Northampton Planning Commission tables Town Edge Zoning Amendment after public opposition

Pictured: residents in attendance at Tuesday night’s Northampton Planning Commission Meeting next to one of five maps(Eastville) indicating which parcels would be allowed to apply for a higher density housing rezoning status under the proposed zoning text amendment. Only sections in yellow would qualify.

A process that has been in the works for over a year will take a little longer after the Northampton County Planning Commission voted to table a proposed Town Edge zoning text amendment at Tuesday night’s meeting following a lengthy public hearing that drew strong public concern and calls for more input from incorporated towns.

At the start of the meeting, Zoning Administrator Mike Starling said the proposal would not rezone any property or change the county zoning map. Instead, it would create a framework for future rezoning applications in areas already designated as Town Edge, including possible cluster housing, mixed residential uses, limited retail uses and affordable housing provisions.

County Administrator Matt Spuck said the ordinance was intended to address Northampton’s housing challenges, including aging housing stock, lower local wages, and difficulty recruiting and retaining teachers, health care workers, public safety employees and other workers. He said any future development would still require a rezoning application, public hearings before both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, agency review, and review of traffic, utilities, stormwater, environmental impacts and infrastructure. He also reported the land affected by this proposal was merely 1.3% of the County’s acreage.

Most speakers opposed moving forward with the amendment Tuesday night. Residents raised concerns about density, rural character, water supply, traffic, emergency services, taxes, schools, stormwater, and whether new housing would actually be affordable to local workers. Several speakers also said the county should focus on vacant homes, existing buildable lots and rehabilitation of older housing before creating new density options.

“We live in a poor man’s paradise,” said Sheila Traina, who had moved to the Shore. “Please don’t destroy it.”

Eastville Mayor Eleanor Gordon read a letter asking the county to work cooperatively with Eastville before taking action on land-use changes around the town. Other speakers said Exmore, Cheriton, Nassawadox and other towns also needed to be fully involved because Town Edge development could affect utilities, roads, emergency services and growth patterns.

Cape Charles Town Councilman Paul Grossman was the lone speaker to explicitly support the plan.

“There is economic evidence that supports the proposition that reducing the minimum lot size requirement increases the number of homes that can be built and lowers the land cost per unit,” he said. “Page 40 of the Comprehensive Plan says Town Edge areas can potentially be rezoned to accommodate a wide rage of residential unit types and densities.”

After the public comment period, Zoning Administrator Mike Starling responded to several concerns. He said maps displayed in the room showed the current Town Edge-zoned areas in yellow, while pink areas showed potential future Town Edge areas in the Comprehensive Plan. Starling said the proposed amendment would apply only to the existing yellow Town Edge areas, not the broader future land-use areas. He also addressed claims about existing buildable lots, saying GIS parcel counts do not necessarily mean all of those parcels can support a house. He said some lots may be affected by wetlands, floodplain, Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act buffers, topography, small size or remnants left from projects such as the widening of Route 13.

He also clarified density questions. Starling said the proposed 20 units per acre figure for apartments would be a maximum, not a guaranteed or automatic density. He said without municipal sewer and water, the drain field required for that level of development would likely be very large and may be cost prohibitive.

Commissioners then discussed whether the ordinance should move forward. Commissioner Patrick Rader said he supported the goal of addressing housing, but was not comfortable recommending approval without stronger implementation measures. He said affordability standards must be enforceable, town coordination should be documented, and the county should have measurable indicators to determine whether the ordinance is meeting its goals.

Commissioner Andre Wiggins said the public criticism of the process was significant. He said the Comprehensive Plan calls for town involvement and said the commission should acknowledge that towns had not been sufficiently included. He also said the proposal appeared broader than the housing problem it was intended to address.

Other commissioners agreed more public input was needed. Commissioner Janet Sturgis, chair of the commission, argued that the proposal was not a rezoning, but a pathway for future rezoning applications. She said the county has tried other approaches, including adaptive reuse, but that many vacant or older structures face septic, soil or cost challenges.

Commissioner Sarah Morgan, participating remotely, said she believed towns needed to be involved before a recommendation was sent to the Board of Supervisors. She also said residents should have an opportunity to ask questions and receive answers, rather than only making formal public hearing statements.

Following the discussion, the Planning Commission voted to table the ordinance on a 5-1 vote to allow more consultation with towns and additional review of the proposal before any recommendation is made to the Board of Supervisors. Sturgis was the lone no vote.