HAMPTON – The Hampton City Council voted against rezoning more than 200 acres of land for a possible new subdivision in the southern part of the city.
The council voted 4-1, with Errol Mitchell voting against the denial, for the new subdivision, referred to in documents as “Gates at South Hampton,” after members of the public came out in force against the proposed neighborhood.
The rezoning would have changed the land from Residential-Agricultural to Single-Family Residential for a subdivision on the east side of Floyd Road, and 700 feet south of Floyd Lane and the Floyd Road intersection, directly south of the Cobblestone Ridge subdivision.
Currently, the land is vacant and undeveloped.
Members of the public expressed concerns over a variety of topics, such as the increased traffic that would be brought to the area, possible environmental impacts and the impact on local surface streets, among others.
Other concerns raised from the public involved the city and its residents seemingly being forced to change standards to accommodate the builders of homes.
“The bottom line is not serving the community,” one resident said. “It’s about making money.”
A representative for the applicant stated the proposed homes being built would involve 389 lots at an initial price point of $250,000, but could go up to a minimum of $280,000 once homes are built with specific features.
The homes would not be built out immediately, but rather over a period of three to five years, due to the environmental issues accompanying the land, including the fact that the proposed subdivision would be built on wetlands.
In addition, a traffic study was also requested by the builder. According to documents from the city of Hampton, the proposed new subject property would have generated around 2,938 new vehicular trips per day, and the proposed number of lots would have required such a study.
While the Hampton City Council voted against the rezoning, an appeal is likely and was alluded to after the council voted against adjusting Hampton’s Comprehensive Plan to designate the area as “low density residential” instead of “rural residential.”
After the council voted against the plan, a vote on the actual rezoning of the land was made for the purpose of such an appeal, which went along the same lines as the Comprehensive Plan vote.