Charles Town planning commission approves some Huntfield master-plan edits, denies two lot‑type changes after resident objections

The Charles Town Planning Commission on Feb. 10, 2026 voted to approve several technical edits to the Huntfield Master Plan while rejecting two proposed conversions of single‑family lots to townhomes after residents said the changes would worsen parking, strain infrastructure and alter the neighborhood’s character.

James, a city planning staff member, opened the hearing with a staff report describing the requested amendment from Doctor Acquisitions (represented in the meeting by DRB Homes). James said the Huntfield master plan originally approved in April 2005 contemplates about 3,200 dwelling units in total and outlined the specific phase changes requested by the developer, including road‑alignment adjustments and product‑type reallocations in several phases.

Resident opposition centered on parking, infrastructure and erosion of the neighborhood’s original vision. Judy Price, a Huntfield resident of 16–17 years, told the commission she had participated in neighborhood negotiations and urged denial, saying the proposal risked transforming “a slew of townhomes” into the community and that incremental changes could produce a large cumulative impact over time. “I would like to ask you to please not approve this request,” she said.

Other residents raised similar objections. Brandon Halstead, who said he closed on his home in January 2025 and learned of the proposal only shortly before the hearing, said moving townhomes into lots near his lot would change the immediate neighborhood and worsen known parking problems. Multiple written comments read into the record raised concerns about water pressure, street width, lost green space and the perception that the builder stood to gain financially from the conversions.

The applicant’s representative, Mr. Stair of DRB Homes, said the amendment is intended to reallocate product types to reflect market demand without increasing the overall allowed density. “The requested master plan change is not — and I emphasize this — this is not an increase in density,” he said, adding that the master plan’s phasing is driven in part by utilities and that certain areas are buffered from existing residences. The applicant also said Huntfield provides more open space than the minimum the plan requires and that new proffers include an accelerated commitment to build a community clubhouse and related amenities.

After public comment and an applicant response, commissioners moved into deliberations. The commission approved a clarification to show an existing road alignment tied to an already‑approved final plan for phase 5b. It also approved a location swap in phase 4 — moving townhomes and single‑family units within that phase — on the condition there be no net increase in either product type in the affected area.

By contrast, the commission denied the proposed conversions in phases 2d and 3f that would have turned single‑family lots into townhomes. Commissioners cited resident testimony about a single entrance to the neighborhood segment, persistent parking shortages, lack of compensating concessions from the developer and the three‑plus years of prior negotiations that, several commissioners said, had already balanced concessions between parties.

Commissioners debated a separate map change that would remove a color‑coded road segment shown on the master plan. Some said the road as drawn could not be built as shown and that cleaning the map would avoid locking in an unrealistic alignment; others cautioned that commercial access must be ensured. The commission ultimately voted to remove the segment from the master plan while adding a caveat that any future site plan for that parcel must provide road access to the parcels in question.

The commission concluded its business by holding routine elections: Ann Panessa was nominated and accepted as chair, a vice‑chair was confirmed by voice vote, and James was appointed secretary. The meeting adjourned following those actions.

What’s next: The commission’s approvals and denials amend the master plan at a high level; detailed road alignments, access points and site‑specific designs will still be addressed at the site‑plan and subdivision stages and may be subject to further staff review and public comment.