Planning commission declines to recommend rezoning for Fort Eustis Boulevard apartment project; matter moves to council

The Newport News Planning Commission voted 6-2 to deny a staff-recommended rezoning that would have allowed 120 apartments to be built at 628 and 634 Fort Eustis Boulevard.

Planning staffer Saul Garcia presented application CZ2024Tech0001 on behalf of Fort Eustis Investment Partners LLC and said the two parcels total 6.29 acres and the city—s 2040 comprehensive plan designates the site for medium-density residential uses. "The applicant is proposing 120 dwelling units in keeping with the comprehensive plan land use designation," Garcia told commissioners.

The proposal would change the zoning from R-4 (single-family) to R-7 (medium-density multifamily). The plan—s density range for the designation is 12 to 24 dwelling units per acre, which staff said would allow up to 150 units on the combined acreage; the applicant proposed 120 units in four buildings. Staff said the applicant proffered a 20-foot landscape transitional buffer along the western and southern property lines, revisions to Fort Eustis Boulevard that include widening to a 32-foot travelway consistent with new city standards, optimized signal timing at the nearby intersection and a signal-warrant analysis to mitigate traffic impacts. The Department of Engineering accepted a traffic impact analysis prepared by McPherson Consulting dated Oct. 13, 2024, Garcia said.

Residents who spoke during the public hearing opposed the rezoning. Theresa Craver, treasurer of the Woodcreek Homeowners Association, told the commission, "We don't want any more traffic there," and cited a recent fatal crash at Jefferson and Woodcreek. Tatiana Raccoon, whose house backs up to the site, said the proposed three-story buildings would remove privacy: "If we're gonna open windows in our backyard in our, bedroom, those windows are facing that little forest area. We will see somebody's windows and somebody potentially staring at us in the morning." Opponents also raised concerns about stormwater runoff into low-lying backyards, the safety of a small on-site pond, potential impacts on property values and a petition with 66 signatures against the rezoning.

Kenneth Cuffey, who identified himself as representing the applicant, said the owner considered single-family development but that lot size and market conditions made multifamily more feasible. "It just made more sense for us to go with multifamily," Cuffey said. He said the proposed units are not being built with tax-credit funding and that market-rate tenants without vouchers could live in the complex. Cuffey acknowledged outreach efforts to the neighboring homeowners association but said those efforts were hampered by turnover in association management.

Commissioner discussion touched on the city's housing study and changing housing needs. Commissioner Williams asked whether recent data showing a high share of multifamily, income-restricted housing should make the commission reconsider adding more multifamily units; Garcia and staff reiterated that the comprehensive plan has long recommended medium-density residential for this area. One commissioner said they preferred more study to explore opportunities for single-family housing stock before approval.

A motion to approve CZ2024Tech0001 with the applicant's submitted proffers was made, seconded and then failed on a roll call vote: Commissioner Michelle (for); Commissioner Williams (against); Commissioner Shook (for); Commissioner Stodghill (against); Commissioner Dias (against); Commissioner Black (against); Commissioner Bowditch (against); Chairperson Taylor (against). The motion failed 6 to 2. The commission record shows the matter will be heard by City Council in February 2025.

The denial by the commission does not prohibit the applicant from seeking council approval; the council hearing will include the same staff report and the public record assembled at the planning commission hearing.

Details and clarifications from the hearing

- Site and proposal: two parcels at 628 and 634 Fort Eustis Boulevard totaling 6.29 acres; change of zoning from R-4 to R-7; applicant proposed 120 dwelling units in four buildings. The comprehensive-plan density range (12—6 to 24 dwelling units/acre) would allow up to roughly 150 units on the combined acreage. The applicant proffered site design features including a 20-foot landscaped transitional buffer and compliance with traffic recommendations from McPherson Consulting (10/13/2024).

- Setbacks and buffers: Staff explained a 30-foot setback to the property line with an optional 20-foot landscape buffer; the parties discussed how buffers may be counted toward setbacks.

- Traffic and engineering: The Department of Engineering accepted the applicant's traffic study; proffers include pavement widening and signal-timing work on Fort Eustis Boulevard and Jefferson Avenue and a required signal-warrant analysis.

- Public opposition: Residents cited recent local traffic fatality, limited neighborhood entry/exit points, potential for 200+ additional vehicle trips, noise, privacy loss from three-story buildings adjacent to backyards, pond safety for children, presence of wildlife (residents reported seeing bats), and a neighborhood petition of 66 signatures opposing the rezoning.

- Applicant position: Applicant representative said single-family development had been considered but was not feasible given lot sizes and market conditions; confirmed proposed buildings are three stories and that the project does not rely on tax-credit financing.

What happens next

The commission record and staff recommendation will go to the City Council for a public hearing and decision in February 2025. The council can approve, deny or modify the rezoning request regardless of the planning commission vote.

Speakers cited in this report include planning staffer Saul Garcia; applicant representative Kenneth Cuffey; residents Theresa Craver, Tatiana Raccoon, Lloyd Nepp and Shawn Fowler; and commissioners as identified in the public roll call.