Culpeper planning commission recommends denial of Stonehaven proffer amendments over setbacks, housing loss and traffic concerns

Ahmad Sadeh, the applicant named in the staff report, asked the Culpeper County Planning Commission to amend proffers for the Stonehaven Village PUD to change commercial layout, reduce short‑term retail triggers and alter setbacks along Route 211 so smaller retailers and a gas/convenience anchor would sign leases.

The applicant said the project remains committed to an ultimate 144,000 square feet of retail and 210,000 square feet of employment space but asked for a longer timeframe and revised near‑term triggers so smaller, local tenants could be recruited. He also proposed a monetary proffer of 25 cents per square foot on built retail to pay for off‑site policing and site security. “There is no data centers proposed,” the applicant told the commission, urging the body to focus on market realities created by COVID‑era retail shifts.

Why it mattered: Commissioners and more than two dozen residents pushed back, saying the proposed changes reduce the county’s near‑term commercial commitment, remove 12 village‑core apartments (the applicant characterized those as small, hard‑to‑lease units) and would bring retail closer to Route 211 by shortening setbacks. Residents also repeatedly asked for an explicit, written prohibition on data centers at the site; the applicant and staff said the PUD and county code require separate permitting for data centers and that the applicant had no plans for them.

Key facts and claims: The applicant said local and national small grocers (Lidl and Aldi were named as prospects) and chains such as Wawa had expressed interest, and claimed seven letters of intent were on file; staff said no new fiscal‑impact statement was submitted with the proffer amendment. The applicant said he paid $291,000 for stream credits in the watershed to address drainage impacts. The amendment would replace some two‑story residential uses in the village core with one‑story commercial massing and a hotel site and would move the setback toward a 35‑foot building setback while reserving 22 feet of right‑of‑way for future widening.

What commissioners and residents said: Speakers raised three recurring concerns: traffic and safety at the 211/229/29 corridors and local intersections; loss of the most affordable units in the village core; and the project’s visual impact and lighting along the corridor. The Piedmont Environmental Council said the county should not allow the developer’s market difficulties to justify drastically reduced setbacks or removal of affordable units. Multiple residents asked the commission to require written assurances against data centers as a condition of any approval.

Outcome and next steps: After extended deliberation the commission voted to forward Case Z40324‑5 to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of denial. Because a proffer amendment is voluntary, staff told the commission it could recommend changes to the applicant but not impose binding conditions; the Board of Supervisors will receive the commission’s recommendation and the applicant may revise proffers or request different terms at that political hearing.

Context and background: The proffers under discussion trace to the original Centex rezoning (2005) and a 2019 amendment. The applicant told the commission market conditions and shifting retail demand have prompted a different leasing strategy; commissioners pressed for enforceable timelines and clarified that, under county code, future site plans, TIAs and VDOT approvals remain required before construction could proceed.

Quote: “We are not planning on data centers,” Ahmad Sadeh said, describing the proposal as focused on small local entrepreneurs and a longer runway to market the center.

What’s next: The Board of Supervisors will consider the applicant’s requested proffer amendment with the Planning Commission’s recommendation of denial. The developer can choose to revise the proffer language, offer additional guarantees (for example, on housing retention or timelines), or present more fiscal or traffic analysis to the board.