Planning panel backs comprehensive‑plan change for Kate Estates but stops short on rezoning

The Southampton County Planning Commission voted to recommend a comprehensive‑plan amendment for the Kate Estates subdivision on Monday but failed to reach a recommendation on the companion rezoning request.

Stewart Bonnell, the project’s engineer, told the commission the proposal would create a two‑phase, single‑family subdivision called Kate Estates with 45 total lots (28 in phase one, 17 in phase two) on about 14.85 acres proposed to be redesignated from commercial to low‑density residential. “Phase 1 is a proposed 28 residential lot subdivision,” Bonnell said, adding that phase 2 would require rezoning from A‑1 to R‑2.

The commission’s decision came after roughly two hours of technical questions and public comment focusing on stormwater, septic and sewer availability, sight‑distance at the proposed road entrance, and a pending wetland delineation. Commissioners pressed the developer on stormwater design: the project team said the subdivision would use a DEQ‑compliant wet pond maintained by a homeowners association and that the ponds would meet DEQ depth and benching standards. “That pond will serve both phase 1 and phase 2, and it would comply with all the DEQ and county ordinances,” Bonnell said.

Several residents raised concerns during the public‑comment portion. Sabrina Strauss, who lives near the proposed entrance, said water already floods onto her property and asked whether the development would worsen runoff. “I have seen where water floods… I am concerned about that,” Strauss said, urging careful review of drainage mapping and sight distance at the 45‑mph curve where a second entrance is proposed. The applicant said VDOT guidance on sight triangles had been sought and that the team would work to ensure visibility and safety.

Commissioners also asked about sewer service and alternatives. The developer said the nearest public sewer hookup is approximately 2.5 miles away, and that running sewer to the site would be cost‑prohibitive; the plan calls for septic systems or engineered on‑site systems and a shared community well system. Commissioners asked for engineering confirmation and noted earlier comments from county staff about existing wastewater capacity.

A separate but related procedural issue emerged when staff discovered a discrepancy in the county GIS zoning layer that had incorrectly shown the property as R‑2. Zoning administrator Mr. Randolph told the commission the GIS conversion process produced some transposition errors and that he would confirm the official record: “The GIS system is incorrect,” he said, adding that he had checked paper maps and the official zoning book as part of the review.

After deliberation, the commission voted 5‑3 to recommend approval of the comprehensive‑plan amendment (CPA 2025‑1) and forwarded that recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. When commissioners took up the rezoning motion, it failed to pass; commissioners recorded a 6‑no, 2‑yes vote on recommending the rezoning, leaving the commission with no recommendation to send to the supervisors on that request.

Commissioners said they plan to reconsider the rezoning when the applicant provides the outstanding materials requested at the hearing: the wetlands delineation/report, clearer documentation about the original zoning/GIS discrepancy, topographic and drainage mapping, and any proffers the developer offered during the hearing. Mr. Randolph advised the commission that they have 100 days from the application to make a recommendation and that, if no recommendation is made, state code would allow the application to proceed with a default positive recommendation.

The commission also voted to request that the Board of Supervisors consider providing county legal counsel at planning commission meetings to advise on procedural and legal matters. The planning commission is scheduled to meet next on July 10; the Kate Estates matter will appear again after the applicant supplies the requested documentation and reviews.