Hanover denies Woodside-area rezoning after supervisors cite traffic and timing concerns

The Hanover County Board of Supervisors denied a proposed rezoning for a 48‑lot subdivision east of Woodside Estates at its May 28 meeting after supervisors said the corridor already faces several pending projects and the timing of transportation funding left uncertainty.

The applicant’s attorney, Ashley Kyle of Roth Jackson Gibbons & Condlin, told the board the plan would create 48 single‑family lots at roughly 1.23 units per acre with 28.43% open space, and said the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan’s suburban neighborhood residential designation. The applicant also proposed a $4,000 per‑lot proffer toward off‑site transportation improvements and offered a range of design and construction proffers, including limits on construction hours and commitments on buffering and streetscape.

Planning staff said the traffic‑impact analysis modeled intersections and found study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service except for a known southbound left‑turn movement at I‑95 that has been identified regionally as a constrained location. Staff noted that a large diverging‑diamond interchange project on I‑95 at Route 54 is seeking SmartScale funding; the applicant calculated a lower per‑unit contribution ($4,000) based on the expectation that SmartScale will cover the bulk of the cost, while county staff’s analysis estimated a higher per‑unit impact (about $19,000) if the SmartScale funding did not materialize.

Supervisor Stoneman cited the many projects already in the pipeline in the Route 54 corridor — including Patriot Glen, Hickory Grove and other nearby approvals — and said approving another subdivision now risked worsening congestion before larger projects are in place. After discussion, Stoneman moved to deny the rezoning (motion recorded in the public transcript as “deny REZ 20 20 four‑eighteen”); the board recorded the ayes and the motion to deny carried.

The decision was not a determination on merits of design or open‑space provisions but reflected board concerns about cumulative traffic and the timing of major transportation funding and construction in the corridor. The applicant may revise and return, or may pursue other options consistent with the county’s zoning and subdivision rules.