Poquoson planning commission backs combining ‘Big Woods’ area, recommends keeping R&D off the comp plan

The Poquoson Planning Commission agreed by consensus on a framework to update the city’s comprehensive‑plan language for the north side of Victory Boulevard, a roughly 210‑acre swath staff and consultants described as the “Big Woods” area. Commissioners instructed staff to draft amendments for presentation in September, followed by a joint work session with City Council.

The commission’s decision centered on four staff recommendations: combine existing “Big Woods East” and “Big Woods West” references into a single “Big Woods North” comp‑plan designation; encourage cohesive, master‑plan development rather than piecemeal projects; require traffic‑impact analyses for new access—specifically including potential connections to Victory Boulevard; and remove the long‑standing Research & Development (R&D) district in favor of general commercial language in the comp plan, with zoning ordinance edits to follow.

“It's 210 acres. It's 39 different parcels,” Thomas, a presenter for staff, told commissioners while walking through the zoning map and land‑use background. Staff said some owners hold multiple parcels and that the Economic Development Authority holds several properties in the area.

Commissioner Hartley said he favored moving to a single general‑commercial designation. “I think it should be all general commercial,” he said, urging that the city avoid adding residential uses to those frontage parcels.

Staff and commissioners emphasized that changing the comp plan is the first step; specific permitted uses and any limits on intense uses would be handled later through zoning‑ordinance amendments and the conditional‑use permit (CUP) process. Thomas noted that some R&D uses originally envisioned decades ago have not materialized in Poquoson and that comp‑plan language can be trimmed before the technical work on permitted uses occurs.

The commission also discussed environmental constraints and access. Staff said much of the area remains wooded and that portions are likely wetlands, but the extent is unknown without a professional wetland delineation. Commissioners repeatedly stressed traffic as a key issue for residents and asked staff to include language that focuses new traffic to existing intersections and requires analysis before new access points are approved.

Commissioners and staff described a near‑term public engagement schedule: staff will prepare draft comp‑plan language for the planning commission’s September meeting, provide opportunities for property owners and residents to address the commission at that meeting, then move to an October/November joint work session with City Council and, ultimately, public hearings with legally required notice.

The commission did not take a formal roll‑call vote on an ordinance or zoning change at this meeting; members signaled consensus to proceed with the four recommended steps with standard caveats about seeking owner input and refining permitted uses during the zoning phase. Staff left with direction to prepare draft language and outreach materials for the next public meeting.

Next procedural step: staff will present draft amended comprehensive‑plan language at the planning commission’s September meeting and advertise the public hearing process required by state/local law.