Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landuse Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board declines current Bridgepoint Commons rezoning application after debate over access and proffers
Summary
After extended discussion about access, traffic impacts and changed market conditions since the property’s 2008 approvals, the Isle of Wight Board of Supervisors did not approve the developer’s revised rezoning application for Bridgepoint Commons; counsel said the 2008 vested approval remains in force.
The Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors reviewed a revised rezoning application for the Bridgepoint Commons mixed‑use project and, after significant discussion over roadway access, proffers and market changes since 2008, did not carry the developer’s proposal to approval in this meeting.
Staff briefed the board on outstanding technical questions raised in July, including a traffic analysis, VDOT‑access requirements and potential additional construction impacts if an off‑site tie‑in (Deep Bottom Drive) were attempted. Land‑planning representatives said VDOT criteria for a variance were not met, and Deep Bottom Drive would require widening, stormwater treatment and right‑of‑way work.
The developer’s broker provided historical context: the original 2008 concept included more retail and a larger proffer package. Market changes, state stormwater and proffer law changes, and the removal of a median break near Route 17 have reduced the commercial viability of the 2008 concept, the broker said, and earlier cash proffers now have limited legal force because of statutory changes.
Board members asked for clarity about how much cash or infrastructure the county would forgo under the new plan versus the older, vested approvals. Counsel and the broker said the older 2008 approval is vested and could be built without new board action; they estimated the old proffers were on the order of several million dollars (speaker said "somewhere close to $3,000,000" in the transcript), while the revised plan before the board did not include cash proffers tied to capital impacts.
After debate about whether the applicant had adequately addressed traffic and safety concerns, and whether the proffer tradeoffs were acceptable, a motion to approve the revised rezoning was made and recorded votes in the transcript show several supervisors answering 'No' while the chair answered 'Yes.' County counsel reiterated that the previously approved plan remains vested and that the applicant may resubmit in a year or submit a substantially different application as allowed by the zoning administrator’s interpretation.
What’s next: the developer may resubmit a revised application or pursue the currently vested approval. The board asked staff and the applicant to provide clearer, quantified comparisons of fiscal impacts and proffers should the matter return for consideration.
