County Planning Commission Tables Housing Density Plan After Residents Raise Concerns

The commission voted 5-1 to pause a proposed zoning amendment that would have expanded housing options in Town Edge areas, citing insufficient coordination with local municipalities and unresolved questions about affordability, infrastructure, and density.

Eastville, Va–A proposed zoning amendment that would have opened the door to higher-density housing in county Town Edge areas was put on hold Tuesday night after a contentious public hearing drew a stream of skeptical residents and exposed a significant rift between county planners and local municipalities.

The Planning Commission voted 5-1 to table the ordinance, opting for more consultation with towns and additional review of the proposal before forwarding any recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Janet Sturgis, chair of the commission, cast the lone dissenting vote.

Speaker after speaker rose to challenge the plan during the public hearing, raising concerns about density, rural character, water supply, traffic, emergency services, taxes, schools, and stormwater management. Several residents urged the county to address vacant homes, existing buildable lots, and rehabilitation of older housing stock before creating new density options.

The lone voice of explicit support came from Cape Charles Town Councilman Paul Grossman, making him a notable outlier in an otherwise critical crowd. It should be noted that during the Cape Charles Town Council Regular Meeting on June 18th, members insinuated that opposition from residents and other town managers stemmed from ignorance, dumbness, and a general lack of education. To the contrary, opponents know exactly what they’re fighting against–they don’t want the rest of the county and its rural character changed into anything resembling the New Cape Charles, which, for locals, has become almost uninhabitable from May to October. Overcrowded and unaffordable for the ordinary people, somewhat elitist (kinda like Arlington County South), it is defined not so much by its character but by a quasi-religious devotion to stuffing the greasy till with tourist dollars. Opponents should follow the money, and it will expose just where all of this is leading. When you hear terms like ‘Workforce’ or ‘Affordable’ housing (code words), understand the grift. Be prepared for future ‘reprogramming’ efforts disguised as ‘information’ sessions. Note: of course, this critique is kinda harsh, but if we didn’t care, we wouldn’t bother.

“Affordability standards must be enforceable, town coordination should be documented, and the county should have measurable indicators to determine whether the ordinance is meeting its goals.”

— Commissioner Patrick Rader

The intercommunity dimension of the dispute became clear when Eastville Mayor Eleanor Gordon read aloud a letter requesting that the county work cooperatively with Eastville before acting on any land-use changes in areas surrounding the town. Speakers also called for fuller involvement of Exmore, Cheriton, Nassawadox and other municipalities, arguing that Town Edge development could ripple outward to affect utilities, roads, emergency services and broader growth patterns.

Commissioners Press for Guardrails

When commissioners turned to deliberation, the divisions within their own body became apparent. Commissioner Patrick Rader said he supported the broader goal of addressing the county’s housing needs but was not comfortable recommending approval without stronger implementation safeguards. He said affordability standards must be legally enforceable, that coordination with towns should be formally documented, and that the county should establish measurable benchmarks to evaluate whether the ordinance was achieving its intended aims.

Commissioner Andre Wiggins pointed to what he called significant public criticism of the process itself. He noted that the county’s own Comprehensive Plan calls for town involvement and said the commission needed to acknowledge that municipalities had not been sufficiently included in the development of the proposal. He also suggested the amendment appeared broader in scope than the housing problem it was originally designed to solve.

Commissioner Sarah Morgan, who participated in the meeting remotely, said she believed town involvement was a prerequisite before any recommendation could responsibly be sent to the Board of Supervisors. She also raised a procedural concern: that residents at formal public hearings are limited to making statements and cannot ask questions or expect answers in real time, which she said limited meaningful dialogue.

Commissioner Sturgis, who would go on to cast the only vote against tabling the measure, argued that the proposal did not constitute a rezoning but rather a pathway enabling future rezoning applications to be considered. She said the county had already tried other approaches — including adaptive reuse of existing structures — but that many vacant or aging buildings face obstacles related to septic systems, soil conditions or renovation costs.

The decision to table the ordinance leaves its future uncertain. No timeline was established for when the commission might revisit the proposal, and it remains unclear what level of town consultation or what amendments to the text would be required before the measure advances.

About the Author

Wayne Creed

Administrator

View All Posts