Planners hear pros and cons of potential Sperryville subdivision

Attorney says project will create a ordable housing, attracting families and boosting public schools

Consideration of an application to rezone a parcel of land in Sperryville consumed much of the Planning Commission’s regular meeting this month.

Sperryville resident Tom Taylor and his wife Cheryl, doing business under the name Mt. Airy Field LLC, applied late last year to rezone their 35-acre Agricultural tract along Woodward Road from Rural Residential 5 (RR-5 restricts lot size to a ve-acre minimum) to R-2, which downsizes lots to two acres minimum.

The Taylors would like to create a subdivision on the property that has access to the Rappahannock County Water and Sewer Authority sewer lines..

The possibility of the request for rezoning came up earlier in the year during Planning Commission discussions about the revised — and recently approved — comprehensive plan that introduced boundary maps of Rappahannock’s major villages.

Ever since the Taylors led their application, county residents have expressed their sentiments for and against the action in Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings. In its Dec. 30, 2020 meeting, the planners voted to table a decision on the application and took up the discussion again in its January meeting.

Quoting from the comprehensive plan, Sperryville resident Lisa Jones spoke for 15 minutes in opposition to the rezoning request.

She argued that because the comp plan calls for rezoning agricultural land “only if an overriding need exists to change land use,” the Taylors’ have made no case for overriding the public need. Also, she told the planners, “other areas are better suited for development” to ensure the preservation of natural, historic and scenic resources in the county.

Another principle of the comp plan, Jones said, recognizes the importance of a ordable housing, “but how does this rezoning translate into a ordable housing?”

Bethany Bostic and Sallie Haynes, both of Piedmont district, also were opposed to the application. Bostic, who lives on Woodward Road, said she worried about increased tra c on the narrow, mostly gravel thoroughfare. Hayes, calling the application “premature” implored the planners “not to act tonight” on a decision.

However, Sheila Getsinger and Paul Gall spoke in favor of the rezoning, saying the a ordable housing it could provide would help county workers and young families, whose kids would help increase enrollment in county schools.

The Taylors’ attorney, Mike Brown of Walker Jones, rebutted comments from planners and the public at earlier meetings, and tried to clarify misconceptions presented in a revised version of Zoning Administrator Michelle Somers’ sta report about the application.

Brown said that rather than discourage development, the comp plan actually speaks in favor of the Taylors’ application.

“I want to remind you,” Brown said, “by not concentrating [development] around villages and allowing it to spread around the countryside” on 25 acre lots due to a misconception of the county’s subdivision ordinance, we have “just the opposite e ect of what the comp plan has sought to achieve, because it has caused division of what would be viable, usable, sustainable agricultural property into 25 acres with a house.”

Instead, the R-2 rezoning would cluster houses around the village of Sperryville on a piece of land that would not be pro table for agriculture. Clustering of the houses would also protect natural resources and dark skies for the majority of the county.

Brown asserted that providing affordable housing would help address the county’s “racial divide” and “create a consistent and sustainable range of [dwellings] for low- to moderate-income families and school-age children [who would] attend the public school system” during a time of declining enrollment.

Regarding Somers’ updated sta report, Brown took exception to several statements.

“The Rappahannock County Code does not require that a preliminary plat of an associated future subdivision be provided at the time of rezoning,” reads the report in part. However, it goes on to say: “The consequence of providing few details means that sta , the planning commission, and the board of supervisors must assume the worst-case implications related to the upzoning.”

Brown said in response, “There are no presumptions for or against rezoning in the comp plan. It’s an open legislative decision [for the planners or the Board of Supervisors].”

“To suggest that the applicant has led a proper, full, appropriate application … and then say there are assumptions drawn against the applicant as a result of not submitting items which are not required is just atly wrong,” he added.

A er Brown’s presentation, Commission chair Keir Whitson suggested that the planners schedule a work session to discuss the points that had been brought up in the meeting. “My idea,” he said, “is to hash out the issues in a work session and then decide on this application in February.”

TOURIST HOME APPLICATIONS TO BZA

SBDH Siblings, LLC, represented by Jacqueline Bogle, applied for a special use permit to operate a tourist home on its Sperryville Pike property. A er discussion about the safety of the swimming pool on the property, the planners voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve the application.

The planners voted six-to-one to move Suzanna and Bjoern Jemby’s tourist home application to the BZA without a recommendation to approve or deny. Brian Scheulen cast the dissenting vote.