Leesburg commission sends Greenway Manor rezoning to work session after residents raise traffic, noise and wetlands concerns

The Leesburg Planning Commission voted Feb. 20 to send the rezoning application for the Greenway Manor property to a work session, asking the applicant to address outstanding transportation and proffer issues before the commission considers a recommendation to the town council.

The application (TLZM2018-000005; TLSE2018-000010) covers two parcels totaling about 8.85 acres at the southwest corner of Greenway Drive and South King Street and would amend the 2012 concept plan to permit reuse of existing historic buildings and new construction for an indoor theater, office uses, a K–8 school, a place of worship, eating establishments (no drive-in), limited retail and a 40-room commercial inn. The applicant and staff said the proposal would allow a maximum of 101,306 square feet of building area (staff corrected an earlier packet error that overstated the figure).

Staff summary and why it matters

Chris Murphy, senior planning project manager in Leesburg’s Community Development Department, presented the staff report and recommended the item move to a work session so staff and the applicant can resolve outstanding technical issues. Murphy told the commission the town’s transportation engineer has concerns with the submitted traffic impact analysis, citing project phasing, peak-hour factors and site access; those items are being worked on between the town and the applicant’s transportation consultant. Murphy also said staff’s in-house fiscal analysis estimates the proposal would be fiscally positive by about $91,389 per year from personal property and BPOL-related taxes tied to the commercial inn and some eating establishments, and that most other proposed uses were likely to be nonprofit or church-affiliated.

Murphy noted the property is in the B-1 district with the H-1 historic overlay and that the Bar (Board of Architectural Review) reviewed the plans and found the new construction and additive masking techniques preserve the manor house and barn as the predominant features. The application requests multiple zoning modifications including reduced buffer-yard widths, front-yard setback adjustments, and a reduced setback for a dumpster enclosure; staff recommended those modifications, subject to further refinement.

What residents said

More than a dozen residents spoke during the public-comment portion. Neighbors repeatedly raised three themes: traffic and parking congestion, noise and compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and impacts to wetlands and wildlife.

“My home should be in all of those renderings. I’m right there. I’m 300 feet away from this,” said Ashley Martinez, who said the illustrated trees in the renderings actually represent nearby houses and argued the scale, intensity and likely uses for events were incompatible with the residential character. Other speakers said they feared overflow parking on neighborhood streets, increased vehicle queuing at the Greenway and Mead Drive entrances, and damage to existing wetlands and the animal habitat that uses them.

Applicant presentation and project layout

The property owner and applicant told the commission the proposal is the result of several years of work with the town and the BAR. The applicant described a three-phase buildout: phase 1 would rehabilitate the historic barn and add an indoor performing-arts theater (the applicant described the proposed house as seating “350 people, give or take”); phase 2 would expand school facilities (Destiny School of the Arts) to K–8; and phase 3 would add a 40-room boutique commercial inn and associated ancillary uses. The applicant said the design seeks to retain the manor house and farm complex as the visual focal points and to limit outdoor amplified events.

Staff and engineering issues flagged

Staff and several commissioners said the traffic impact analysis needs further work. Specific unresolved transportation questions included whether the study compares expected traffic under the 2012 approved concept plan to traffic under the current proposal, peak-hour assumptions, phasing assumptions (notably whether the Mead Drive connection is assumed in an earlier phase than shown on the concept plan), and turning/egress movements at the proposed right-in/right-out access on South King Street.

Murphy told the commission the applicant’s transportation consultant and the town’s transportation engineer are working to resolve those items and that staff would expect updated materials ahead of a work session. The commission also asked for a parking-management plan showing how on-site and any proposed off-site parking would be used, how shuttles (if any) would operate, and limits on simultaneous events to prevent overflow into adjacent neighborhoods.

Wetlands and environmental mitigation

Residents and commissioners raised concerns about impacts to wetlands and wildlife. Applicant engineers said the connection bridge across the low area would include an arch/culvert to preserve water migration and wildlife movement and that any work affecting wetlands would require Army Corps of Engineers review and mitigation. The applicant noted past mitigation for the site: a voluntary mitigation payment recorded in 2012 (approximately $80,000 at that time) and said similar mitigation or wetland credits would be required if impacts occur.

Modifications, historic review and fiscal notes

Murphy said the BAR has found the design concept compatible with H-1 guidelines (preserving the manor and farm complex as predominant features), but the application seeks five zoning modifications (buffer yards, dumpster setback, front-yard setback for new Building D, among others). Staff expressed support for the requested modifications as drafted, subject to refinement and conditions to protect adjacent residential uses. The staff report also noted that proffers and prior transportation proffers would be clarified and that the applicant has proposed proffers addressing lighting controls, delivery hours and parking-management measures.

Action and next steps

A member of the commission moved to forward the application to a work session with direction that the applicant work with staff on outstanding transportation and proffer items and additional items identified by commissioners. The motion was seconded and carried; the commission set a March 20 work-session date to permit time for revised traffic analysis, clarified proffers and supplemental exhibits (including distances between proposed buildings and adjacent townhomes, and a more detailed circulation diagram and parking-management plan).

What the commission asked to see at work session

Commissioners asked staff and the applicant to provide: an updated, engineer-reviewed traffic-impact analysis (including a direct comparison to the 2012 approved entitlement); a fiscal analysis using current dollars to compare the 2012 entitlement vs. the new proposal; scaled exhibits showing distances between new buildings/playing fields and adjacent townhouses; a parking-management plan and any off-site parking/shuttle strategy; clearer phasing language and which plats will be incorporated into proffers; daylight/noise/lighting mitigation measures and cut-off fixtures; and details on wetland mitigation and the planned Mead Drive connection.

The commission emphasized it did not make a final decision on the rezoning; rather, it asked for additional technical information and proffer refinement before taking a recommendation to the town council.

Ending

The Planning Commission scheduled a work session for March 20 to review revised traffic studies, proffers and the additional exhibits requested. Staff told the commission it expects the applicant and town transportation staff to resolve outstanding traffic questions in the intervening weeks and to provide materials to the commission ahead of that meeting.