Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Big Woods North topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission debates ‘master plan’ language for Big Woods North area
Summary
At a March 16 work session, Poquoson planning staff and commissioners discussed draft comprehensive-plan language for Big Woods North, including whether to use the term “master plan,” converting a small R&D zone to general commercial, and traffic/access considerations; commissioners favored softer wording and more outreach to private property owners.
Wally, a city planning staff member, reviewed recommendations remanded by the city council on the Big Woods North area and asked whether the planning commission wanted to retain a reference to a “master plan” approach or soften that language and defer any formal master-plan initiation to private property owners once they request it.
The discussion matters because the draft language would differentiate Big Woods North into residential and commercial subareas, encourage cohesively planned development rather than parcel-by-parcel projects and proposes converting a research-and-development zoning pocket to general commercial because, in staff’s words, “research and development … simply has not worked.” Commissioners expressed concern that the phrase “master plan” could alarm residents and recommended softer phrasing and additional outreach to landowners before adding the language to the comprehensive plan.
Commissioners also questioned whether the planning commission should specify how future roads would connect (for example, potential connections to Yorktown Road or Oakwood Drive) and asked staff to require traffic-impact analyses for new development that would use Victory Boulevard, City Hall Avenue, or Legacy Boulevard as access. Staff said the marketplace and property owners will largely dictate future road locations, but recommended callers consider three general access corridors and to require traffic impact analysis as a condition of future development review.
The commission’s consensus was to ask staff to soften the “master plan” wording, to consider specifying triggers or timing for more detailed planning only after property-owner interest emerges, and to carry the draft language forward to the comprehensive-plan rewrite process. Commissioners stressed that the comprehensive plan is advisory and does not change underlying zoning by itself.
The work session also revisited a separate staff recommendation to redesignate an R&D area to general commercial because that land has not attracted R&D uses; no formal zoning change occurred at the meeting, and commissioners asked staff to return with refined language that eases community concerns while preserving the draft’s long-term planning goals.
The commission moved from the work session into its regular March 16 meeting without a separate vote on the draft language; staff said they will incorporate commissioner feedback and present revised wording at a later meeting.
