Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tinkling Spring Church urges board to reject proposed comp‑plan land‑use change for nearby parcel
Summary
A congregation representative urged supervisors to oppose a proposed future land‑use change and rezoning request for a parcel southwest of Tinkling Spring Church, citing traffic, historic cemetery, floodplain and community impacts; planning staff said a revised draft will go to a public hearing.
Wendell Coleman, speaking for the session of Tinkling Spring Presbyterian Church, asked the Board of Supervisors to oppose a proposed change in the county’s comprehensive plan and a rezoning request by 127 Investments LLC for a parcel immediately southwest of the church and toward the interstate.
Coleman told the board the church — established in 1740 and listed on the National Register of Historic Places and as a Virginia historical landmark — is concerned the applicant’s requested community mixed‑use designation would permit multifamily residential development with densities the congregation says would harm the church’s setting and operations. Concerns raised included increased traffic on local low‑volume roads (Tinkling Spring Drive/Road 627 and Tinkling Spring Road/Road 285), impacts on a cemetery with burials dating to the 1840s including enslaved persons and descendants, an existing structurally deficient bridge on Road 627, and that roughly 30% of the parcel lies in a floodplain.
County planning staff told the board that after a recent joint meeting with the Planning Commission and Board, staff revised draft 4 of the comprehensive plan and adjusted mapping; the planning director said the draft that will go to public hearing next week preserves only the portion the applicant requested as community mixed use and that a final public hearing process with the Planning Commission and Board will follow.
Coleman asked the board to consider those heritage and traffic impacts before any plan change. The board did not take an immediate action on the property at the meeting; staff said the item will go to the Planning Commission for public hearing and then back to the Board of Supervisors later in the month.
