Newport News council rejects rezoning for proposed 120-unit Old Fort Eustis apartments after heated public hearing

City Council narrowly voted 3-4 on Feb. 25 to deny an ordinance that would have rezoned a 6.297-acre property at 628 and 634 Old Fort Eustis Boulevard from R-4 (single-family) to R-7 (medium-density multifamily), a change proposed by Fort Eustis Investment Partners LLC to allow roughly 120 apartments.

Why it matters: The project touched on broader policy tensions in Newport News over where the city should add housing and how to balance neighborhood concerns about traffic, drainage and character with a stated municipal goal of increasing housing options.

What happened: The planning commission had recommended against the rezoning by a 6-2 vote. At the council meeting, the public hearing drew about 15 speakers representing developers, neighbors and community groups. Supporters, including the developer's attorney Michael Massey and developer Alvin Keels, said the plan aligns with the city's comprehensive land-use guidance and would provide workforce housing near Fort Eustis and the shipyards. An architect and engineer for the project described site design measures intended to address drainage and buffer concerns.

Opponents from the adjacent Woodcreek neighborhood raised traffic safety, parking and proximity concerns. "They can't really enjoy the quiet living that they bought a house to live in there," Risa Craver, identified as the Woodcreek Homeowners Association treasurer, said during the hearing, describing accidents and congestion near the Jefferson and Fort Eustis Boulevard intersection. Other residents questioned the developer's outreach and expressed skepticism about claimed neighborhood surveys.

Council debate and outcome: Council discussion cited the need to align zoning and large housing decisions with a citywide strategic plan. Some council members said they were reluctant to approve a rezoning before a council-led review of the comprehensive plan; others argued the city's low apartment vacancy rate and housing study supported adding units.

Mayor Jones framed the vote as a question of district deference and process: "This is not a no. This is not a right now," he said, adding that council would seek improved community engagement and consistent processes in the future.

Motion and vote: A motion to adopt the ordinance failed 3-4. The roll call recorded these votes: Councilman Long, Councilwoman Vick and Councilman Ealy voted in favor; Mayor Jones, Councilman Harris, Vice Mayor Bethany and Councilman Coleman voted against. The planning commission had earlier opposed the request 6-2.

Developer proffers and clarifications: Developer speakers said they would offer site changes and infrastructure mitigations if the rezoning moved forward. Alvin Keels told council his team would proffer a traffic signal for the intersection if needed, saying "we'll proffer a stoplight. That's $750,000 that we'll invest in making that intersection safer." He also described the planned product as market-rate apartments with stainless appliances and amenity features and estimated the complex would generate about $250,000 a year in taxes ("estimated $250,000 a year in taxes over a 10 year period"). Planning staff and the project team discussed a proposed buffer (discussed increasing from 30 to 60 feet in follow-up community meetings) and stormwater controls the engineer said were designed to capture on-site runoff.

Next steps: Council rejected the ordinance at this meeting; city staff and council members indicated willingness to continue community engagement and suggested revised proffers could return the matter for further consideration. Planning commission concerns (and neighborhood opposition) will factor into any revised application.

Provenance (excerpted from meeting transcript): the rezoning public hearing opened at the item introduction and concluded with the roll-call vote on the ordinance at the council meeting on Feb. 25, 2025.