Neighbors and developers clash over proposed 120-unit apartment rezoning in Woodcreek; public hearing closed 7-0

Newport News City Council on Wednesday heard more than a dozen speakers about a developer's request to rezone roughly six acres near Fort Eustis Boulevard and Jefferson Avenue for a 120-unit apartment complex. Council members closed the public hearing by voice vote, 7-0, after roughly two hours of testimony and council discussion. A final recorded vote to adopt the ordinance is not shown in the portion of the transcript provided.

The proposal was presented by Michael Massey, who said he represents Alvin Keels, the managing partner of Fort Eustis Investment Properties, and that the proposal conforms with the city’s comprehensive plan. “He seeks the ordinance to build a hundred, and 20 apartments on that property,” Massey told council. Architect Chris Elam of RBA Architects said the parcel could support up to 150 units under the plan but that the development team is proposing 120 units and intends to provide “high quality” workforce housing. Engineer Jack Claude said the project team would capture and manage stormwater and that the drainage issues in the area are “normal” and manageable.

Opponents, many identified as Woodcreek neighborhood residents, said the site is too small for the project and that the proposal lacked prior community engagement. A representative of the Woodcreek Homeowners Association, speaking as the association treasurer, told council the complex would be “smack up against” nearby houses and said residents would lose the quiet they bought the neighborhood for. Resident Tatiana Raccoon said, “this protest has, lacked transparency,” and raised safety and traffic concerns at the intersection of Fort Eustis Boulevard and Jefferson Avenue. Several residents said the site would have only one entrance and estimated the development could add roughly 200 cars to the neighborhood.

Council members debated the project over an extended period. Councilman (name not specified in the transcript) said he could not support the item that night, citing a need for a broader citywide housing strategy. In contrast, other members commended the investment and the developer’s willingness to follow the comprehensive plan; one council member noted the developer paid $1 million for the land and urged the city to welcome investment. Mayor Jones acknowledged a lack of earlier outreach from the city and apologized that some residents had little notice about the proposal.

Discussion at the dais touched on housing needs, local rental rates, traffic and circulation, drainage and stormwater management, and the mix of renters vs. homeowners in Newport News. Architect Elam and engineer Claude said the development team plans design measures to mitigate drainage and site configuration concerns; residents repeatedly urged more outreach, a second entrance, and traffic studies for the nearby intersection.

The transcript shows a motion to close the public hearing (moved, seconded) and a roll-call result of 7-0 in favor. The record in the provided transcript includes a subsequent motion to adopt the ordinance, which was moved and seconded, followed by extended council discussion; the final adoption vote is not recorded in the supplied excerpt.

The proposal and the public reaction reflect competing priorities citywide: the project team and some council members framed the development as meeting workforce-housing demand and increasing revenue; neighborhood residents emphasized proximity to single-family homes, traffic and safety at a nearby intersection, limited access to the site, and what they said was insufficient earlier community engagement. Council members asked staff and the developer questions about drainage, parking, and the number of units; staff and the project team provided preliminary answers but several residents said the responses did not resolve their concerns.

The council’s formal close of the public hearing — which allows council to proceed to consideration of the ordinance — passed 7-0. Because a final recorded vote on adoption is not present in the transcript supplied for this task, this article does not state the ordinance’s final disposition.