Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies rezoning for Ridgeway Meadows subdivision amid concerns over lot sizes, septic capacity and missing proffers
Summary
A proposed 78‑lot subdivision on Callahan Road and Colonial Highway was denied 4–3 after neighbors, speakers and supervisors raised concerns about density, septic/drain‑field capacity and the absence of binding proffers for lot size and screening.
The Board of Supervisors denied a rezoning request for a proposed subdivision called Ridgeway Meadows — a rezoning that would have changed roughly 29 acres from agricultural to single‑family residential — following public comment and debate about lot sizes, septic capacity and binding commitments from the applicant.
Developer representatives presented a conceptual plan showing an average lot size above 0.5 acre and said the majority of lots exceeded 20,000 square feet; they said the layout was informed by a preliminary soils evaluation and remained subject to engineering and VDOT review. The applicants said screening along Callahan Road and Route 24 had been added after conversations with neighbors and that no paint booth or other heavy uses were planned for the project.
Speakers including Chandler Lawhorn and Bill Callahan urged the board to preserve the county comprehensive plan’s guidance on transitional areas and to require binding proffers from the developer (for minimum lot sizes, covenant language and other design controls) rather than allow a conceptual plan that could change at later stages. Lawhorn referenced the county’s future land‑use language and said the comprehensive plan’s density ranges favored lower densities in transitional areas.
Supervisor Hardy, who moved to deny the application, and other board members said they were concerned the conceptual plan was not binding and that the number of lots was too dense for the parcel given reliance on septic systems; he said there was insufficient space to provide reserve drain‑field area if systems failed. Several supervisors also noted the lack of written proffers; staff confirmed proffers had not been submitted before the hearing and therefore were not before the board.
Outcome: The motion to deny the rezoning passed 4–3. The board recorded the denial and the applicant’s conceptual plan did not become binding zoning. Supervisors opposed to the denial argued the area is transitioning and that thoughtful development could add housing stock; proponents of denial emphasized homeowner protections and septic/utility limits.
Ending: The board’s vote preserves the property’s agricultural zoning; staff said applicants can return with a revised application, including binding proffers, or pursue an alternate plan.
