Planning commission recommends rezoning of 342-acre Curtis Group property to Economic Opportunity, forwarding proposal to supervisors

The New Kent County Planning Commission on June 15 recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve a rezoning request from the Curtis Group that would change three parcels along Route 33 (tax map 36-37A, 36-38 and 26-83B) to Economic Opportunity.

Patrick Silva, principal planner for the county’s Department of Community Development, said the application seeks to consolidate lands totaling about 342.85 acres to allow mixed commercial and light-industrial development. ‘‘The proposed rezoning would bring the zoning of the subject properties in alignment with their future land use designation in the county’s comprehensive plan,’’ Silva said, and noted staff’s recommendation of approval was conditioned by voluntary proffers submitted June 11, 2026.

The proffers include architectural and material standards that apply across the rezoning area, a vegetative buffer at least 100 feet wide (described as denser than the county’s Type C transitional buffer), limits on construction hours to 7 a.m.–7 p.m. Monday–Saturday with no Sunday construction except in emergencies, and required transportation improvements tied to the project’s traffic impact analysis (TIA).

The applicant’s concept plan proposes two separate land bays divided by wetlands and Resource Protection Area (RPA) features. The north land bay would include two very large light-industrial buildings (conceptually shown at about 625,000 and 660,000 square feet) plus outparcels for retail or restaurants; the south land bay would include six smaller buildings ranging from about 35,000 to 175,000 square feet and additional outparcels. Silva said the TIA estimates roughly 2,901 weekday trips per day from the north bay and 1,631 from the south bay at full buildout.

Jared Anderson, the applicant’s agent from Roth Jackson, reiterated that the application requests ‘‘by-right’’ uses permitted in Economic Opportunity and that the proffers are intended to mitigate impacts. Applicant Andy Curtis said Curtis Contracting will perform the infrastructure and pad work and that final building construction will depend on buyers or lessees; he added, ‘‘We’re not applying for a data center’’ and that no data-center tenants had been contacted by the applicant.

Residents who spoke during the public hearing urged denial or more caution. Meredith Rose, a Lanexa resident, cited environmental constraints and argued the parcels contain multiple branches of Beaverdam Creek and wetlands, noting that Beaverdam Creek is listed as impaired for low dissolved oxygen; she said industrial development could increase runoff and thermal impacts that would stress the watershed. Leah Chalk, a neighbor, asked the commission to keep the land agricultural to protect wildlife and preserve rural character. Several commenters said mailed notices arrived late and questioned outreach reach despite a county survey of 786 responses.

Staff and applicants acknowledged environmental and utility constraints: environmental staff confirmed the presence of RPAs and wetlands and warned that any encroachment would require state and federal wetland permits and could trigger additional public review; utilities staff called the provided utility layout conceptual and said a second sewer/water connection along Route 33 would be required for the southern parcel. Staff estimated annual sewer pump station operating costs at approximately $60,000.

Commissioners debated balancing comprehensive-plan consistency and county revenue needs against environmental and traffic concerns. Several commissioners stressed that the rezoning aligns with the comprehensive plan’s vision for Economic Opportunity along the Route 33 corridor and noted the county’s interest in broadening the commercial tax base to fund capital projects. Others urged restraint, suggested limiting immediate rezoning to already-EO or industrial portions, or asked staff to develop specific policy controls for high-power uses.

On a roll-call vote to forward the application with a favorable recommendation (Resolution PC07-26), the commission recorded votes as follows: Miss Townsend — yes; Miss Johnson — yes; Mr. Moyer — abstain; Mr. Dumbrosski — yes; Miss Thomas — no; Mr. Lishelle — no; Dr. Schmidt — yes; Mr. Davis — yes; Reverend Hathaway — yes; Mr. Bennett — yes. The commission voted to forward the application and proffers to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration.

Next steps: the Board of Supervisors will consider the application at a future meeting; any future development on the parcels would require separate site-plan applications, and specific uses such as a data center would require additional approvals (e.g., conditional use permits) and potentially state or federal permitting depending on impacts.

Votes and formal documents related to the recommendation, including Resolution PC07-26 and the applicant’s proffer statement dated June 11, 2026, are available in the planning department’s docket.