New Kent Charles City Chronicle

News for New Kent County and Charles City County, Virginia | March 28, 2024

Action on Farms of New Kent PUD amendment deferred

By Andre Jones | December 11, 2017 11:45 pm

After two-and-a-half years of work, negotiations, and meetings with county residents, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment for the Farms of New Kent appeared before county supervisors seeking favorable approval for the changes. But with a document that spanned more than 200 pages and with only a limited time before the finalized versions appeared before county leaders, it was just too much to digest at the moment.

County supervisors deferred action on the PUD until January’s work session after more than an hour worth of dialogue at the Dec. 11 public hearing.

New Kent’s Director of Community Development Matthew Smolnik presented the latest edition of the proposal for the 2,230-acre property that is divided into five land bays. Among general proposals include the construction of more residential areas, increasing the number of non-age restricted units from 67 to 80 per calendar year, and adding a $5,000 fee to be paid by the applicant per unit for each unit that exceeds the maximum.

Land Bay I’s (Viniterra) proposal recommends an increase in the number of units from 300 to 400, lowering the total square foot size from 2,800 to 2,5000, the addition of 230 cottages with 200 of them being age restricted, the removal or conversion of 100 resort cottages, the removal of paths, bike trails, equestrian facilities, and the square foot requirement for the golf clubhouse, and the additional of a fitness center.

Land Bay II would be removed from the PUD, removing what was built to be the home of vineyards and a polo field. Land Bay III only saw technical changes in language.

Land Bay IV’s (The Arbors) recommendations changing the widths of the lot, adding recreation amenities that include a bike path and multipurpose field upon construction of the 150th home, a pool and wading pool after 275 homes, and a clubhouse after 325 structures are built.

Land Bay V (Four Seasons) would see 250 units reduce the size from 1,200 to 1,180 square feet, the addition of recreation amenities after the 372nd home, and the addition of a community garden.

Many residents with homes in the Farm of New Kent’s area spoke in support of the PUD amendment during the public comment portion.

“I think we came to a reasonable accommodation that is agreeable to all parties,” said David Maloney, who addressed conversations between homeowners and Common Bond Capital Partners LLC Chief Financial Officer David Guy when negotiations and dialogue was held between both parties.

“We had four meetings with David Guy and the homeowners had a lot of impact during the conversation,” said Sharon Resick, a resident of Four Seasons. “We didn’t get everything we wanted and they didn’t get everything they wanted but there are 35 people here who support this PUD agreement.”

Paul Stuke, however, voiced opposition to the PUD after seeing a lack of information in the plans.

“As I look at this I don’t see anything that talks about lot size,” he said. “I seen this situation happen north of Washington D.C.

“I will be here in ten years and so will the residents of these subdivisions,” Stuke continued. “The developers aren’t going to be here. I want to see this issue tabled.”

After the public hearing closed, supervisors had varying opinions on the proposal.

“I spoke with residents of The Arbors about the concerns they had,” said District 3 representative Patricia Paige. “Their concerns were about the amenities and thresholds and they are pleased and appreciate this proposal.”

However, concerns from District 2 representative Tommy Tiller and District 1 Thomas Evelyn sparked major worry spots in the PUD amendment request.

“The only benefit I see in this proposal for the county is the firehouse,” Tiller commented, pointing to $750,000 to be paid as proffers to assist the facility planned to be built on Emmaus Church Road (Route 106). “I’m looking at how you can add a home beyond the maximum allowed and only get $5,000 [per unit].

“With the increase in population in the schools that really bothers me,” the District 2 representative added. “The school can only do so much with $5,000 and that’s a one-time revenue.”

“This has been in the works for two-and-a-half years and we just received this last week,” Evelyn said, mentioning that he did not see any additional information regarding changes and recommendations prior to Monday night’s meeting. “I understand how the residents feel but I’m wondering who negotiated this.

“I look now and it says we have went from 200 to 1,500 lots before a commercial lot is built,” the District 1 representative continued. “These are huge changes from the original draft.”

Evelyn said that nobody provided information about the changes in the commercial space requirement.

“That’s a huge change to us and should have been told to us,” Evelyn added. “Our job is to look at this PUD as a whole.”

District 5 representative Ray Davis said promises made in the past made him leery about the proposed changes.

“This was sold to the county as a big thing,” the board chairman said, pointing to the original concept back in 2005. “Things were promised, but the idea was overpromised. When does it all end?

“There are a lot of changes in here that nobody didn’t say a thing about until we asked the question,” Davis concluded.

To the dismay of a room at full capacity, supervisors deferred action to the January work session by a 4-1 vote, with District 4 representative casting the lone dissenting vote.

In another public hearing, action was deferred on a proposed amendment that would require mini-storage warehouse facilities to have a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) when constructing one in an Economic Opportunity District.

Supervisors heard citizens praise the concept, but realized that a prospective business may construct one adjacent to New Kent’s Visitor Center next to Interstate 64.

While constituents battled with facts, county administrator Rodney Hathaway advised citizens that the CUP would be required for the entire county and not just this one entity.

Evelyn proposed a 90-day deferral to gather additional information to see if the prospective business intended to continue pursuing constructing the facility. The vote narrowly passed 3-2, with Paige and Tiller casting votes of opposition.