Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to reject rezoning at 300 Kimball Lane; motion fails for lack of second
Summary
Neighbors urged Christiansburg council to preserve 300 Kimball Lane as agricultural, citing narrow roads, safety and inadequate traffic study; a motion to rezone failed for lack of a second, leaving the parcel agricultural for at least a year.
Neighbors filled the public comment period to urge Christiansburg Town Council to reject a proposal to rezone roughly 38 acres at 300 Kimball Lane from agricultural to single‑family residential.
Several residents described narrow neighborhood streets, poor pavement and pedestrian risks if the site developed into a subdivision with up to about 90 homes. "We can't carry another 200 plus cars going up and down that one‑lane street daily," said Sue Speed, who lives on Kimball Lane, asking council to preserve the neighborhood's character. Mark Perdue, who identified concerns as a cyclist, said the traffic study did not address safe crossings, connections for bicycles to the Huckleberry Trail or how future residents would access transit and services without a vehicle. Patrick Hobbs described failing road surfaces and warned added traffic would increase safety risks for children and pedestrians.
Representatives for the applicant told the council the developer had submitted a letter and that town engineering staff had reviewed road widths and standards. A consultant for the project said the plan includes widening Rogers Lane and proffers a turn lane where warranted; he also said the developer would repair any damage to roads caused by construction.
After discussion, a council member moved to approve the rezoning ordinance but no council member seconded the motion, so the motion failed and the mayor said the property will remain zoned agricultural. The mayor noted the applicant may return within a year with an amended request or a different zoning classification.
The public record accompanying the case lists the property as Tax Parcel 557‑A‑20. The council did not take further action on the rezoning during this meeting.
