Farms of New Kent request to reduce lot size in portion of Viniterra tabled by county supervisors

A proposed amendment that would allow the reduction of lot sizes in a subdivision located in the Farms of New Kent will undergo further studying by New Kent’s Board of Supervisors.

County leaders elected to table a request from the Farms of New Kent Planned Urban Development (PUD) ordinance to reduce lots located in the Reserve of Viniterra area from one acre to one-half acre during Tuesday night’s regular board meeting.

Located in Land Bay I of the Farms of New Kent, Resource International Senior Vice President Charlie Riedlinger addressed the board of supervisors on several reasons that the lots should be reduced by half their current sizes. Despite a 5-2 vote from the county’s planning commission that sent an unfavorable recommendation to county leaders, Riedlinger listed the reasons for the amendment change.

Riedlinger’s presentation began by saying that the initial concept for the PUD consisted of a limited amount of information when it was first created. With a golf course that increased in size and actual wetland delineations being conducted, he said that it was more practical now that they had more information.

Riedlinger continued, saying that the half-acre lots will also help with perseveration of the environment in sensitive areas. The reduction would also address stormwater concerns and meet current set back requirements. Finally, he added that reducing the acreage means that homes can be built faster and create additional market diversity. Riedlinger concluded by saying that it will also increase the potential for commercial development, bring revenue to New Kent County, and increase the number of homeowners contributing to the Homeowner’s Association (HOA).

John Hopke, who works as an architect along with the design and development guidelines for the proposal, said smaller lots have a lot of advantages to accommodating people who want to move into New Kent County.

“Half an acre means lower maintenance to home sites when meeting market demands,” he said, referencing recently release census data that showed New Kent as the second faster growling locality in the Commonwealth of Virginia. “Viniterra’s Design and Development will be applied with minor amendments to reserve and address current resident’s comments. This would be a distinct neighborhood separate from the current estate.”

After the presentation by the developers, the public hearing opened in what can be considered one of the most evenly discussed topics for those who were in favor of the amendment change and those who were against it.

“I would like to ask the board of supervisors to adopt the recommendation of the planning commission and keep the development as it was planned,” said John Wilgus. “We heard a lot of info tonight, but we didn’t hear anything that would benefit the county.

“Everybody knew the topography when it was planned and part of the PUD when it was developed in 2006,” he continued. “Reducing a development by half an acre raises a red flag to me.”

“There has been a flurry of info pushed down our throat,” commented Joe Roman, who was also against the change. “That want you all to make a rash decision without all the facts.

“Issues go up to them and we share our issues with them, but they never come down and it leaves homeowners in the dark,” he continued, citing a lack of communication from the developer. “Now, the Farms of New Kent needs us to make a rash development because they have finances to maintain. Communication was all one way, and it was slanted, not actual or factual.”

Those who supported the change said the reduced acreage would provide more revenue and funding to the county.

“I wish to support the change based upon the information that I have seen,” said Doug Morse. “It is a primary fact that if you don’t allow the smaller lots, it’s a lost of about 15 percent of the potential homes and potential revenue to the HOA and the county.”

“As I learned more, it brought clarity to the situation,” chimed in Bill Shelly during his time at the lectern. “It’s being presented what was being asked and why it was necessary. The original design doesn’t work for the reserves, and the half acre size lots is the best and most efficient use of the land.”

More of the same sentiments for those and against the change were echoed by other speakers, with a total of nine voicing their opinion. And with the public comment period now closed, supervisor Patricia Paige, who oversees District 3 where the Farms of New Kent falls in, voiced her views on the issue.

“In 2014 before I was on the board, there were stormwater design regulations were changed and in 2016, Viniterra had requested 500 homes,” she said, recapping her knowledge of the project. I sit and listen and numerous meetings, hearing residents who are for this and against this amendment.

“What is bothersome to me is that in a conversation with somebody in another subdivision within the county that a person can live on the same road, but if you live behind a brick column, you’re not part of that community,” Paige continued, referencing a slide in the presentation that showed the Reserves of Viniterra being separated from the Cottages of Viniterra by monuments and not a gate. “I pride myself on listening and hearing and praying.

“I would think that amenities would be a point of sale,” she said, wrapping up her comments about the promise of amenities being expedited if lots were smaller. “I don’t care if you had 140 for sale, 42 for sale, or four houses for sale along with that golf course, those amenities would attract people to come.”

District 5 supervisor John Lockwood dissected the information he received both from emails he had received on the issue as well as comments spoken during the public hearing.

“Most of the emails and those who were opposed to this are universally saying that the communication was poor, asking the board not to make a rash decision, and talks about the lack of trust,” Lockwood said. “Those for it wanted it more on a technical sense, saying that it is provides a reward and finances for the county.

“I would say a lot of folks haven’t been sold and wanted more clarification on the amenities,” he continued. “I think it would be in the best interest of everybody to know where you need to be by meeting the needs of the community. While this doesn’t affect me, it does affect people who invested money into their homes.”

District 4 leader Ron Stiers preference his comments by saying he has supported Viniterra but had concerns about the proposal.

“I go with my gut feeling,” he said. “When people say they spend their life savings for these homes, but what about those people who were told up front that they would be one acre for them.

“All these homes and people bought into it,” Stiers continued, presenting a hypothetical situation. “They were told that only the Villas would be half an acre and that’s the reason they bought into it. Now, all’s that changing. How about those people who bought into that?”

Stiers displayed a petition that had been passed around at the end of a town hall meeting that supported the amendment.

“I don’t see any information on this petition that there wouldn’t be any custom homes,” the District 4 representative added. “What if I was promised a custom home?”

Paige returned to the microphone, talking about the amenities being only a possibility.

“I look at this and it said that the amenities is only an ‘if’ if this company closes on a lot and then the amenities would consist of a swimming pool, wading areas, two pickleball courts, two tennis courts, a clubhouse, and a fitness center,” Paige said as she reviewed the document. “That’s ‘if’ they don’t have a shortage of supplies.

“This is a lot of ifs and not a commitment and not a guarantee,” she continued. “Yet, they want us to have a definite decision. However, if they don’t close on it [lots], what happens to the amenities?”

Paige ended her comments, asking for deferment of the decision to a later date. County leaders unanimously agreed on her motion.