Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board sends Thornburg Village rezoning back to planning commission amid traffic, stormwater and density concerns
Summary
The board referred the proposed Thornburg Village rezoning (approx. 97 acres; up to 375 units) back to the planning commission for further review after extended questions about density, small lot sizes, traffic impacts along Route 1/606, stormwater and school capacity. Motion to refer passed 5–1 (Dr. Frazier voted no).
The Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors on June 11 voted to send the Thornburg Village rezoning application back to the Planning Commission for further study, citing unresolved questions about transportation impacts, stormwater mitigation, lot sizes and neighborhood impacts.
The application proposes rezoning roughly 83–97 acres to a plan development housing district (PDH‑5) to allow a maximum of 375 residential units (163 single‑family detached, 212 single‑family attached) and to retain about 13 acres of C‑3 commercial frontage along Route 1. The applicant committed to phased transportation improvements tied to certificate of occupancy milestones, including a right‑in/right‑out on Morris Road and a future signalized Route 1 entrance with dual left lanes for phase 2. The applicant also proffered open space, a tot‑lot and cash contributions for schools, public safety and parks.
Staff acknowledged updates to the project and a TIA addendum in 2023; staff recommended approval with the applicant’s revised proffers, while the Planning Commission recommended denial (5–0, 1 abstention). Board members questioned whether the TIA fully accounted for other corridor projects (including Kalahari and other pending industrial/commercial developments), noted the 2023 VDOT and county thoroughfare projects that are not yet complete, and asked staff for a corridor‑level review to ensure safety and acceptable levels of service. Several supervisors objected to small lot sizes (detached minimum 6,000 sq ft; attached minimum 2,000 sq ft), on‑street parking impacts, and whether on‑site recreation and stormwater measures are sufficient.
Applicant representative Charlie Payne said the proposal responds to an immediate local housing need near an expanding commercial and industrial corridor and emphasized the multimillion‑dollar net positive fiscal estimate in the applicant’s analysis; he said many transportation improvements would benefit the broader corridor. Supervisors asked the applicant to consider additional on‑site recreation, adjustments to lot sizes or unit mix, and stronger stormwater/infiltration measures.
After discussion, the board voted 5–1 (Dr. Frazier voting no) to return the application to the Planning Commission with direction for further review and to allow opportunity for additional proffers or adjustments.
