The Centerville City Planning Commission on March 12 approved a conceptual commercial subdivision for Legacy Commons, an 8.55-acre property at the northwest corner of Parrish Lane and 1250 West, while recording a newly raised prescriptive-easement claim that staff said could affect later approvals.

Staff planner Mike Eggert told commissioners the conceptual application met completeness requirements under the city’s subdivision checklist and municipal code and that the project has already been reviewed by the city’s design review committee. Eggert said the site comprises two parcels (060060118 and 060060082) currently zoned commercial very high and that a site plan for Lot 2 would come later.

“We did receive earlier today commentary from the neighboring property, the North Centreville Flex Project LLC, through their legal representation that provided a prescriptive easement claim for a portion of property on the north end of Lot 1,” Eggert said. He added the claim and the letter were provided to the city attorney and placed on the record.

Spencer Wright of Wright Development Group, the applicant, told the commission the prescriptive-easement dispute was a private legal matter and that the developer does not believe the claim prevents the subdivision from moving forward conceptually. “We bought the land about five years ago…we don’t believe there is an easement there and we think the legal process will bear that out,” Wright said.

Commissioners debated whether the newly disclosed claim should delay conceptual approval. One commissioner said the claim creates a “cloud” that could complicate later land-use approvals, while others noted conceptual approval does not finalize easements and that the city’s preliminary and final plat reviews will require all easements of record to be shown.

The commission approved the conceptual plan by motion with conditions and findings included in the staff packet. The motion advanced the project to the next steps (preliminary subdivision review and, later, final plat and city council action) but did not resolve the ownership or easement dispute. Staff advised the prescriptive-easement issue would be examined during preliminary review, when title reports and recorded easements are required.

Commissioners and staff also noted site details shown in the packet: a planned dedication for a future roundabout at the interior roadway, a Dominion Energy easement that prohibits buildings but allows parking and landscaping, and standard design-review comments included as guidance for later submittals.

The commission’s approval was a conceptual clearance, not a determination of final plat approval or of the validity of the easement claim. The applicant and staff were told to resolve or further document the prescriptive-easement claim before the preliminary subdivision stage.

Votes at the meeting recorded the commission approving the motion; the transcript does not include a complete roll-call tally in names and counts for publication, but staff recorded that the motion carried and the item will proceed to preliminary review.