New Kent Charles City Chronicle

News for New Kent County and Charles City County, Virginia | March 29, 2024

Proposed NK zoning districts draw fire at public hearing

By Alan Chamberlain | June 18, 2008 1:50 pm

A rewritten section of New Kent’s zoning ordinance is not drawing rave reviews from some county businessmen and landowners who are not shy about leveling criticism.

Just over 30 people sat in the dark, literally, after a thunderstorm short-circuited power in the county administration building, only moments before Monday night’s Planning Commission meeting was called to order.

On the agenda, a public hearing on the section that features three new proposed zoning districts along with lot requirements, land use definitions, a table of uses, and an amended zoning map of the county. Of the 11 people who spoke, most fired salvos at the proposed districts — Business, Economic Opportunity, and Industrial.

County planning manager Rodney Hathaway told the crowd that the Business designation is “very consistent” with the county’s current B-1 and B-2 business classifications. Likewise, Economic Opportunity corresponds well with current B-3 and M-1 Light Industrial while Industrial equates well with M-2 Heavy Industrial, he said.

But several speakers begged to differ, and didn’t mince words when it came to demanding the current zoning designations remain intact.

“I don’t understand why you’re changing to three new classifications. No one else around us does,” said businessman Chris Kuhn, who owns Virginia Recycling Corporation, a tire recycling business near Providence Forge.

Kuhn questioned if existing businesses would be grandfathered while George Philbates Jr., who owns an auto salvage yard on Route 249, expressed concern that his business would become a non-conforming use under the revised zoning law.

Eddie Wood, who owns Wood’s Body Shop on Route 60, went a step further, charging that county government is seeking more control over businesses and is creating an anti-business atmosphere in New Kent.

“If I could get out of here, I would in a minute,” he told commission members.

Others, who have property near the county airport or an interest in the facility, complained about proposed Economic Opportunity designation for land in that area.

“I vehemently disagree with the changes, especially Economic Opportunity,” former airport operator A.C. “Jim” Worley said. “That change in name has upset many residents.”

All agreed that the county should retain its existing zoning districts.

“I use the old country standard — if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it,” Philbates said.

County Attorney Jeff Summers said the county’s intent with Economic Opportunity is to open up to as much economic development as possible. The new designation had been targeted primarily for land around Interstate 64 interchanges, he said.

“That’s what we set out to do; it just didn’t turn out right, “ he said, adding that county staff is in the process of changing some airport area parcels to Industrial.

Hathaway, meanwhile, assured property owners that their current zoning classifications are grandfathered.

“You will operate with the zoning classification you have today,” he told the crowd. “[The new districts] will not take that right away from you.”

Rewriting county zoning law, which has been underway for almost two years under the auspices of a 15-member Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Committee, is aimed at dealing with current as well as future growth and development pressure facing New Kent, Hathaway said.

“This is but a small piece of the entire rewrite process,” he said, pointing to the focus of Monday’s meeting.

“The goal is to provide more flexibility within zoning districts and solve problems that our current ordinance is not equipped to handle,” he said. “We’re trying to do away with gray areas so staff can come to better decisions to help landowners as a whole.”

“Part of this is to abide by [the county’s] Comprehensive [Land Use] Plan,” Commission member Jack Chalmers chimed in. “We’re not anti-business. We’re trying to make it easier for business.”

The commission, meanwhile, continued the public hearing and action on the rewritten section until its July 21 meeting.

“Please contact us if you have any concerns about specific property,” Hathaway said in an appeal to all county landowners. “We’ll be glad to sit down and discuss with you any concerns.”