan’s guidance on “low-density mixed residential” includes more than a raw units-per-acre target and urged stronger preservation measures.

Council members debated whether to approve a rezoning now and rely on the preliminary‑plat process to resolve engineering details, or to give staff and the applicant more time to produce engineering that demonstrates the layout can meet the city’s standards. Several councilors noted the parcel’s role as a gateway to a much larger undeveloped area and said they wanted greater certainty about the street network that would set a precedent for future development.

After discussion, Council moved and seconded a motion to table the rezoning to the council’s next meeting to allow continued discussions between staff and the applicants. The motion passed on a voice vote with all members present voting aye.