Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

A rezoning request for property at 7250 Harbour Towne Parkway sparked discussion and marked the first “significant discussion” under the 2045 Comprehensive Plan during the Suffolk Planning Commission meeting held on March 18, 2025. The application to rezone a nearly 19-acre parcel of land in HarborView failed to reach a majority, thus recommending denial by the commission. The future of the development now rests with the city council, who will hear this request during its April 16 meeting.

The application, RZN2024-014, submitted by John Dameron of DHIC — Harbour View LLC on behalf of Bon Secours Hampton Roads Health System sought to change the zoning of an approximately 18.95-acre parcel from MUD, Mixed-Use Development Overlay District (Conditional), to RU-24, Residential Urban-24 (Conditional) zoning district. The proposal aimed to pave the way for a 344-unit residential development consisting of townhomes and multi-family units.

Staff Planner Goncalo Borges presented the report outlining that the 2045 Comprehensive Plan designates this area within the Northern Growth Area, Mixed Use Core Use District. He noted that the property is part of the Harbour View Station Master Plan, which originally designated the parcel for medical office, retail, commercial, and assisted living uses. Borges stated that a previous rezoning in 2013 allowed for a maximum of 500 multi-family residential dwelling units and up to 200 adult assisted living units in the broader Harbour View Station West area.

Staff recommended denial of the rezoning request, stating that it “does not meet the intent of the provisions of the 2045 Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance”. Borges elaborated, explaining that the proposed rezoning “does not align with the goals and objectives of the 2045 Comprehensive Plan which encourage master planned developments and mixed use districts constituting a variety of land uses”. He also pointed out that “the addition of additional 288 multi-family units to the area when 500 multi-family units are present does not align with this objective, while the existing retention of this property as MUD for the establishment of commercial, retail, office, medical and assisted living does further enhance this goal”. Furthermore, the staff report highlighted that the application proposed to alter the Harbour View Station Master Plan without the consent of all impacted landowners.

In favor of the application, Melissa Venable of Land Planning Solutions argued that the proposal aligns with the “spirit of the 2045 comprehensive plan” by promoting infill development, supporting compatible multi-family and attached residential development, and encouraging higher density residential development. Venable addressed the reason for the RU-24 designation instead of MUD, explaining that the city requires 100% of property owners within a MUD to sign off on any revisions, and one owner in the existing Harbour View Station zone opposed their initial application. Venable told the commission she felt the reason this property owner said no was due to competition. 

“As the application sits before you today, the content is no different than if it were a mud application. The only difference is that we had to pull it out of the mud on paper and submitted as RU24,” she stated. 

Venable also asserted that the rezoning would continue to support the MUD’s jobs-to-housing ratio. She emphasized the need for diverse housing options and the project’s walkability to nearby employers like Bon Secours and TowneBank. 

Regarding school impact, Venable suggested the actual number of school-aged children from the development would likely be much lower than the calculated 66 under the RU-24 designation, referencing lower generation rates in other mixed-use developments. Despite this, she noted that the RU-24 designation results in a significant school proffer of nearly $2.9 million.

Grady Palmer, also representing the applicant, echoed Venable’s points, urging the commission to take a “broader perspective” and consider how the development would “in reality function like a mixed-use development is supposed to function”. He highlighted the need for more housing in the area and the opportunity for people working at nearby facilities to live closer to their jobs.

Following the presentations, the commissioners engaged in a discussion. Commissioner Mary Ellen Baur questioned the discrepancy between the projected 66 school-aged residents under RU-24 and the applicant’s belief that it would be closer to 16, prompting Venable to explain the lower generation rates observed in existing mixed-use developments.

“If you look at all the mixed-use developments in and around Harborview … we’ve actually gone back and looked at the generation rates from all those projects and they’re really, really low,” Venable said. “So, in looking at that, I think it’s like .04 something, but the generation rates are really low, and that’s been proven over and over again.”

Venable said the City of Suffolk’s planning staff and city attorney have allowed them to submit a reduced generation rate with MUD applications. Given that, Venable said she used the reduced rate of .046 students per unit and came up with the number 16.

Edwards also raised concerns about the proposal’s alignment with the 2045 Comprehensive Plan, asking staff to clarify why the existing MUD zoning was more compatible with the land use designation than the proposed RU-24. 

Director of Planning and Community Development Kevin Wyne reiterated that “the MUD as it exists aligns more closely with the mixed-use core land use designation than the RU24” and expressed “discomfort with it being extracted out of a master plan community as it was envisioned and then amended in 2012.”

Edwards sought confirmation that the current proposal was essentially a “remixed version” of what was supposed to be in the master plan and is driven by the inability to secure all property owner signatures for a MUD amendment. Wyne affirmed that the original master plan envisioned a “variety of land use types,” including commercial, retail, office, medical office, and assisted living on the parcel, which staff believed aligned better with the mixed-use district’s intent.

Baur questioned whether the market demand and the needs of surrounding businesses might not align with the comprehensive plan’s original vision for the site, suggesting a greater need for housing. Wyne responded that while the comprehensive plan doesn’t offer extensive guidance on market dictates, the focus is on “the highest and best uses from a land use perspective and how we can mold communities into aligning with those visions of the comprehensive plan.” He reiterated concerns about extracting the parcel from the master plan and the density of the proposed multi-family units in proximity to existing ones.

Edwards sought confirmation regarding the total number of existing multi-family units in the Harbour View Station area, which Wyne confirmed was 500. Edwards then asked if the proposed rezoning would undermine the overall goals for the area, to which Wyne stated that the original master plan called for “other uses on the site which through our evaluation we’ve determined aligns more with the comprehensive plan and its goal to have a variety of uses available within these mixed-use developments”.

Edwards noted that this was the first significant vote under the new 2045 Comprehensive Plan, acknowledging the complexities involved in aligning development proposals with the updated guidelines.

When the vote was called to recommend approval of the rezoning request to the City Council, the motion failed to receive the necessary votes. Commissioners Bauer, Oliver Creekmore, Gerald Goodman and Anita Hicks all voted in favor of the proposal, while Edwards, Kittrell Eberwine, Mills Staylor and Chairman Arthur Singleton voted in opposition.