Planning commission recommends denial of Windy Knoll rezoning after hours of resident objections

The Albemarle County Planning Commission on May 26 recommended denial of a rezoning and subdivision request for the Windy Knoll parcels in Crozet after more than an hour of public comment and extensive commissioner deliberation.

Staff planning manager Rebecca Ragsdale described the proposal (CMA‑2025‑7 / ZMA‑2025‑007 / SUB‑2025‑238) as a rezoning and concept plan for about 3 acres off Route 250 near Quarry Farm: a maximum buildout of 18 dwellings in two building zones, proffers to deliver up to four affordable units (20% of buildout), a proposed public shared‑use path and a requested waiver of sidewalk and planting‑strip requirements for a private street.

Dustin Schimp, the applicant's engineer, said the revised concept responds to commission feedback by balancing units (no more than 11 per building zone), committing to a public easement for a paved shared‑use path, increasing selected setbacks and retaining more open space. Schimp told the commission the client believes the proposed path can be located within existing easements but acknowledged "I'm not a lawyer" and that legal details would be clarified in later phases.

Residents who spoke during the public hearing raised repeated concerns about stormwater and runoff into the downhill Liberty Hall neighborhood, the visual and privacy impacts of dense rows of townhouses immediately behind single‑family backyards, the loss of mature maples and cedars, parking and circulation, and the risk of people cutting across private yards despite a proffered path. Nadia Anderson, speaking for Liberty Hall residents, told commissioners the design "places dense buildings directly above an existing neighborhood on a slope" and said the applicant had not provided downstream modeling demonstrating peak flows would not increase at the neighborhood property line.

Julianne Price, a property owner whose parcel figures in the concept, argued the applicant lacks legal authority to put a public recreational path across a 1960 private easement and cited Virginia Code 55.1‑305 in saying the crossing "overburdens the easement." Other neighbors submitted a counterproposal and urged a lower density (R‑3 or R‑4) and demonstrable commitments to preserve the largest trees.

The applicant defended the plan as an infill opportunity that provides open space and four units affordable under county policy (Schimp said those units could cost roughly $260,000 each under current guidelines) and argued the public path would reduce trespassing by offering a legal route between neighborhoods.

In deliberation commissioners balanced county goals encouraging infill and additional housing against neighbors' requests for better distribution of density, more design dialogue and firmer protections for trees and private property. A motion to recommend denial cited insufficient dispersal of units, lack of community dialogue and stormwater/property‑separation concerns; the motion carried with a majority vote. The commission also granted the applicant's request to defer action on the two waiver requests for sidewalks and planting strip indefinitely.

Next steps: the planning commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for action; the applicant may revise the concept and return with additional legal and engineering detail and/or pursue further community engagement.