Planning commission urges rejection of Liberty Landing

Weather could have been a factor in keeping county residents, and Liberty Landing opponents in particular, away from Monday’s public hearing on the controversial residential/commercial proposal before New Kent’s Planning Commission. And they weren’t needed, at least on the opposition side.

Despite county planning staff urging approval, commission members voted 8-1-1 to send a rezoning application that would pave the way for the project to the county’s Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for denial.

Liberty Landing is a commercial/residential development proposed for a 113-acre site located on the south side of Route 60 (Pocahontas Trail) near Bottoms Bridge and across from the existing Five Lakes and Patriots Landing subdivisions. Virginia Beach-based Boyd Homes (Bridgewater Crossing Inc.) is behind the proposal, which has been under consideration by county officials on an on-again, off-again basis since 2006.

The developer seeks to rezone 88 acres of the site from business to R-3 multi-family residential and another 4.6 acres from A-1 agriculture to business. Eleven acres are to be designated for recreational use with the remaining land slated for open space.

Boyd Homes proposes to build 190 townhouses and 260 apartments along with 200,000 square feet of business/commercial space provided the rezoning application meets with approval. Clubhouses and walking trails are also planned along with a private boat ramp on the nearby Chickahominy River.

The company has capped the number of residences at 450, down from 608 proposed just over a year ago. The 200,000 square feet of business space is double the amount found in earlier proposals.

New Kent planning manager Kelli Le Duc told commission members that sufficient water and sewer capacity exists in the area to handle what Liberty Landing would generate as well as the development’s needs.

The company is proposing cash proffers of $4,500 per residential unit ($4,000 for schools, $500 for emergency services). Also on the proffer list is two acres set aside for building a fire/rescue station.

“We have a vested interest in this project,” Boyd Homes president David S. Rudiger told the commission, noting that the finished product would reflect on his company. “We don’t intend to build and flip. This is something we intend to live with.”

In meeting with county staff and residents living near the proposed project, company officials have learned that a village appearance for the development, similar to the Newtown development in Williamsburg, is preferred, he said.

“We’re working toward a series of buildings that have evolved over time. This is the village look,” he added.

Rudiger said apartments, to be built in three-story structures, would have no more than two bedrooms with rent falling in the $700-$1,200 range. Two-story townhouses would have up to three bedrooms, individual driveways, and attached garages with prices hovering between $150,000 and $210,000. Studio and one-bedroom apartments would meet state standards for workforce housing, he said.

“By limiting the number of bedrooms, we’re limiting the number of students generated,” he said.

As for workforce housing, he said, “We want to provide that and provide that in a quality way.”

Rudiger said the company’s financial analysis indicates the development could generate more than $30 million in net revenue for the county over the next 20 years. He said the project would provide $5.6 million in water/sewer fees, over $2.7 million in proffers, and $1.5 million per year in net revenue for the county “after stabilization.”

“This project is going to generate more in taxes than it uses in services,” he said.

Liberty Landing, meanwhile, has its opponents who claim the development would have negative impact on the county’s already overcrowded schools and create more traffic problems on county roads. Opponents have also questioned Boyd Homes’ ability to market the development, given the present state of the economy. Some say that if built, the residential component could attract an undesirable element.

But only 10 residents sat in on Monday’s public hearing. Half trudged to the microphone.

John Moyer, who lives in Patriots Landing, said New Kent has “unmet needs” that include a hospital and library, but an apartment complex is not on that list.

“Develop the commercial first,” he implored. “If we see it succeed, then change the zoning for the housing part.”

Lawrence Styles, another Patriots Landing resident, said growth in the county is inevitable, but the timing is not right.

“I agree with the gentleman [Rudiger] trying to do this, but it’s not time yet,” he said.

Woodhaven Shores resident David Mepham and Providence Forge resident James Poole criticized the proposed project’s location, noting that the area is prone to flooding in heavy rain and is close to the flood plain bordering the Chickahominy River.

Poole claimed the county stands to lose cash proffers since he believes the entire residential component, which is slated for the area between the commercial space bordering Route 60 and the river, will not come to fruition due to flood potential.

“I think [Rudiger] will discover when he get into it he’ll not be able to build the whole thing. Water is going to defeat him,” Poole said.

Commission member Eddie Pollard, who cast the lone dissenting vote, praised the Liberty Landing proposal, saying the plan could assist the county economically. But other members cited projects in the county that have not lived up to their developers’ promises.

“I don’t want to see another failed project because I think that’s as bad as having nothing,” said Michael Lane.

Tommy Tiller, supervisors’ representative on the commission, pointed to the Kentland development near Colonial Downs that began in 1995 and today boasts only a small fraction of the business space forecast by developers. He also took aim at Liberty Landing’s workforce housing aspect, saying he spent recent weeks conducting a survey of teachers and emergency workers in the county and finding out that most own their homes.

“I don’t see the need [for workforce housing],” he told Rudiger.

Other commissioners pointed to the flooding issue along with increased traffic on Route 60 as concerns. Also, some questioned the validity of the company’s financial analysis.

“I do not have a warm, fuzzy feeling about this,” said commission member Richard Kontny.

Commission member Katherine Butler motioned for an unfavorable recommendation to supervisors based on a need for more commercial space but lack of a demand, a probable increase in traffic on nearby roads, and potential negative impact on fire/rescue services.

After the commission’s vote, Rudiger expressed disappointment, but vowed to press on.

“We have a work session scheduled with supervisors [March 26, 9 a.m. during supervisors’ monthly work session] then it goes to supervisors for a vote,” he said.

That vote could occur during supervisors’ next regular monthly meeting on April 10. The board is scheduled to hold its own public hearing on Liberty Landing that night.

“We’ve been working with the county all these years and we’ll continue to work with them,” he said. “We’ll come up with something that works for everyone.”