Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Townhome project near Central Crossing deferred after neighbors raise density and buffering concerns
Summary
A proposed townhome development was deferred after residents raised concerns about density, screening and impacts on adjacent R‑1 homes; the applicant agreed to a 25‑foot buffer condition and the commission voted to defer the application to June for further materials.
The King William County Planning Commission on April 7 deferred consideration of CPV 02/2006, a proposed townhome development backing Central Crossing, after residents and commissioners raised concerns about density, visual impacts and buffering.
The applicant’s presenter (speaker S1), a consultant with Rogers Schnoep Incorporated, said the plan includes a left‑turn lane and that the applicant will "preserve existing trees to the extent possible" and meet a 25‑foot buffer condition identified in the staff report. He clarified the applicant is the lender’s consultant and "we are just online as a consultant currently. Not in line as builder or developer at this time." The planning department, staff said, will inspect the tree line and determine whether supplementary plantings are required.
Multiple neighbors spoke during the public hearing. Jessica Budd (S8), who lives on Central Crossing Terrace immediately behind the site, urged the commission to consider compatibility with surrounding R‑1 zoning and warned of traffic, lighting, parking and privacy impacts. "If we were to estimate 4 residents per townhome, that is approximately 180 people living on less than 9 acres of land," Budd said, urging careful consideration of whether the project should require a conditional use permit.
Commissioners also questioned whether nearby utility and school capacities had been included in staff calculations and whether rezoning the parcel for business use might better serve the county’s needs. Staff replied that the proposal’s demand had been included in existing calculations and that county water/sewer capacity was near its current limits.
Commissioner S7 moved to defer the application to the June planning commission meeting to allow the applicant to provide site elevations, revised site layouts keyed to topography, and other materials requested by commissioners. The motion was seconded and carried on a roll call vote; the clerk recorded unanimous aye votes from the panel that participated in the roll call.
The application remains pending; the commission asked staff to advise on required materials prior to the June meeting.
