Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campground Koa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hundreds oppose proposed KOA campground near Naked Creek; planning commission tables application
Summary
Residents, environmental advocates and engineers told the commission the proposed 191‑site KOA-style resort would threaten flood-prone valleys, private wells, wildlife and narrow roads; the commission voted unanimously to table the application for further review and applicant follow-up.
Neighbors and experts filled the hearing room for a special‑use permit application from Feldman and 3 Sons Outdoor Sales LLC / Hawk Peak Land LLC to build a large KOA-style campground on Necket Creek Road. Staff described the proposal as a resort with roughly 191 campsites, cabins and recreational amenities; the application includes concept plans, an economic impact study, an evacuation plan and a turn-lane warrant analysis submitted July 8.
Public opposition was broad and sustained. Nearby residents repeatedly warned about flooding in the Naked Creek watershed and the site’s steep slopes; several speakers cited historical floods and local road limitations. "This area is not ready for the impact of this tourist attraction," said Penny Woodward, an adjoining resident, citing inadequate emergency‑service staffing and limited road capacity. Multiple commenters raised groundwater concerns—questioning whether two wells and a septic/drainfield arrangement could reliably serve hundreds of visitors without impacting private wells and local springs.
Conservation groups and technical experts also testified. The Shenandoah Riverkeeper (Mark Frondorf) said the site is in a high‑value area for floodplain resilience and wildlife habitat and urged denial pending independent water‑quantity and cumulative watershed analyses. Local engineers and former NRCS staff likewise questioned the feasibility of septic and wastewater infrastructure for the proposed scale.
After public comment and an applicant response, the commission unanimously voted to table the application to allow staff and the applicant to address the many outstanding issues. The applicant had asked for time to review comments and requested a July 28 work-session return; the commission’s vote will let staff work with the applicant and affected agencies on traffic, hydrology, wastewater, emergency access and comp‑plan consistency.
Next steps: the application is tabled for further technical review and follow-up; the commission directed staff to gather agency conditions and to provide a packet of public comments and technical questions for the applicant to answer before the matter returns to the commission.
