Planning commission declines to recommend rezoning of Fort Eustis Boulevard parcels after residents object

The Newport News Planning Commission voted 2-6 on Feb. 5 against recommending approval of a rezoning request for parcels at 628 and 634 Fort Eustis Boulevard that would change the sites from R-4 single-family dwellings to R-7 medium-density multifamily with proffers.

City planner Saul Garcia told the commission that application CZ20240001 covers 6.29 acres and that the city’s One City One Future 2040 comprehensive plan assigns the site a medium-density residential designation that corresponds to 12–24 dwelling units per acre. Garcia said the comprehensive-plan density range would allow up to 150 units across the two parcels, and that the applicant had proffered a maximum of 120 units, organized into four buildings. "The applicant is proposing 120 dwelling units in keeping with the comprehensive plan land use designation," Garcia said.

The staff presentation described required lot, setback and open-space standards for the R-7 district and noted the Department of Engineering had accepted a traffic impact analysis prepared by McPherson Consulting. The applicant’s proffers, Garcia said, address site design, architecture, landscaping and traffic mitigation. Those traffic proffers include widening Fort Eustis Boulevard to 32 feet, optimizing signal timing at Fort Eustis Boulevard and Jefferson Avenue, conducting a signal-warrant analysis at full build-out and constructing a new signal if warranted.

Residents who live immediately behind the site and members of the Woodcreek homeowners association testified in opposition during the public hearing. Teresa Craver, treasurer of the Woodcreek Homeowners Association, said the development would be "smack up against" homeowners’ property lines and increase traffic on a corridor she described as already dangerous; she referenced a recent fatality at Jefferson and Fort Eustis. "If you have 120 units, say every unit has two cars, look at all the cars that are going to be coming and going," Craver said.

Other speakers raised privacy and visual-impact concerns from three-story buildings placed close to existing yards. Tatiana Raccoon, who lives at 736 Longleaf Lane, said her backyard is 28 feet deep and her sunroom sits 15 feet from the fence; she said three-story buildings would eliminate the morning sunlight and privacy she and her family enjoy. "We will lose absolutely all privacy in our backyard and in our home," she said. Neighbor Lloyd Nepp urged the commission to preserve the neighborhood’s single-family character. Resident Sean Fowler emphasized traffic and circulation problems around Old Stage Road and the limited exits from the neighborhood, predicting backups and increased collision risk during morning and evening peak periods.

The applicant, Kenneth Cuffee, said he considered single-family development but found lot-size requirements made multifamily more viable. He said the proposed apartments would be market-rate units rather than tax-credit–funded affordable housing and that the design could be adjusted during site plan review. "We actually didn't max out the density. We went below the density," Cuffee said when asked about the unit count.

Commissioners discussed the rezoning in the context of the One City One Future 2040 plan and recent housing studies. One commissioner said the city should reassess housing goals given 2020 Census data and consider whether more single-family housing is warranted before approving additional multifamily units.

A motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with the submitted proffers was made and seconded. The roll-call vote recorded two votes in favor and six opposed; the motion failed. The commission record notes the item will be forwarded to City Council for consideration in February 2025.

Staff materials submitted to the commission included a conceptual layout, architectural elevations, a landscape plan showing a 20-foot transitional buffer where the site abuts single-family lots, and the traffic-impact analysis accepted by Engineering. The applicant’s proffers limit the development to a maximum of 120 units in four buildings and require adherence to the accepted traffic analysis recommendations. The staff report references "section 153.2" of the Code of Virginia and zoning ordinance provisions governing proffers and lot standards as part of the review.

The commission’s discussion and the written record show substantive concerns raised by neighbors about traffic safety, privacy, stormwater/drainage impacts, tree and wildlife habitat loss (residents reported encountering bats and other wildlife), and property values. Those concerns were central to opposition testimony and were cited by commissioners who voted against the motion.

The planning commission record and minutes indicate the applicant and staff may continue to refine the site design and proffers during subsequent steps; no council decision was made at the Feb. 5 meeting.

The matter will be transmitted to City Council for a public hearing and final action in February 2025.