by AnnGardner Eubank
IRVINGTON—Citing a lack of information along with numerous concerns from residents and town officials, the Irvington Town Council has decided not to move forward with consideration for rezoning some 128 acres along White Fences Drive as a part of the village overlay concept previously presented by Renaissance group LLC.
On Thursday, October 8, council considered a resolution referring the request from Renaissance Group to the planning commission. The Renaissance Group held a related community information session in September showcasing ideas for a village overlay to incorporate some 150 homes along with businesses, community areas and green spaces.
Renaissance Group requested the town consider an amendment to the Town Code to establish a Village Overlay District zoning designation, which could change the tract from low/medium density housing (R-2) neighborhood business zoning (B1).
Council discussed the request prior to taking any action to refer it to the planning commission.
Mary Windsor Cline said it’s important to distinguish between the vision the Renaissance Group presented to the public and the actual zoning ordinance submitted to the town.
She said the vision is what it could create, while the ordinance is what they’d legally be permitted to do. The scale of the project and the potential major density increase are some of her primary concerns, she said.
Cline added that they need an understanding of what the overlay could allow and what long term effects would look like for residents, including what long term maintenance and costs would be left up to the town and all residents.
“At this point I do not believe we have enough information or justification to support moving forward with this proposal in its current form. For those reasons, I do not support forwarding this request to the planning commission at this time,” she said.
Samantha Van Saun agreed with Cline.
“From here we need to understand that this land won’t be a field forever, and we need to understand what developers can do within the current zoning. I can think of some very depressing housing communities that can be put in under the current zoning; think cookie-cutter homes,” she said.
Van Saun added that she’d like to see staff work with the town attorney to decide what protections are desirable for the town with opportunities for The Renaissance Group as well as residents to weigh in on that process.
Additionally, Van Saun suggested that Renaissance then readjust the proposal to fit the new requirements. For example, she said she’d think things like an approval process for the specific and complete development and conditional use permit processes for every individual business would be important to include.
Phil Robinson agreed with them both and added that the zoning change could allow for over 200 homes to be built, not including accessory dwelling units. He said he did not see how it could benefit the residents that have been living in Irvington for years.
“I have never gotten an answer on why the current zoning does not work for them,” he added.
Robinson also noted that about 15 years ago there was a conscious effort to limit smaller lots in order to preserve the town’s charm, open spaces and limit density.
Mary Cary Bradley also agreed with everyone who had spoken. She added that she wants to make sure such a project benefits current and future residents in ways beyond just increased tax revenues.
Fran Westbrook said she agreed with all that had been previously stated.
Wayne Nunnally said that everything everyone had said was true. He suggested the town take the matter into its own hands. “Since we can’t buy an office, let’s buy the development and turn it into a park and be done with the problem,” he said.
Nunnally suggested they purchase the land and designate it as a conservation easement, that way the village can stay as is.
Several residents had sent letters noting concerns and opposition regarding the idea as a whole.
Frances Butler cited infrastructure concerns. The town simply couldn’t handle a project that size, she said. As far as sewer goes, Butler said the service would have to be provided by Kilmarnock, which would raise questions to what residents’ financial responsibility would be in absorbing those costs.
“Irvington’s small scale, historic character, open spaces and quiet atmosphere are fundamental to what makes the town unique. Once those qualities are lost to high-density residential and commercial development, they cannot easily be restored,” Butler wrote.
Finley White also wrote in, sharing concerns of traffic impact, lack of identified tangible benefits to residents, long term consequences of B1 zoning regardless of present intentions, and changes to the town’s character.
White also noted that it is not the town’s responsibility in increasing the value or development potential of privately owned property.
Heather Sheehan also weighed in, noting the idea is not an “overlay” at all, but is rather “a poorly written request for rezoning to more than quadruple the currently zoned density.”
Sheehan added that the rezoning would allow the addition of approximately 225 new homes over the current 351 total residential units in Irvington, making for a 64% increase.
David Cheek wrote in stating that he found the overlay proposal to be more of a planned unit development.
“What I see in all of this, is Irvington 2.0 redesigned into a new modern theme, trying to override R2 zoning to maximize their return on investment at the expense of our historic town,” he said.
Cheek also shared concerns of what this proposal means for Irvington’s future.
“It presents a lot of changes and leaves a lot of questions, not only now, but in the future to be answered. Now there are water, sewage, traffic and density concerns. Tomorrow, it might be that the Pattersons sell to new owners that wish to change things again. What would be done if a failed property management plan or one not acted on in a proper way by the HOA, failed to carry through as it was designed and the property deteriorated appreciably? Would the town have any oversight then?” he said.
Evan Cotter submitted a 10-page analysis citing questions and concerns that are available online. In the document, Cotter noted that the benefits that were discussed in the September 8 presentation are not in the proposed ordinance.
He also said the term “open spaces” is undefined and that it may just be land that cannot be built on.
Several other residents wrote in expressing similar concerns.
Melanie Carter McGuire said she hoped council will ask certain questions when considering anything in moving forward with the overlay, including if the plans have been reviewed with the Department of Environmental Quality, what specific strategies will be used to manage storm water run off, and if there have been any environmental impact studies done.
Bradley suggested a meeting be scheduled with Renaissance Group, town council and the planning commission to receive education regarding what the town’s purview is and how they can work with a developer to legally bind restrictions and benefits in order to preserve the town’s desires and goals.
Council unanimously decided not to move forward with the request at this time and not forward the request to the planning commission. A meeting date will further be discussed during the November Council meeting.
Related request
On a related topic, Council held a public hearing for a rezoning request of a two-acre parcel at White Fences Drive and Irvington Road.
Renaissance Group applied to rezone the 2.089-acre parcel from R-2 to B-1.
Melanie Carter McGuire said the application lacks information.
“It’s not good policy to give any developer a blank check to develop a property without a detailed plan,” she said.
She worries this will be the start of a shift from the town’s traditional residential atmosphere and charm to a bustling commercial hub.
George Kuper said the specific reasons for the rezoning ought to be made clear. Zoning is an important tool for what is to be expected, he said.
Jurgita Pegano said that she along with other Vineyard Grove residents are concerned that commercial use would cause increased traffic to White Fences Drive, the road leading to a residential neighborhood. She would hope commercial traffic would be kept to the Irvington Road corridor, she said.
Town clerk Charles Dyson said he was in receipt of multiple letters of opposition and concern regarding the specific rezoning application.
No action was taken by council.
Other topics
In other news, Council held hearings on several other ordinance amendments, including regulations for farm animals.
The proposed amendment notes that agriculture, and/or the raising of up to 12 chicken hens or guineafowl, but not to include the raising of male chickens, horses, pigs, cattle or the like.
Nunnally said he didn’t understand why on parcels with a number of acres property owners should be restricted on what farm animals they can have.
“With 12 acres of land, I may like to have a cow someday. Why should I be prevented from having a cow? If you’re going to restrict people’s use you have to look at the land…To prevent larger animals just to prevent them is not village-y,” he said.
Nunnally shared memories of a pig that used to sometimes wander through town and greet visitors, and that he and others found it to be very charming.
Ordinance amendments will be voted upon after a second reading.
During a public safety committee report, Cline indicated they are still in the process with Virginia Department of Transportation for obtaining two speed feedback signs for King Carter Drive.
She added that Lancaster County has approved the use of a mobile feedback sign on Irvington Road, and it should be placed sometime this week.
Council unanimously voted to task the planning commission—with highest priority—to set a schedule on considering potential zoning amendments related to the Commonwealth’s regulation of retail marijuana under House Bill 30.
Bradley suggested having everything in place and scheduled to vote on the zoning regulations by Council’s February meeting.
