Poquoson planning commission approves conditional rezoning for Taylor Stewart, sets 14-foot vehicle limit

The Poquoson Planning Commission approved a conditional rezoning for a 0.51-acre parcel owned by Taylor Stewart, moving the lot from R-1 residential to B-2 business to permit professional office space, landscape contracting and an associated storage yard. Commissioners amended the applicant's proffers to replace a vague “55%” screening metric with a clear vehicle-height limit of 14 feet; the motion passed unanimously.

The parcel lies at the southeast corner of Wythe Creek Road and Ashland Lane and was described at the hearing as tax parcel 27-01-000032. Planning staff said the application was advertised in the Daily Press on Jan. 7 and Jan. 14 and that adjacent property owners were notified by mail on Jan. 12, 2026. Horton, the planning staff presenter, said the applicant had already received Architectural Review Board approval for the proposal.

Horton summarized the applicant's nine proffered conditions, including site screening and setback requirements, no outdoor activity between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. except during significant weather events or declared emergencies, parking and surfacing to meet the city’s site-plan ordinance, retention of healthy trees, and a prohibition on abandoned or unlicensed vehicles. On the screening metric, commissioners said the original language — which limited how much equipment could be visible to the public by a stated percentage — was unclear in practical application.

Mister Armentrout moved to amend proffer number six so that materials kept on-site would be shielded from public view and that equipment and vehicles would be limited to a height of 14 feet; an unnamed commissioner seconded. The chair conducted a roll call, calling Pearson; Commissioner Hirsch; Commissioner Armitage; Vice Chairman Geisinger; and Chairman Shaw, each of whom answered to register the vote, and the motion passed unanimously.

The applicant, Mister Stewart, told the commission he would use the existing office space "as is" for his landscaping business and a planned photography studio and that the storage yard would be screened: "Front is gonna be white vinyl ... and then down the side ... wood privacy," he said. Stewart said most of his equipment is under about 13 feet and that he had one dump truck about 10–11 feet tall; he also noted Creek Road sits higher than his site so some equipment could otherwise be visible over a fence.

Commissioners pressed on screening details, asking whether the earlier "55%" metric was by area or height and whether it could be enforced. Horton and multiple commissioners advocated a fixed height limit tied to the known 6-foot fence and to common vehicle maxima (13'9" is a frequently cited over‑the‑road height); the panel settled on 14 feet to provide clarity and accommodate occasional maintenance or short-term vehicle presence.

During the second public hearing, Horton presented a companion comprehensive plan amendment request to redesignate the same parcel from low-density residential to general commercial so the plan would align with the approved zoning. A commissioner asked whether adjacent properties — including McPherson's Garage across the street — would also be redesignated; Horton said the amendment under consideration would be isolated to the applicant's parcel because the change was applicant-initiated and that any broader redesignation would require a separate review. A motion to approve the comprehensive plan amendment with the same 14-foot vehicle condition was made and seconded, but a roll-call vote for that motion is not recorded within the provided transcript segments.

The commission closed the meeting after brief personnel and administrative remarks and an adjournment motion. The record shows the conditional rezoning with the 14-foot equipment/vehicle limit approved; the comprehensive plan amendment was moved with a second but no recorded vote appears in the transcript provided.

Next steps: the conditional rezoning and proffers reflect planning commission approval and would typically advance according to Poquoson's procedural sequence for final action; the transcript does not show subsequent City Council action or the final disposition of the comprehensive-plan item.