Council denies developer's request to rezone legacy parcels to high‑density residential
Loading...
Summary
Council voted to deny a conditional rezoning request and its companion comp‑plan amendment for parcels near the EDA pond that would have converted village commercial land to age‑restricted residential; planning commission had recommended denial and council rejected the rezoning 6–1 and the comp‑plan amendment 7–0.
The Poquoson City Council rejected a developer's request to rezone several parcels from Village Commercial to conditional R‑3 (high‑density residential) and also denied a companion comprehensive‑plan amendment to redesignate the land for high‑density residential use.
Director of Community Development Wiley Horton summarized the proposal, which would place 38 townhomes on the east side of the EDA pond and 28 duplexes on the west side, with proffers that would include a 20‑foot easement, a connector easement and an age restriction limiting units to residents 55 and over.
"If the council approves the conditional rezoning to R‑3, it makes sense to approve the comprehensive plan that would denote this area as high density," Horton said, but he noted the planning commission had voted 4–2 to recommend denial.
Applicant Bob Moses told the council he had struggled to market the commercial component and that his residential plan would cut traffic compared with the already‑approved village commercial layout. "The traffic numbers for what I propose are substantially reduced from what was already approved as a village commercial," Moses said.
Several residents urged denial. Former councilor Henry Ayers said the small‑town character and public services should be prioritized and asked council to follow the planning commission's recommendation. Chad Barlow and Jeff Paddock also spoke against the rezoning, citing traffic, school capacity concerns and loss of scarce commercial land.
Council considered a motion to deny the rezoning request; that motion passed 6–1. The separate motion to deny the comprehensive‑plan amendment carried unanimously, 7–0.
Councilors noted the long history of village commercial designation on the property, the planning commission's recommendation and community concerns when explaining their votes.
