The Lynchburg Planning Commission reversed its position on a controversial town home proposal Wednesday, citing changes made by the developer that significantly reduced the size of the project.
The development, named Holly Hill Townhomes, now proposes to bring 50 town houses to Graves Mill Road near the Bedford County line. The original plan, which was rejected by the planning commission, called for 75 units.
The developer hoped that scaling things back would appease earlier concerns raised by commissioners, City Council members and residents of the neighboring Maple Hills subdivision, which has been adamantly opposed to the project.
Neighborhood representatives continued to object to the plan Wednesday, reiterating past concerns about the effect it will have on the area and telling commissioners they should only rezone property when doing so provides the city a unique opportunity of some kind.
“There is nothing unique about having town homes on that site,” said Maple Hills spokeswoman Ann Scott.
The Holly Hill site is zoned primarily for business uses, but the developer is not specifically seeking a rezoning. The property’s current classification allows for town homes with a conditional permit from City Council. The developer, JMU LLC, is requesting such a permit.
Representatives for JMU LLC noted the new plan reduced the number of town homes by one-third and left half of the property undeveloped to allow for a bigger buffer between the new development and Maple Hills.
They also said the city traffic
engineer has determined that the smaller development will not necessitate any special improvements to Graves Mill Road. Road conditions had been a particular point of concern among council.
Rick Read, the property’s commercial broker, said these reductions represented “significant sacrifices” on the part of the developer.
“We wanted to do everything we could to satisfy (Maple Hills),” Read said. “We really tried … I think this (developer) has bent over backward.”
The commission voted in favor of the new proposal 3-1 with three members absent. Commissioner Rick Barnes, who voted against the project when it first came up for review in May, said he felt the developer had made considerable improvements to the plan since then.
“I think this proposal is significantly better than what we saw before,” he said.
Interestingly, Barnes is the only commissioner on the record as changing his mind about the project.
Four commissioners voted against the project the first time it came around. Of those, two were absent Wednesday and one, Vice Chairman Andy Sale, still voted against it.
The issue will now go to City Council for a final vote.
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement