[00:00:02]
TOM, YOU GOT THE MIX ON. THERE WE GO.
[CALL TO ORDER]
IT'S 630, SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER FOR THE THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, PLANNING COMMISSION.IF WE CAN HAVE ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
IF EVERYONE WOULD PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US FOR THE INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PLEASE GUIDE OUR COMMISSION AS WE HEAR THE CASES THAT COME BEFORE US TONIGHT.
WE PRAY FOR PEACE IN OUR COUNTRY AND FOR THOSE SERVING TO PROTECT US AT HOME AND ABROAD.
WE PRAY FOR ALL OF OUR ATTENDEES AND THEIR SAFE TRAVEL HOME TONIGHT.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL START OUT THIS EVENING WITH ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA.
[ADOPTION OF AGENDA]
IF I CAN HAVE A MOTION.MISS. A MOTION FOR ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA TONIGHT.
I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE AGENDA AS WRITTEN.
MISS ANDERSON? YES. MISS ELDER IS ABSENT.
MR. BRESKO? YES. MR. WAMMACK. YES.
MR. JOYNER IS ABSENT AND MR. BROCKWELL IS ABSENT.
ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, WE OPEN THE FLOOR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS.
IF ANYONE HAS ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS THEY'D LIKE TO SHARE TONIGHT.
OKAY. SO NOW WE'LL GO INTO OUR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION.
SO THIS SECTION IS PART OF THE MEETING IS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
SO IF YOU WANTED TO BRING UP A NEW TOPIC OR CONCERN, THIS WOULD BE THE TIME TO COME FORWARD.
I WILL GO AHEAD AND GIVE EVERYBODY THE TALK.
ALL RIGHT. SO IT ALL PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION.
SO THIS GENERAL ONE AS WELL AS PUBLIC COMMENTS, THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION FOR EACH OF THE AGENDA ITEMS. FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS TONIGHT.
IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK, WE JUST ASK THAT PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, LINE UP ON THIS SIDE OF THE PODIUM.
WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, YOU NEED TO STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
LOOKS LIKE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL GREEN, YELLOW AND RED.
ONCE YOU ANNOUNCE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO TALK.
IT WILL TURN TO YELLOW TO GIVE YOU A FINAL WARNING THAT YOUR TIME IS ABOUT TO RUN OUT.
AND ONCE IT TURNS RED, THAT'S IT.
YOU NEED TO STOP. AT WHATEVER POINT YOU'RE AT AT THAT POINT.
DID ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT RELATED TO ANY OF THE TOPICS TONIGHT, THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND MAKE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR? ALL RIGHT. BEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE FORWARD TO GENERAL ORDER OF BUSINESS.
[ORDER OF BUSINESS]
WE HAVE ONE SUBDIVISION WAIVER S W 20 403.TIM, ARE YOU GOING TO BE PRESENTING THAT ONE? YES.
YEP. SO MY NAME IS TIM GRAVES.
I'M A PLANNER IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND I'M JUST INTRODUCING THIS THIS REQUEST.
[00:05:05]
TO ALL OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF ARTICLE SEVEN.SPECIFICALLY, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A WAIVER OF ONE PARTICULAR CODE, SECTION 7774, WHICH REQUIRES SUBDIVIDERS TO CONVEY A 15 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT CENTERED ON ALL LOT LINES.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED R A.
IT'S LOCATED ON ROWANTY ROAD, SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH INDIAN SWAMP LANE, AND WE PROVIDED A TAX MAP NUMBER, AND IT'S IN RELATION TO AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION PLAT APPLICATION THAT'S ON FILE IN THE COUNTY OFFICE.
THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
THIS IS LOCATED AGAIN ON ROWANTY ROAD.
THIS IS SHOWING THE PROPOSED NORTHERN LOT.
AND THE OUTLINE THAT'S IN YELLOW.
HERE IS THE PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT THAT'S CURRENTLY SHOWN ON THE PLAT.
AND THE THE SUBDIVIDERS IS REQUESTING THE SUBDIVIDER IS REQUESTING TO NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT UTILITY EASEMENT THAT'S OUTLINED IN YELLOW AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THAT NORTHERN PROPERTY.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS A 58 ACRE APPROXIMATELY LOT.
AND THE GOAL IS TO SELL THAT, THAT THAT PROPERTY THAT WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT A MOMENT AGO.
IN THIS ORDINANCE SECTION IS PROVIDED THERE THAT THAT IS WHERE THAT REQUIREMENT COMES FROM, THAT IT'S FOR PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS CENTERED ON ALL LOT LINES FOR VARIOUS ENTITIES TO BE ABLE TO PUT INFRASTRUCTURE IN THAT IN SUCH AN EASEMENT. THE APPLICANT IN THEIR APPLICATION, THEY PROVIDED JUSTIFICATION ON WHY THEY DON'T THINK THAT THIS UTILITY EASEMENT IS NECESSARY IN THIS SITUATION.
I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO DETAIL ON EACH OF THESE POINTS.
AND WE'VE BEEN OVER THOSE IN THE WORK SESSIONS.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED THIS.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE REVIEWED AGAINST THE CRITERIA THAT'S PROVIDED IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
THAT WAIVER COMES FROM THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, AND THE FIRST MAIN CRITERIA IS THAT IT NEEDS TO EITHER BE AN UNUSUAL SITUATION OR A SITUATION WHERE A STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE GENERAL REGULATIONS WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE OR HARDSHIP.
AND THERE SEEMS TO BE ENOUGH INFORMATION THAT STAFF CAN SAY THIS.
AND SO THE THE REQUEST SHOULD MEET BOTH OF THOSE CRITERIA.
IT NEEDS TO MEET BOTH OF THOSE CRITERIA FOR THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE IT.
AND THEN THE CITIZENS DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TO COMMENT IF THEY WISH TO.
IT'S NOT IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO A PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE DID.
WE DID AND ARE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY ALL ADJACENT OR ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS.
THERE'S A RESOLUTION THAT YOU WOULD BE ADOPTING IF YOU DO WISH TO APPROVE IT OR GRANT THIS WAIVER.
[00:10:02]
AND STAFF IS NOT HAVE ANY CONDITIONS THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU PUT UPON THAT IF YOU DO WISH TO APPROVE IT.SO THIS, THAT POINT THAT CONCLUDES WHAT STAFF HAD TO PROVIDE ON THIS.
MR. DUNN? YES. AND YOU CAN ASK THEM ANY QUESTIONS.
GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ZEPH LEWIS WHITE'S JUNIOR.
I PRACTICE LAW AT 6405 COURTHOUSE ROAD.
AND HAVE FOR SOME TIME, LIKE 57 PLUS YEARS.
THE YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU THE THE PLAT.
THIS IS A 19 ACRE DIVISION OFF OF A LARGER TRACT OF LAND THAT WAS ORIGINALLY 55 ACRES. THIS 19 18 ACRES IS NOT BEING SUBDIVIDED. SO I QUESTION WHETHER OR SINCE IT'S NOT BEING SUBDIVIDED WHETHER THIS 15 FOOT WIDE COMMON OR SHARED PUBLIC EASEMENT IS CAN BE REQUIRED. THE ORDINANCE THE PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY CODE STATES THAT THE SUBDIVIDER SHALL CONVEY 15 FOOT WIDE COMMON OR SHARED PUBLIC EASEMENT CENTERED ON ALL LOT LINES.
THE ONLY LOT LINES YOU HAVE FOR THIS ARE THE THE OUTSIDE PERIMETER LOT LINES.
AND IT SAYS THE SUBDIVIDERS SHALL CONVEY A 15 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT. 15 FOOT WIDE, COMMON OR SHARED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS CENTERED ON ALL LOT LINES TO FRANCHISED CABLE TELEVISION OPERATORS FURNISHING CABLE TELEVISION AND PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS.
FURNISHING CABLE TELEVISION, GAS, TELEPHONE ELECTRIC SERVICE, OR PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER TO THE SUBDIVISION. THE THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT AT THAT MOMENT TO A 40 FOOT EASEMENT ACROSS THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE ALONG ROUTE ONE ROAD CONVEYED TO PRINCE GEORGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ON THE ENTIRE 55 ACRES. THIS WAS CONVEYED IN AUGUST OF 2003 BY MR. DUNN AND HIS WIFE, WHO IS NO LONGER WITH US.
FOR THE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING AN ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, EITHER OVERHEAD OR UNDERGROUND, AND TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE ELECTRIC SYSTEM, INCLUDING ALL LINES, WIRES, POLES, CABLES, CONDUITS, MANHOLES, EQUIPMENT, ACCESSORIES AND APPURTENANCES DESIRABLE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH ARE. AS I INDICATED, THE.
THIS EASEMENT EXTENDS ACROSS THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE OF THIS 19 ACRES ALONG RAWANI ROAD, FROM WHICH THE FROM WHICH COULD BE
[00:15:09]
IT COULD BE EXTENDED WITH CABLE TELEVISION I MEAN, WITH CABLE WI-FI INTERNET AND.PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER ARE NOT AVAILABLE ANYWHERE IN THIS AREA.
NORWAY IS A NATURAL GAS PIPELINE IN THIS AREA OR REASONABLY CLOSE TO THIS AREA. ALL OF THE OTHER SERVICES COULD COME OFF OF THE PRINCE GEORGE ELECTRIC SERVICES THAT ARE PRESENTLY ON THE PROPERTY.
I PRESUME YOU YOU HAVE THE YOU HAVE THE APPLICANT STATEMENT IN YOUR PACKAGE IN FRONT OF YOU.
THE THIS THIS PLAT WAS ORIGINALLY.
SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR PRINCE GEORGE, IN AUGUST OF 2023.
THE ORIGINAL HAS BEEN REVISED AT LEAST TWO TIMES.
AS A RESULT, ON THE AND MR. DUNN HAS A PURCHASE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
BUT THE PURCHASER WHO IS HERE TONIGHT DOESN'T WANT TO ACCEPT IT WITH THIS 15 FOOT EASEMENT AROUND THE ENTIRE PERIMETER, WHICH WOULD HAS IMPLICATIONS AS FAR AS CROSSING IT.
WHAT CAN AND I'M NOT SURE HOW PLANNING THAT EASEMENT CONVEYS IT TO ALL OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE PROVIDERS.
I'M NOT SURE THAT'S A CAN BE DONE LEGALLY, BUT SIMPLY BY PLANNING THIS 15 FOOT EASEMENT.
THE THE CODE SECTION THAT I WAS QUOTING FROM SAYS THAT THIS UTILITY EASEMENT HAS TO BE CENTERED ON ALL LOT LINES.
WELL, THE ONLY LOT LINES YOU HAVE FOR THIS 19 ACRE PARCEL ARE THE OUTSIDE PERIMETER LOT LINES IN ORDER TO CENTER IT.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO ON TO ADJACENT PROPERTY 7.5FT OF THE 15FT.
HOW DO YOU DO THAT? APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT AT THE VERY LEAST, THE REQUIREMENTS OF 72, 70, 74 ARE THAT THE TERM SENATE MEANS THAT A SCOUT TO BE ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY THIS PLAT HAS THE ENTIRE 15 FOOT EASEMENT ON THE WITHIN THE PERIMETER LINES OF THE PROPERTY.
APPLICANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT CENTERING.
IT'S IT'S PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO IT BECAUSE IT'S DONE TO CENTER THE EASEMENT.
SINCE MR. DUNN HAS NO RIGHTS IN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, HE DOESN'T OWN IT, AND HE CAN'T FORCE NOR CAN THE COUNTY FORCE. THAT I'M NOT SURE THAT THE COUNTY ORDINANCE IS VALID AND LEGAL UNDER THE AS APPLIED TO THIS SUBDIVISION. AND IT WOULD ACTUALLY YOU YOU'RE REQUIRING.
CAN I CONTINUE? I'M SURE WITH WITH THAT.
OH, I HAVE THREE MINUTES LEFT.
[00:20:01]
WE DIDN'T START A CLOCK FOR THIS.YEAH. YOU DID NOT SET A TIMER ON THIS.
ALL RIGHT. THE THE APPLICANT HAS A SALE FOR THIS PROPERTY, AND THE PURCHASER HAS INDICATED THAT HE IS UNWILLING TO.
HE DOESN'T HAVE A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH HIM, BUT THE PURCHASER HAS INDICATED HE'S NOT WILLING TO TAKE THIS PROPERTY WITH THE 15 FOOT EASEMENT.
AND UNDER WHAT TERMS OF USE YOU CAN.
THE PLATTING OF THE 15 FOOT EASEMENT CONVEYS CONVEYS THE EASEMENT TO THE PROVIDERS.
ARE YOU NOW OR IN THE FUTURE? AND AND UNDER WHAT TERMS? AND IT'S VAGUE, AND I'M NOT SURE IT'S ENFORCEABLE.
FOR THESE REASONS AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE 40 FOOT EASEMENT ACROSS THE ENTIRE FRONT FRONTAGE TO PRINCE GEORGE ELECTRIC CO-OP, WHO CAN PROVIDE ALL OF THE SERVICES THROUGH EITHER IT OR ITS SUBSIDIARY RURAL BAND EVERYTHING BUT GAS AND PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER TO THE PROPERTY.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THE THAT THIS ACTUALLY APPLIES TO THIS 19 ACRE PARCEL.
IF IT'S A VALID SUBDIVISION OF THE 50 ACRES OR WHATEVER THE PARENT TRAP CURRENTLY HAS I'M NOT SURE.
IT WOULD APPEAR TO ME THAT THE 15 FOOT EASEMENT THAT WOULD APPLY TO INTERIOR LINES IF YOU HAD LOTS SUBDIVIDED WITHIN THE 19 ACRES, THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THERE'S NOT ANOTHER LOT TO BE PLANNED AT THIS POINT TO BE SUBDIVIDED OUT OF THE 19 ACRES.
IT'S PREMATURE IF YOU ARE GOING TO PUT A 20 ACRE SUBDIVISION OR A 20 LOT SUBDIVISION IN HERE.
I CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU WOULD DEDICATE A 15 FOOT EASEMENT THAT WOULD STRADDLE THE PROPERTY LINES OF THE LOTS, BUT IT HAS IMPLICATIONS, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER AS TO WHAT CAN GO IN THAT EASEMENT, YOU JUST GRANT A BLANKET EASEMENT TO COMMONWEALTH GAS OR THAT DOESN'T EVEN OPERATE IN THE AREA.
AND HOW DO YOU CONVEY IT? A NORMAL EASEMENT IS CONVEYED WITH TERMS IN IT AS TO WHAT THE GRANTEE, THE UTILITY COMPANY, CAN DO IN THAT EASEMENT.
NONE OF THAT SPECIFIED IN HERE.
YOU JUST PLOT THIS EASEMENT AND YOU'VE GIVEN EVERY UTILITY THAT IS OR IS NOT IN THE AREA RIGHT TO TO OCCUPY IT AND USE IT.
YOU PUT YOURSELF IN IN THE POSITION OF MR. DUNN, YOU'RE GOING TO CONVEY AN EASEMENT TO SOMEONE AND NOT KNOW WHO YOU CAN BAN IT TO OR OR WHAT'S GOING IN IT.
FOR THESE REASONS, WE ASK YOU TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT TO
[00:25:03]
FOR THIS 15 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT.AND AND IF THIS PROPERTY IS BEING FURTHER SUBDIVIDED.
IF THERE ARE ANY LOTS COMING WITHIN THE PERIMETER LINES OF THIS 19 ACRE PARCEL, THAT'S THE TIME TO ADDRESS. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE WHAT THE ORDINANCE INTENDS NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DIVIDED 50 ACRES INTO TWO THAT THAT IT REQUIRES ALL OF THIS IMAGINARY EASEMENT AND AND THE IMPLICATIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH IT.
AND ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE ORDINANCE WE WOULD FOR THESE REASONS, WE REQUEST THAT THE THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF THAT THAT REQUIREMENT BE, WAIVED. AND WE.
ARE ALLOWED TO SELL THE 19 ACRES.
WITH WITH THE PRINCE GEORGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE EASEMENT.
AND THE SUBSIDIARY CAN PROVIDE EVERYTHING BUT GAS AND WATER.
NOBODY ELSE IN THAT AREA HAS GAS AND WATER.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. WHITE. OKAY. AND WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS THAT WE REVISE THE PLAT TO REMOVE REMOVE THE 15 FOOT EASEMENT REQUIREMENT.
ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS OF DID ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY FOR MR. DUNN OR MR. WYCHE? I HAVE ONE FOR MR. GRAVES.
IF IF THERE WAS A SUBDIVISION THAT HAS QUARTER ACRE LOTS OR HALF ACRE LOTS.
THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SIMPLY SAYS WHAT WE SHOWED ON THIS SLIDE.
AND SO THAT WE'RE LEFT TO APPLY THAT TO EVERY PLAT.
OKAY, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
MOST PEOPLE DON'T BUY LOTS WITHOUT A TITLE SEARCH THAT WOULD DISCLOSE THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY BUY IT ACCORDING TO A PLAT AND THE PLAT WOULD SHOW THE EASEMENT.
BUT SO I'M ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD IS THIS IS THIS PLAT SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY LIKE THIS, OR DID THE DID THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICE REQUEST THAT THESE BOUNDARIES BE ADDED AND PRESENTED AND INCLUDED IN THE PLAT? I CAN'T RECALL WHAT THE ORIGINAL PLAT LOOKED LIKE, BUT AT THIS POINT THE PLAT IS SITTING IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE SIGNED AND APPROVED WITH THAT EASEMENT ON THERE. AND AND THEN BECAUSE IT WAS COMPLIANT WITH THE CODE, AND THEN THEY APPLIED FOR THIS WAIVER TO NOT HAVE THAT EASEMENT.
I CAN ANSWER THAT. I BROUGHT A PLAT UP HERE WAS EIGHT, 206.
AND TIME HE LOOKED AT IT, HE SAID, THIS IS NO GOOD.
AND I'VE BEEN HASSLING WITH THIS NOW FOR OVER TWO YEARS.
SURVEYOR OF RUNNING BACK AND FORTH.
I PAID I PAID A $4,500 SURVEY BILL FOR NOTHING BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY SURVEYED THAT HAD FLATS.
BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE AND I MEAN, HOW IN THE WORLD COULD YOU SELL SOMETHING LIKE THAT WITH AN ORDINANCE LIKE IT IS? 7.5FT OF THIS WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM RWANDA SCHOOL PROPERTY, AND THEN SOMEBODY BEHIND ME WOULD HAVE TO DONATE 7.5FT.
I MEAN, IT'D BE IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER GET RID OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
YEAH. AND LIKE MR. WEISS WOULD SAY, I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO A TITLE SEARCH ON THE PROPERTY BEFORE IT WAS SPLIT WITH ROWAN TO SEE, TO SEE IF IT MAY BE LEGALLY ALREADY HAVE 7.5FT.
IF YOU GO THROUGH AND DO A TITLE SEARCH, YOU MIGHT FIND IT ALREADY EXISTS.
DID ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FOR EITHER MR.
[00:30:01]
GRAVES OR MR. WHITE. YOU'RE DONE. NO.NO. OKAY. MY ONLY COMMENT IS I'VE NEVER SEEN A SIMILAR SITUATION IN A IN A DIVISION OF A LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY LIKE THIS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO EXPLAIN THAT AND ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS.
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN THIS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
BUT I KNOW I'VE SEEN AT LEAST ONE HAND WHERE THERE WAS SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT HAD A QUESTION.
SO I'M JUST GOING TO OPEN IT UP, GIVE ANYBODY A CHANCE.
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
THEN YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES.
TOM BLACKBURN, 2316 CHIPMAN ROAD, SOUTH PRINCE GEORGE.
OUR FARM IS DIRECTLY BEHIND HIS PROPERTY AND WE ARE IN NO MOOD TO GIVE UP ANYTHING ON OUR ACREAGE, AND I GUESS WE WOULD SUPPORT SOME KIND OF REASONABLE SOLUTION AS LONG AS HE'S NOT SUBDIVIDING IT.
I THINK HE'S BEING PERFECTLY REASONABLE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WOULD ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A COMMENT OR LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEIR QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME THEN I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE COMMISSIONERS TO MAKE A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WAIVER REQUESTED IN APPLICATION S W DASH 24, DASH ZERO THREE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON THAT STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE GENERAL REGULATIONS AND THIS ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE. SECOND ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
MR. BRESKO? YES. MR. WAYMACK. YES.
YES. MISS ANDERSON? YES. DID YOU.
GIVE A SPECIFIC REASON? I DID THE INJUSTICE SO THAT THAT MOTION CARRIED.
THAT REQUEST FOR THAT WAIVER WAS APPROVED.
ALL RIGHT. THE SO THAT WAS THE WAIVER WAS APPROVED.
LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE. MR. WEISS, I BELIEVE, HAS A QUESTION OR COMMENT.
WELL, WE WILL NEED TO DO NOW IS HAVE REVISED THE PLAT.
CORRECT. AND RESUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING ON IT.
RIGHT. CORRECT. THANK YOU, MR. WHITE. ALL RIGHT.
[PUBLIC HEARINGS]
WE'RE NOW GOING INTO THE SECTION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.SO THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING WE HAVE TONIGHT IS REZONING REQUEST RC 2406, ALSO BEING PRESENTED BY MR. GRAVES. OKAY.
SO THIS IS THE REQUEST TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE APPROXIMATELY 61 ACRES FROM RA TO R-2.
AND THE PURPOSE IS TO DEVELOP A MAXIMUM OF 106 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ON LONGWOOD DRIVE OFF OF MIDDLE ROAD, AND IT'S CONSISTS OF SEVERAL TAX MAP PARCELS. WE'VE PROVIDED PARCEL NUMBERS FOR ALL THOSE IN ALL THESE MATERIALS, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INDICATES THAT THIS PROPERTY IS PLANNED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.
ON THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE A MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE OUTER BOUNDARY OF EACH PARCEL SHOWN IN RED, AND ALL THE TAX MAP NUMBERS AND THE LOCATION WITHIN THE COUNTY AT THE NORTHERN PART OF THE COUNTY, AGAIN ALONG MIDDLE ROAD AND NEAR THE INTERSECTION WITH PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE.
HERE'S THAT MAP AGAIN WITH AN AERIAL VIEW, JUST THE OUTER BOUNDARY A LITTLE BIT CLOSER IN, AND THE ZONING MAP SHOWING THE EXISTING ZONING OF THIS PROPERTY, ZONED R, A RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, WHICH CARRIES A MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF FIVE ACRES.
AND THEY'RE REQUESTING THE R-2 ZONING, WHICH IS THE ORANGE COLOR.
YOU CAN SEE THERE'S SOME EXISTING ORANGE COLORED R-2 ZONING ALONG PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE ON BOTH SIDES.
THAT'S A ONE ACRE LOT SIZE MINIMUM.
AND THEN YOU CAN ALSO SEE TO THE SOUTH MANCHESTER LAKES IS THE BROWN COLOR.
[00:35:06]
THAT'S R-3 ZONING.AND R-3 ZONING IS A LITTLE BIT DENSER THAN R-2 ZONING.
AND OUR RE THE GREEN IS THE IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT WITH OUR WITH A ONE ACRE MINIMUM.
THE RED COLOR IS COMMERCIAL ZONING.
IT'S A PRETTY BROAD CATEGORY THAT COVERS ALL TYPES OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING.
THE REQUEST AGAIN IS TO REZONE THAT LAND FROM RA TO R2.
THERE ARE PROFFERED CONDITIONS.
THOSE ARE VOLUNTARY OFFERS BY THE DEVELOPER TO GO ALONG WITH THAT REQUEST.
AND ONE OF THOSE PROFFERS IS THAT THERE WOULD BE NO MORE THAN 106 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.
THIS IS THE SAME DEVELOPER AS IS WORKING ON THE LAKEWOOD TOWNHOMES PROJECT.
I THINK THEY'RE WORKING WITH A NATIONAL BUILDER.
THEY WOULD THEY WOULD HAVE AN HOA FOR THE SUBDIVISION.
IMPALA DRIVE IS IN THE BRICKHOUSE LANDING SUBDIVISION.
THE ANALYSIS OF THIS PROJECT, BASED ON ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION, SHOWS THAT THERE WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT FOR A LEFT TURN LANE OFF OF MIDDLE ROAD TO GET INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO INSTALL THAT PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
THE VOLUNTARY PROFFERS THAT THEY SUBMITTED WILL COVER THOSE IN A IN A FEW.
IT COULD CHANGE IN SOME ASPECTS INCLUDING THE POTENTIALLY THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS COULD BE LOWER, BUT NOT HIGHER OR NOT ANY HIGHER THAN 106.
THE TWO CONNECTIONS ARE PROPOSED, AS SHOWN AS PROPOSED THERE.
TO IMPALA DRIVE IN IN THE BROCKWELL LANDING AND THEN TO MIDDLE ROAD.
THEY COULD NOT EXCEED 106 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
THEY HAVE PROFFERED A MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE.
SO THAT MEANS THAT IF THIS IS APPROVED AS AS THEY'VE REQUESTED, THEN NO HOUSE COULD BE SMALLER THAN 1600FT² FOR A ONE STORY HOUSE, AND NO SMALLER THAN 1800 SQUARE FEET FOR A TWO STORY HOUSE.
AND THEY PROVIDED THEIR REASONING FOR THAT.
AND THE SIDEWALKS THEY'VE PROFFERED TO PROVIDE SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT DOES A STANDARD REVIEW.
WE LOOK AT STANDARD CRITERIA AS APPLIED TO, YOU KNOW, DIVERSE RANGE OF PROJECTS.
IN THIS CASE, WE'RE AND AS WITH ANY PROJECT WE LOOK AT, IS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? WE SAID YES.
AND THAT'S PURELY BASED ON THE MAP SHOWING ITS PLAN FOR RESIDENTIAL IN THIS AREA.
AND THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
WE LOOKED AT IF IT'S CONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING ZONING.
IS IT COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES? WELL, IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED NEXT TO OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS.
GENERALLY IT'S CONSISTENT OR COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES.
WE LOOKED AT WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL OFF SITE IMPACTS THAT WE CAN ANTICIPATE WOULD BE HAPPENING IF THIS IS APPROVED? WE CAN ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FROM MORE HOUSES.
[00:40:03]
ET CETERA. THOSE ARE SUMMARIZED IN THE STAFF REPORT.WE NOTED THAT THE CASH PROFFER AMOUNT IS 17.3% OF THE MAXIMUM THAT THE COUNTY IS WILLING TO ACCEPT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS PROFFER POLICY, AND CASH PROFFERS ARE WHEN THEY'RE OFFERED, THEY'RE INTENDED TO OFFSET COSTS OF OF NEW NEW DEMAND ON COUNTY SERVICES.
I BOILED THEM DOWN TO THE BASICS HERE.
THE SOME SUBMITTED TURN LANE WARRANT ANALYSIS IS ACCEPTABLE.
THAT MEANS THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AN ANALYSIS OF HOW MUCH TRAFFIC IS EXPECTED AND WHERE, AND THAT BASED ON THAT NUMBER OF TRIPS THAT IS EXPECTED, THEN THAT CALCULATES THERE'S A CALCULATION OF WHETHER A TURN LANE IS NECESSARY OR REQUIRED, IN FACT.
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT NOTED THERE IS LIMITED PUBLIC CAPACITY IN THE COUNTY'S INFRASTRUCTURE AT THIS TIME, BUT THAT THERE ARE PROJECTS IN PROGRESS TO PROVIDE MORE CAPACITY. AND THE FIRE AND EMS DEPARTMENT AND PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY SCHOOLS NOTED THEIR ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES. THEY PROVIDED COMMENTS ABOUT THAT.
SO WE ADVERTISE THIS PUBLIC HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE CODE.
AND WE ALSO PUT A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY.
IT HAD IT HAD A LOT OF INFORMATION IN THERE.
SO THERE WERE NUANCES TO WHAT THEY SAID.
AND THE THERE WERE FIVE ONLINE PUBLIC COMMENT FORM COMMENTS.
IT'S NOTABLE THAT THOSE PEOPLE SIGNED THE HOA LETTER AS WELL.
SO THEY, THEY ADDED THEIR OWN PERSONAL TAKE IN ADDITION TO THE HOA LETTER.
AND THEN PRIOR TO THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
SO AFTER WE PRODUCED THE STAFF REPORT, WE RECEIVED FOUR MORE COMMENTS ONLINE.
AND WE'VE PROVIDED THOSE TO THE COMMISSION.
SO THE COMMISSION HAS RECEIVED ALL OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO PASS ALONG TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WE PROVIDED THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE HOA LETTER.
SO STAFF AGAIN, REVIEWING THIS AS A LAND USE, REVIEWING THOSE CRITERIA THAT WE WE JUST SPOKE AND COVERED SAID THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE PROFFERED CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN OFFERED BY THE DEVELOPER.
SO SO AGAIN, WE PROVIDED OUR CRITERIA THERE.
WE'VE ALREADY TALKED THROUGH FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION.
AND SO THE NEXT STEPS WOULD BE TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING.
GOOD EVENING. I'M THE APPLICANT AND THE DEVELOPER, BUT I DO NOT OWN THE LAND.
THAT'S HANDLED BY MARK ESPOSITO.
SO HE'S GOING TO GIVE SOME BACKGROUND AS TO THE HISTORY OF THE LAND, THE PROPERTY, AND SO FORTH.
SO BASICALLY, I'M JUST THE GUY TO GET GET DONE, WHATEVER THE FAMILY'S WISHES ARE.
SO I'D LIKE TO BRING MARC ON UP TO THE PODIUM NOW, PLEASE.
[00:45:01]
BUT I'M HAPPY TO BE BACK.I HAVE MY FAMILY ARE LIFELONG PRINCE GEORGE RESIDENTS.
MATTER OF FACT, WE CAME HERE IN THE 20S TO THE AREA.
MY GRANDFATHER BOUGHT PROPERTY WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS BACK IN 1955.
BACK THEN, JOHNNY MINER WAS ON THE BOARD AND MR. PARKER WAS NOT YET ON THE BOARD, BUT THEY HAD APPROACHED MY GRANDFATHER AT THAT TIME AND SAID, YOU KNOW, WE NEED DEVELOPMENT HERE IN THE COUNTY BECAUSE WE HAD.
AND JUST AN EXPLOSION AT FORT LEE OF NEW RESIDENTS COMING IN.
SOME OF YOU MAY BE OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT.
AND OF COURSE, THERE WERE SOME IMPACT MONEY BEING SENT TO THE SCHOOLS, AND THEY WERE TRYING TO DEVELOP THE COUNTY AS SORT OF A PLACE WHERE THE MOST OF THE PEOPLE OF FORT LEE COULD SEND THEIR KIDS.
AT THAT POINT, MY GRANDFATHER HAD TWO SON IN LAWS, MY FATHER, MARIO ESPOSITO AND CECIL PERRIN, WHO DEVELOPED PROBABLY THE FIRST REALLY SUBSTANTIAL SUBDIVISIONS IN THE COUNTY AT BIRCHWOOD ESTATES.
YOU ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT? I'M SURE THAT THOSE WERE OUR DEVELOPMENTS FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.
AND THEY WERE DESIGNED PRIMARILY REALLY FOR TWO THINGS IN MIND.
MR. MINER SAID. I WANT HIM AFFORDABLE.
AND HE SAID, I WANT THEM TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPLEXION OF THE COUNTY AT THAT TIME.
THAT IS, TO ME, THE SOCIO ECONOMIC COMPLEXION OF THE COUNTY.
THAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED VERY WELL, I THINK.
THOSE HOUSES ARE STILL VERY WELL MAINTAINED.
THE PROPERTY VALUES HAVE MAINTAINED.
I THINK WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE FOR THE PRINCELY SUM OF $35,000 IN 1965.
I THINK THEY'RE SELLING FOR ABOUT 400,000 NOW.
WHEN DINO APPROACHED ME WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT AS THE OWNER OF THE FAMILY TRUST, THAT'S WHO HOLDS THIS PROPERTY, I MENTIONED THAT STORY TO HIM AND I SAID, THAT'S THE ONE THING THAT I WOULD INSIST UPON.
IF YOU'RE ASKING ME, DO I WANT TO SELL THIS PROPERTY? AND I SAID, I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE IN HONOR OF MY FATHER AND MY UNCLE, WHO REALLY DID LOOK AT THAT IN GREAT DETAIL.
THEY WANTED THE COUNTY TO BE DEVELOPED.
MR. PERRIN'S DAUGHTER, MY FIRST COUSIN, GREW UP HERE.
DINO, OF COURSE, DID THE SAME.
I'LL TELL YOU WHY I LIKE IT, AND I SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF IT.
THERE ARE SOME EMPTY LOTS STILL THERE.
THEY HAVE THEM ALL SOLD, BUT I GUESS THEY'RE AT SOME POINT THEY HOPE THEY WILL.
BUT IN BETWEEN THAT LOT IS WHERE THIS PARCEL SITS.
AND WE'D LIKE TO PUT HOMES SORT OF IN THE MIDDLE THERE, WHICH I THINK WOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH I BRAG WHEN I TELL YOU I WORKED ON THAT WHEN I WORKED HERE AT THE COUNTY BACK IN THE 80S WITH DICK HENDRICK, WHEN HE WAS OUR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR.
I DO REMEMBER THE ADOPTION OF THAT PLAN, AND THAT THE THOUGHT BACK THEN WITH MR. BLAND WAS ON THE BOARD, AND NUMEROUS OTHER PEOPLE WHO I RESPECT VERY GREATLY WAS TO TRY TO KEEP THE THE COUNTY IN ITS RURAL CHARACTER, BUT ALLOWING FOR GROWTH TO BASICALLY MAINTAIN THE TAX RATES, BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, BACK IN THE 80S, YOU MAY RECALL INTEREST RATES WERE THROUGH THE ROOF, TAX RATES WERE RISING, AND THE GOAL WAS TO KEEP THESE THINGS STABLE, HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO DEVELOP THE COUNTY IN TERMS OF EMS AND FIRE AND POLICE, ALL THAT, BUT NOT PUT SUCH A BURDEN ON THE RESIDENTS.
SO I'M SURE I'M OVER TIME AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
BUT I WANTED TO GIVE YOU SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AS TO WHAT WE WERE THINKING ABOUT BACK IN 1962 WHEN WE FIRST DEVELOPED BIRCHWOOD ESTATES, AND NOW WHAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT IN 2024 AS WE LOOK AT PARENT LANDING, WHICH OF COURSE, IS MY UNCLE.
WE CAN TAKE ANY ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS AT THIS TIME.
ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. LUNSFORD. YES, SIR. IN LOOKING AT THE EIGHT POINTS OF CONCERN THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE HOA OF BRICKHOUSE LANDING POINT NUMBER FIVE AND IT SEEMS TO KEEP SURFACING HERE.
AND A LOT OF THE COMMENTS IS ABOUT THIS CONNECTING ROAD THAT'S COMING THROUGH BRICKHOUSE.
AND THERE WAS MAYBE A REQUEST TO CONSIDER THAT BEING CONNECTED TO THE PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE NOW DEVELOPING THE LAKE HOUSE TOWNHOUSES.
YEAH. THAT'S A THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION TO TO TO HIT ON THAT.
[00:50:04]
IF I COULD DO AWAY WITH IT, I WOULD.THAT IS A STATE THAT'S A VDOT REQUIREMENT.
THEY'RE REQUIRING US TO HAVE CONNECTIVITY THERE.
THE REASONING BEHIND THAT IS IF SOMEONE IS GOING INTO AN ADJOINING SUBDIVISION AND LET'S SAY THERE'S A BAD ACCIDENT THERE AND YOU'RE BLOCKING A PATH OF EGRESS FOR THE SUBDIVISION.
AND LET'S SAY, COINCIDENTALLY, THERE'S A HOUSE FIRE THERE.
WELL, YOU CAN'T GET FIRST RESPONDERS BACK IN THERE TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.
SO THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT, THAT'S THAT'S MANDATED BY THE STATE.
ONE OF THE IDEAS THAT WE HAD HAD WHEN WE WE WERE TRYING TO THINK THROUGH THIS IS HOW DO WE ENHANCE IF WE HAVE TO DO CONNECTIVITY, WHAT DO WE DO THAT IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO ALL PARTIES? AND MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW ENTERTAIN THE IDEA OF POSSIBLY A SIDEWALK CONTINUATION, GREEN SPACE PLANTINGS, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
SO WE'RE, YOU KNOW, THERE AGAIN, WE'RE IN THE CONCEPTUAL PHASES OF THIS.
NOTHING IS COMPLETELY ETCHED IN STONE, BUT THAT WOULD JUST BE SOMETHING THAT WE MIGHT CONSIDER.
YES, SIR. IS THERE TWO ACTIVE ENTRANCES AND EXITS FROM THE BRICK HOUSE LANDING TO. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, IT'S JUST THE THE MAIN ENTRANCE, SIR.
YES, SIR. IS IT TWO? OKAY. EMERGENCY ACCESS TO COMES RIGHT OUT TO THE MIDDLE ROAD.
RIGHT. RIGHT BEFORE YOU GET TO THE CAR.
IT'S OVER THERE. IN BETWEEN THOSE.
THE BATHROOMS. THE GREEN LINE. IS THAT THE EMERGENCY ACCESS? YEAH. YEAH.
AND THEN MY I HAVE A SAME QUESTION FOR CEDAR CREEK.
IS THERE TWO, TWO ENTRANCES TO CEDAR CREEK? I'M NOT CERTAIN.
YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS AWARE.
WE HAVE LOOKED AT EVERY RESPONSE AND EVERY CONCERN.
WE HAVE CHECKED WITH THE COUNTY.
ONE OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED OF STAFF THAT I WANT TO ASK IN FRONT OF THIS GROUP, JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF THIS, IS WHETHER THAT 50 FOOT EASEMENT THAT CONNECTS THESE TWO PROPERTIES IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NEW SUBDIVISION, OR WHEN THE PLATS WERE DONE FOR BRICK HOUSE LANDING, WAS THIS 50 FOOT EASEMENT ALREADY REQUIREMENT AND ALREADY PLATTED WITHIN THE BRICK HOUSE LANDING SUBDIVISION PRIOR TO THE MENTION OF THE SUBDIVISION EVEN COMING UP? AND, TIM, DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT AND ADDRESS THAT JUST SO PEOPLE ARE AWARE AS TO WHAT THE STATUS AS TO.
IS THIS SOMETHING NEW, OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY IN THE PLANS WHEN BRICKHOUSE LANDING WAS CREATED? OKAY. SO WHAT I CAN SAY WITH CERTAINTY IS IN THE BRICKHOUSE LANDING SUBDIVISION ON THAT PLAT THAT SUBDIVIDED THE LAND.
IT SHOWS A RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS THAT CONNECTION TO THIS UNDEVELOPED AT THE TIME LAND.
SO IT WAS THEIR CONNECTIVITY REQUIREMENT.
THEY WERE. THAT'S HOW THEY MET.
THE THE CONNECTIVITY REQUIREMENT IS TO HAVE A OPTION FOR FUTURE CONNECTION.
I GUESS THE SECOND PART IS THE PART I BELIEVE IS THE TRUTH.
I THINK THAT THAT WAS SERVING TO BE A FUTURE CONNECTION INSTEAD OF HAVING, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE WAY THAT THEY GOT APPROVED WITHOUT HAVING TWO PATHWAYS. CANNOT SAY FOR CERTAIN.
THIS WAS YEARS AGO, BUT THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT THERE'S TWO THAT THE WHEN YOU DEVELOP PROPERTY WITH A NEW ROAD THAT THERE MUST BE A SECOND WAY INTO THAT ROAD, SO THEY MUST HAVE A SECOND ROAD.
OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY WAS AWARE OF THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN THAT WE WERE INTERESTED IN KNOWING, TOO, BECAUSE THE CENSUS OF A LOT OF THE COMMENTS SEEM TO BE THAT, OH, WE DON'T WANT THIS ROAD THERE.
THAT ROAD HAS ALWAYS BEEN WITHIN THE PLATS OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
WHEN FIRST WHEN BRICKHOUSE LANDING WAS FIRST PLATTED AND SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY.
[00:55:03]
AND I'M NOT SURE THAT MANY PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THAT.I ASSUME THAT MANY PEOPLE WERE NOT AWARE OF THAT, BASED ON SOME OF THE COMMENTS AND THE CONCERNS THAT WE RECEIVED BACK IS THAT BEING SEEMS TO BE ONE OF THE KEY POINTS AND FACTORS OF OF CONCERNS THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE OPPOSITION COMMENTS MADE.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S A NEW EASEMENT.
THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THIS NEW SUBDIVISION BEING DEVELOPED.
IF WE DID, ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSIONERS? IF NOT, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND START AND GET INTO THE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THIS UP NOW FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
YOU KNOW, AS PROMPTLY AS POSSIBLE.
OKAY, SIR, IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR NAME.
YES, I'M RAYMOND BURR. I'M 38, 14, AND PAULA DRIVE.
SO MY COMMENTS ARE GOING TO BE THAT IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT MR. LUNSFORD'S 19TH MAY STATEMENT, APPLICATION STATEMENT, HE TALKS ABOUT DENSITY AND LOT SIZES OF SIMILAR SUBDIVISIONS IN THE AREA.
BUT HE FAILS TO MENTION BRICK HOUSE LANDING, WHICH HE'S GOING TO HAVE A CONNECTION TO, AND CEDAR CREEK AND CEDAR CREEK WEST, ALL OF WITH PROPERTIES WITH HOMES OF OF GREATER VALUE SIZE.
AND ON MIDDLE ROAD THAT INCLUDES THE THREE SUBDIVISIONS I JUST MENTIONED.
THAT'S GOING TO RESULT IN LIKE ABOUT A QUARTER TO A HALF AN ACRE SIZED LOT AND, YOU KNOW, AROUND 25,000FT², WHICH IS 2 TO 300% LESS COMPARABLE THAN ANY LOT ON BRICK HOUSE LANDING, WHICH HE'S GOING TO BE CONNECTING TO.
ALSO REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDER RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH BRICK HOUSE LANDING IN WHICH HE'S GOING TO BE CONNECTED TO AGAIN, AND THAT CONSTRUCTION MEET THE MINIMUM OF BRICK HOUSE LANDING IN REGARDS TO BRICK, STONE FRONTS, FOUNDATIONS, CONCRETE PORCHES, GRANITE COUNTERTOPS, HARDWOOD HARDWOOD TILE FLOORING, AND ANY OTHER FEATURES AMENITIES BETWEEN THE TWO SUBDIVISIONS SINCE THEY'RE CONNECTED NOW, ALONG WITH THAT IS, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT MR. LANGFORD'S CONCEPT PLAN THAT HE SUBMITTED, HE DENOTES THAT THERE'S A FAMILY MEMBER EXISTING HOME THAT WILL REMAIN ON PARIS LANDING THAT OVERLAPS TWO PROGRAM LOTS 97 AND 98.
SO HIS ACTION IS EVEN GOING TOWARDS RE ZONING.
NOW THERE ARE YOU KNOW, DO ASK THAT.
CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THE ADDITIONAL 160 FAMILIES THAT THAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE TRAFFIC, THE SCHOOLS, THE WATER, FIRE, EMS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, BUT ALSO TO THE LOCAL STRUCTURES.
RIGHT. GROCERY STORES, GAS STATIONS, ALL OF THIS WHICH WILL ALSO BE IMPACTED BY THE TOWNHOUSE.
AND I'M ASKING YOU, IS THE $375,000 PROFFER, IS THAT ENOUGH AND SUFFICIENT FOR LONG TERM REQUIREMENTS? RIGHT NOW, YOU ALSO GOT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE DECLINING PROPERTY VALUES THAT IF IF THIS IS R2 AND CONNECTED TO AN RE, WHAT THAT'S GOING TO DO TO BRICK HOUSE RESIDENTS, AND I ASK YOU IF YOU WERE IN OUR SHOES AND THAT WAS YOUR SUBDIVISION, THOSE WERE YOUR HOMES, WHERE WOULD YOU BE? WOULD YOU BE ON THIS SIDE OR ON THAT SIDE? OKAY, SO THAT'S ALL WE'RE REALLY ASKING.
I'M ASKING THAT YOU CONSIDER DISAPPROVING THE R2 REZONING AND ANYTHING LESS THAN RE, AND THAT THE DECISION ALSO BE DELAYED UNTIL THE COMMENTS OR STUDIES BY VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REAL ESTATE ASSESSOR ARE RECEIVED AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
NEXT, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
MICHAEL VITALE, 3818 IMPALA DRIVE.
SO IF THEY'RE GOING TO PUT UP TO 106 RESIDENCES THERE I DON'T SEE HOW THE LOTS COULD BE ANY BIGGER THAN A QUARTER OF AN ACRE, CONSIDERING YOU GOT ROADS, SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC EASEMENTS.
AND I THINK THAT WILL HELP BRING DOWN THE LAND VALUES OF US LIVING AT BRICKHOUSE LANDING.
YOU KNOW, I'M WILLING TO COMPROMISE HERE A LITTLE BIT, BUT I JUST THINK 106 HOUSES IN THAT SMALL SECTION IS JUST ASKING FOR TROUBLE, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE SAW THAT THING ABOUT OUR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM.
CAN'T EVEN HANDLE THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME.
THERE HAS TO BE SOME EXPANSION TO HANDLE THAT.
[01:00:03]
OH, BY THE WAY, FOR THAT EMERGENCY ROAD YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, AND YOU GAVE US THE RATIONALE WHY THE COUNTY INSISTED UPON THAT YOU INSISTED ABOUT, LIKE, LIKE AN EVACUATION ROUTE AND AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE THING.WELL, I'VE SEEN ROADS BEFORE WHERE THEY WOULD SAY SIGNS LIKE EMERGENCY USE ONLY OR EVACUATION ONLY.
IT HAS TO BE BECAUSE THEY'RE IN AN EVACUATION EMERGENCY OR IT'S EMERGENCY VEHICLES GOING ACROSS.
CAN WE PUT THAT KIND OF STIPULATION ON THAT ROAD SO THAT PEOPLE JUST CAN'T CASUALLY USE THAT ROAD? THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LET ME PAUSE JUST A SECOND EXTRA TIME FOR THIS MAN HERE, BECAUSE HE HAD A QUESTION RELATED TO THAT.
TIM, DO WE ADDRESS THAT NOW OR LATER? LIKE AS FAR AS IS THERE A REQUIREMENT THAT THAT ROAD HAS.
YOU COULD WRITE THAT DOWN AND ASK LATER.
SO GO AHEAD. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CHRIS JOHNSON.
I'M IN BRICKHOUSE, 3765 IMPALA DRIVE.
THE SAME STREET OR ROAD THAT THAT WOULD BE CONNECTING TO.
BUT I GUESS I'M HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK ON THE HEART OF THE MATTER.
YOU KNOW, NOT SO MUCH AS, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING.
AND I TOOK THE TIME TO WRITE SOME THINGS DOWN SO THAT HOPEFULLY YOU TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION.
I SAY I STAND HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY OR TONIGHT, JUST AS AN INDIVIDUAL, BUT AS A VOICE OF A CHERISHED COMMUNITY, A COMMUNITY THAT FINDS SOLACE AND JOY IN THE TRANQUILITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
OUR HEARTS ARE HEAVY WITH CONCERN OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW SUBDIVISION, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD THAT WILL CUT THROUGH THE HEART OF OUR PEACEFUL HAVEN. AND AS MY NEIGHBOR HAS SAID HERE TONIGHT, YOU KNOW WHAT? IF IT WAS YOUR COMMUNITY OR YOUR SUBDIVISION OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS WAS BEING DEVELOPED, I JUST WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS MORE THAN A PLACE TO LIVE.
IT IS A SANCTUARY WHERE OUR KIDS, OUR CHILDREN, GROW AND PLAY SAFELY AND WHERE WE FIND REFUGE FROM THE STRESSORS OF DAY TO DAY LIFE. THIS PROPOSAL THREATENS TO DISRUPT THE VERY ESSENCE OF WHAT WE MAKE WORK OF WHAT MAKES OUR COMMUNITY SO SPECIAL.
MOREOVER, THE STRAIN ON OUR LOCAL RESOURCES CANNOT BE OVERSTATED.
YOU ARE ALREADY AWARE OF THAT.
ENVIRONMENTALLY, THIS DEVELOPMENT POSES A DIRE THREAT TO OUR GREEN SPACES AND LOCAL WILDLIFE.
THE BEAUTY OF OUR NATURAL SURROUNDINGS.
ONE OF THE REASONS MANY OF US CHOSE TO LIVE HERE WILL BE MARKED BY CONSTRUCTION AND LOSS OF HABITAT.
THE INCREASED DEMAND ON OUR WATER AND UTILITIES COULD LEAD TO SHORTAGES AFFECTING US ALL.
QUALITIES OF PEACE, SAFETY AND COMMUNITY SPIRIT ARE PRICELESS AND IRREPLACEABLE.
ONCE LOST, THEY CAN NEVER BE FULLY RESTORED.
I IMPLORE YOU TO LISTEN TO THE COLLECTIVE HEARTBEAT OF OUR COMMUNITY.
PROTECT THE CHARACTER AND THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO LIVE, GROW AND THRIVE IN A SANCTUARY WE CALL HOME.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND HEARING THE HEARTFELT PLEAS OF OUR COMMUNITY.
GOOD AFTERNOON. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
SURE. MY NAME IS LARRY GILMAN.
I LIVE AT 3738 GRAY FOX DRIVE IN BRICKHOUSE.
I LOOKED AT THE COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENT.
I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THE CHART SHOWN THAT SAID THAT THEY ARE COMPATIBLE.
YOU MUST HAVE A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF COMPATIBLE THAN I DO BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT.
SO TO THROW THAT ON THE SLIDE TO ME IS MISREPRESENTING THE FACTS.
OBVIOUSLY, AS POINTED OUT, THE HOUSE SIZE DIFFERENCE, THE LOT SIZE DIFFERENCE.
I MEAN, I COULD GO ON AND ON AND ON.
SO TO SAY THEY'RE COMPATIBLE TO ME IS MISREPRESENTING THE FACTS.
[01:05:05]
I'M NOT SURE EVEN WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS HEARING BECAUSE THIS SHOULDN'T EVEN GET THIS FAR.THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
EVENING. I GUESS IT IS. BRADEN PETER, 3811 IMPALA DRIVE.
MY MY THING IS, IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD A NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO CONNECT PER WHATEVER THE STATE CODE OR WHATEVER IT IS IT SHOULD BE EQUAL TO, IT SHOULD NOT BE LESS THAN.
SO WHERE RE THEY SHOULDN'T BE ANYTHING LESS THAN RE.
IF THAT'S THE CASE THEN YOU CAN HAVE APARTMENT COMPLEX.
YOU CAN HAVE ANYTHING IN THE FUTURE.
I'M TRYING TO PROTECT MY INVESTMENT.
WE WORK HARD FOR WHAT WE GOT, AND WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT IT.
ON THE ASPECT OF THE PROPER FEES.
YOUR PROPER FEE IN TOTAL WILL GET YOU FOR FIREFIGHTERS.
I KNOW HOW MUCH WHAT A TURNKEY FIREMAN COST THE COUNTY.
I KNOW THE COUNTY RIGHT NOW CAN BARELY ANSWER.
THE CALLS THAT THEY HAVE IS THAT THEY HAVE THE WATER GRIDS MAXED OUT.
HAVE YOU ALL TAKEN ANY OF THIS INTO CONSIDERATION? THERE'S THE EXTRA TRAFFIC.
WE DO HAVE A EMERGENCY EGRESS, WHICH HAS GOT A GATE.
SO IF THERE IS SOME SORT OF EMERGENCY, WE CAN'T GET OUT OF OUR MAIN ENTRANCE.
WHY CAN'T THEY DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT? SO THAT'S.
THAT'S ALL I GOT. I JUST I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME HEARING MY CONCERNS.
THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD EVENING.
I'M ALEX YORK. I DON'T CURRENTLY LIVE IN THE COUNTY, BUT IF YOU LET ME SPEAK, I DO WORK HERE.
SO I ACTUALLY MOVED HERE AT FORT LEE.
WELL, FORMERLY FORT LEE 2014, AND HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO BUY AT THE TIME.
AND IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, YOU EITHER HAVE A LARGE LOT, ONE ACRE, FIVE ACRES THAT AT THE TIME WORKING 16 TO 18 HOURS A DAY, FIVE, SIX DAYS A WEEK, I COULDN'T MAINTAIN.
SO YOU LOOK FOR SOMETHING THAT'S SMALLER AND MORE AFFORDABLE AND THERE WEREN'T A LOT OF OPTIONS.
SO I ENDED UP BUYING IN CHESTERFIELD AND I COMMUTE TO PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY 50 MINUTES EVERY DAY.
AND I'VE BEEN LOOKING TO BUY SOMETHING IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY THAT IS NOT $750,000.
SO I THINK USING FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO DEMAND THAT PEOPLE BUILD THREE QUARTER MILLION DOLLAR HOUSES IS NOT REALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO A LOT OF PEOPLE, BUT THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION. I'D LIKE TO MOVE INTO A DEVELOPMENT SIMILAR TO THIS IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, WHERE IT'S CONVENIENT TO MY WORKPLACE, AND THAT'S ALL I GOT.
I BELIEVE THAT WITH ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE NEEDING TO BE UPGRADED AND DEVELOPED IN THE PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, THAT BRINGING NEW HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT TO THE AREA IS A GREAT IDEA. MORE HOUSING IS GOING TO BRING MORE TAXES, WHICH IS GOING TO BRING MORE MONEY TO THE COUNTY TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THOSE UPDATES FOR THE CERTAIN AREAS THAT WE NEED, WHETHER IT BE THE WATER TABLE OR THE ELECTRICITY THAT'S COMING IN AND OUT, OR EVEN THE SCHOOL THAT IS OVER CAPACITY AT THE HIGH SCHOOL.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MARK GRUBBS.
I RESIDE AT 2100 COURTLAND ROAD SOUTH, PRINCE GEORGE.
MY CONCERN IS FIRST RESPONDERS.
OKAY. YOU GOT ANOTHER SUBDIVISION OFF OF WATCH RUN DRIVE.
AND TARKA'S ROAD IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT 158 HOMES ON ON THAT LAND.
ON THE 13TH OF THIS MONTH, I HAD A PHONE CALL WITH LIEUTENANT SANTILLI.
IT WAS IN REFERENCE TO SOME ILLEGAL DUMPING OVER AT EXIT 41, WHICH HE GOT SQUARED AWAY.
BUT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT MONITORING AND CAMERAS AND ALL THIS AND THAT.
AND THEN HE STARTED TALKING ABOUT HIS PERSONNEL SHORTAGE.
AND THIS WAS AROUND NOON ON THE 13TH.
HE TOLD ME HE HAD SIX OFFICERS ON PATROL.
AND I LIKE FOR Y'ALL IN THE AUDIENCE TO REMEMBER THE NUMBER THREE RIGHT QUICK.
SO HE HAD FOUR OFFICERS THAT WERE DOING OTHER STUFF.
THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN AT SCHOOLS, YOU KNOW, DOING OTHER THINGS THAN OTHER THAN PATROLLING.
[01:10:02]
THEN HE HAD TWO POLICE OFFICERS THAT WERE ON CALL FOR 911 OR EMERGENCY CALLS.SO INFRASTRUCTURE IS ALWAYS THE LAST THING ON THE ON THE DOCKET TO GET FIXED.
WE ALREADY HAVE A PROBLEM NOW, AND I DON'T SEE HOW THIS WOULD EVER DO ANY ANY MORE JUSTICE TO IT.
YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE MORE CRIME.
WE GOT THAT THAT CASINO THAT WAS JUST PASSED IN PETERSBURG.
AND THAT'S RIGHT THERE ON THE COUNTY LINE OFF OF WAGNER ROAD.
SO NOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT GAMBLING AND OTHER CRIME THAT GOES ON WITH THAT TOO.
SO, YOU KNOW, YOU ALL DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH IT.
BUT MY CONCERN IS FIRST RESPONDERS.
BARCLAY SHRINER, 11 895 QUAIL RUN LANE, PRINCE GEORGE, VIRGINIA.
I'D KIND OF LIKE TO APPROACH IT FROM THIS ANGLE, THAT BRINGING THIS AFFORDABLE TYPE OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND WOULD ATTRACT PEOPLE LIKE EMTS AND FIREMEN AND POLICEMEN AND PEOPLE THAT WE NEED HERE.
TEACHERS. OKAY? NOT EVERYBODY CAN GO OUT AND AFFORD TO BUY THE FIVE ACRE PIECE AND THE NOW HALF MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE ANYMORE.
AND HONESTLY, WHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTY IS REALLY LEFT THAT YOU COULD, THAT YOU WOULD EVEN THINK ABOUT APPROVING SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THIS, THIS IS THE END OF THE ROAD HERE AS FAR AS NEIGHBORHOODS AND THIS AREA.
YOU'VE GOT R-2 ALREADY, YOU'VE GOT R-3 RIGHT THERE.
IF YOU DON'T DO THAT HERE, THERE ARE NO MORE PLACES REALLY LEFT FOR IT.
SO YOU NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN HERE FOR THE COUNTY.
IT WOULD PROVIDE YOUR TAX BASE EVERY YEAR.
YOU'RE GETTING TAXES, YOU'RE GETTING PROFFERS.
THAT WILL GO TO IT TOWARDS ENHANCING OUR FIRE POLICE WATER SYSTEMS. I MEAN, THE TAXES Y'ALL COULD YOU KNOW, Y'ALL KNOW DECEMBER 5TH IS COMING UP.
YOU'RE PAYING TAXES EVERY YEAR ON THIS.
SO IT'S AN ONGOING WAY TO TO FILL THE COFFERS, IF YOU WILL.
THEN AGAIN, I HAVE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, HOW OFTEN DO YOU GET SOMEONE WHO'S WILLING TO DO THIS? THIS NOT ONLY, YOU KNOW, NOT OUT OF STATE.
THIS PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY BOY HERE, YOU KNOW, HIS FAMILY IS FROM PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY.
SO OF ANYONE YOU WOULD WANT INVOLVED IN DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS, YOU WOULD WANT IT TO BE SOMEONE LIKE MR. LUNSFORD. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
GOOD EVENING. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
GOOD EVENING. JUSTIN NOBLIN, 8724 CENTENNIAL ROAD.
90 ACRES ON CENTENNIAL ROAD THAT I HAVE 108 ANIMALS ON.
I HAVE NO AFFILIATION WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT OR ANYTHING ABOUT IT, BUT I.
I RECOGNIZE THAT WE ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF GROWTH IN THE PLANNING DISTRICT.
IT'S ON FIVE ACRE LOTS AND IT'S UNCHECKED.
THEY CAN DO IT BY RIGHT WITHOUT STOP.
URBAN SPRAWL IS A HUGE PROBLEM.
IT'S DECIMATING OUR FARMS. IT'S ALSO CAUSING THE PROBLEM WITH FIRE, EMS AND POLICE BECAUSE IT IS SO MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN FIRE, EMS AND POLICE.
WHEN EVERY PROPERTY IS FIVE ACRES, THE MAJORITY OF THE MAILBOXES ARE NOT MARKED.
CLEARLY THEY CAN'T FIND THE LOTS.
IT'S A LOT MORE HAZARDOUS TO THE POLICE WHEN THEY GET OUT IN THESE RURAL AREAS AND HAVE A DOMESTIC SITUATION TO GET BACK UP, THEY WOULD HIGHLY PREFER MAINTAINING NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND THIS IS, BY DESIGN, WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING IN THE COUNTY.
THIS IS IN THE PLANNING DISTRICT.
IT FALLS WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THERE'S 88,000 GALLONS A DAY OF AVAILABLE WATER.
THIS WOULD CONSUME 36,000 GALLONS.
THERE'S AVAILABLE SEWER YOU KNOW, IT IT IT FALLS EXACTLY IN WHAT YOU ALL ARE SUPPOSED TO APPROVE.
AND IT GOES COMPLETELY WITHIN THE GUIDELINES.
AND WHEN I HEAR THAT WE NEED TO CONSERVE THE AREA.
I GREW UP HUNTING AND FISHING.
BRICKHOUSE LANDING BEFORE IT WAS A NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S NOT REALLY FAIR FOR PEOPLE TO COME IN HERE AND SAY THAT WE NEED TO PRESERVE THE AREA AFTER THEY GOT IT DEVELOPED FOR THEM TO LIVE, AND THEN THEY DON'T WANT ANYBODY ELSE TO DEVELOP TO MOVE INTO.
[01:15:01]
I'D LIKE TO SEE MY KIDS MOVE INTO THE COUNTY AND THAT CAUSES GROWTH.WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IS GROW RESPONSIBLY.
YOU NEED TO GROW IN AREAS THAT IS DESIGNED FOR GROWTH, AND YOU NEED TO MAKE IT AS EFFECTIVE FOR THE POLICE, FIRE AND EMS. AND WHEN WE HEAR THAT THE COUNTY'S INFRASTRUCTURE IS IS NOT SUITABLE, OUR COUNTY HAS AN EXCESS OF $2.2 MILLION PER YEAR.
THAT'S GOING INTO THE RAINY DAY FUND, AND IT'S DONE IT FOR FIVE YEARS IN A ROW.
GOOD EVENING. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
GOOD EVENING. I'M WILLIE GILBERT.
I'M AT 3742 GRAY FOX DRIVE AND BRICK HOUSE LANDING.
I SIT AND LISTEN TO EVERYBODY TALK ABOUT MS POLICE AND ALL OF THAT.
I WORK IN THE HUMAN SERVICE AREA ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND THE HUMAN SERVICES AREA.
TO HAVE A KID, A CHILD REMOVED FROM THEIR HOME.
WE'RE AT A SHORTAGE OF HUMAN SERVICES WORKER, AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.
TO BRING THAT NUMBER OF HOMES INTO AN AREA WILL CAUSE AN INCREASE OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE.
LIVING WILL CAUSE AN INCREASE OF THE NUMBER OF CALLS THAT CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES GET.
ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES GET, AND ALL THOSE OTHER AREAS THAT STILL GO OUT INTO THAT AREA.
NOW, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THEM DEVELOPING THE AREA.
THE INFRASTRUCTURE DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS RIGHT NOW.
AS THE GENTLEMAN SAID OVER HERE, THEY'RE STILL INVESTIGATING.
WE ONLY HAVE ONE FOOD LINE IN THE ENTIRE AREA.
SO JUST THINK ABOUT 106 MORE HOMES.
HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE THAT WOULD CAUSE FOR ONE FOOD LINE.
RIGHT. RESTAURANTS IN THE AREA? YES, POTENTIALLY IT HAS GREATNESS, BUT THOSE THINGS NEEDS TO ALREADY BE IN PLACE BEFORE YOU START DEVELOPING THAT AREA.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE THEM IN PLACE, IT'S GOING TO CAUSE HARDSHIP THROUGHOUT.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MARK WARREN.
I LIVE AT 6209 ANTELOPE COURT, WHICH IS PARALLEL TO THE REQUESTED EGRESS IN THE PLAN.
I'M NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT.
I'M NOT OPPOSED TO ALL THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED TONIGHT.
BUT I DO THINK THAT IT'S A COMMON SENSE APPROACH HAS TO BE TAKEN WHEN YOU'RE CHANGING FROM RESIDENTIAL ESTATE DOWN TO RESIDENTIAL TO MUCH SMALLER LOTS, YOU'RE GOING TO SATURATE THE COMMUNITY.
ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN A FEW MINUTES AGO SAID, PRINCE GEORGE IS BIG.
THERE'S ROOM TO GROW IN PRINCE GEORGE WITHOUT OVERSATURATING A COMMUNITY BEYOND THE POINT WHERE THE UTILITIES ARE NOT ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF IT. I CAN TELL WHEN MY NEIGHBOR'S SPRINKLERS TURN ON BECAUSE OF THE WATER PRESSURE.
THE OTHER PART OF THAT IS IF WHEN THEY DO THE LAND SURVEY.
WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF GRIDS TONIGHT, BUT WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE CONTOUR OF THE LAND.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE CONTOUR OF THE LAND, THERE'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
IMPACT BEHIND THE COMMUNITY ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME WHERE MR. PUGH LIVES.
UNLESS YOU HIT IT WITH YOUR TRUCK.
THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
SCOTT STANLEY, 15 WEST BANK STREET.
BUSINESS OWNER IN PRINCE GEORGE.
I INSTEAD OF BEATING A DEAD HORSE, I SUPPORT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO IF THEY CAN FIGURE THAT OUT, I'M ALL FOR IT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD EVENING. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
YES, MA'AM. MY NAME IS EVELYN ROSADO HALLIDAY.
I'M JUST KIND OF REITERATING WHAT THE OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVE STATED AT BRICK HOUSE LANDING.
I BUILT MY HOME, AND I DO UNDERSTAND DEVELOPMENT.
[01:20:02]
SO IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T EXPECT GROWTH BECAUSE WE FORESEE IT, BUT IT'S JUST THAT EVERYTHING THAT WE BUILT OUR HOME IN THAT SPECIAL LOCATION, WE JUST WANT TO KEEP THAT ENVIRONMENT AS IT IS.GOOD EVENING PLEASE. HEY, I'M SAMANTHA WARREN, 6209 ANTELOPE COURT, BRICKHOUSE LANDING.
I'M ASSUMING I'M THE LAST PERSON TO GO AWAY WITH.
I DID NOT REALIZE THAT THE TOWNHOUSE HAS HOW MANY NEW HOMES IN IT? DO YOU ALL KNOW THAT? DINO'S BUILDING.
DOES ANYBODY KNOW DINO? IS HE HERE? 49.
THAT'S YOUR BUILDING. IS IT POSSIBLE NOT TO DO THE CONNECTIVITY FROM THE TOWNHOMES TO YOUR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION? WE HAVE A STUB OUT THERE.
I CAN GET YOU TO ADDRESS THAT WITH MY ENGINEERING STAFF.
OKAY. SO ARE YOU SAYING IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO CONNECT FROM THE TOWNHOMES TO YOUR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION? THE TERRAIN IS TOO DIFFICULT.
IT'S A REALLY BIG IT'S WETLANDS.
IT'S LIKE WHAT MY HUSBAND WAS SAYING THE THE LANDSCAPE BACK THERE COULD BE A PROBLEM.
OKAY, WELL, YOU'VE HEARD FROM A FEW PEOPLE THAT THIS ISN'T GOING TO AFFECT.
I'M ASSUMING THEY'RE ON BEHALF OF DINO.
MAYBE HE ASKED THEM TO COME, BUT WHO YOU NEED TO HEAR IT FROM IS WHO IT'S GOING TO AFFECT.
WE DON'T HAVE FIVE ACRES OF LAND.
AND WHEN WE BOUGHT INTO THE BRICK HOUSE LANDING, ASSUMING THAT WE KNEW THERE WAS AN EASEMENT RIGHT THERE, I'M ASSUMING THOSE PEOPLE ON THAT ROAD WERE THINKING THAT SUBDIVISION.
IF IT EVER DID GET DEVELOPED, IT WOULD BE THE SAME KIND.
BUT IF IT'S GOING TO CONNECT TO US, THEN IT SHOULD BE THE SAME AS WHAT WE HAVE.
HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE GOING TO TURN INTO RENTAL PROPERTIES? OUT OF 106.
IT COULD END UP JUST LIKE EAGLE PRESERVE, WHERE MOST OF THOSE ARE RENTAL PROPERTIES.
I WORKED IN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT.
I KNOW ABOUT RENTAL PROPERTIES AND I KNOW THE PROBLEMS RENTAL PROPERTIES COME.
SO IF YOU'RE GOING AND TRYING TO COURT, IF YOU WILL, FOR FORT GREG ADAMS AND THOSE SOLDIERS AND HAVE THEM COME IN AND BUY 0% ZERO DOWN, NO CLOSING COSTS, JUST LIKE AT EAGLE PRESERVE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THOSE SOLDIERS COME IN AND BUY, AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO GET ORDERS IN THREE YEARS, AND THEY'RE GOING TO GO AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE OUT OF 106 HOMES, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE 50 RENTAL PROPERTIES.
THAT'S GOING TO BE CONNECTING TO A RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, BASICALLY, IS WHAT BRICKHOUSE LANDING IS.
SO I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT, BUT OPPOSED TO 106.
OUR SCHOOLS ARE ALREADY BUSTING AT THE SEAMS ARE LOGISTICALLY LIKE SOMEBODY SAID, WE HAVE ONE GROCERY STORE, WE HAVE THE APARTMENTS COMING, THE TOWNHOMES COMING, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 106.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ROBIN WINSTON AND I'M AT 6201 ANTELOPE COURT IN BRICKHOUSE LANDING.
I WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK, BUT I AM PROBABLY THE NEWEST PERSON IN BRICKHOUSE LANDING.
MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE BEEN THERE UNDER SIX MONTHS, AND I AM NOT REALLY AWARE OF A LOT OF THE HISTORY IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY BECAUSE WE'RE, LIKE I SAID, RELATIVELY NEW HERE, BUT I AM OPPOSED TO ZONING LESS THAN RE CATEGORY BEING ABUTTED TO AND ADJACENT ACCESSIBLE TO BRICK HOUSE LANDING.
FOR A LOT OF THE REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN STATED BY SOME OF MY PREDECESSORS IN SPEAKING THE INFRASTRUCTURE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE NOTICED IS, AS HAS BEEN STATED NUMEROUS TIMES, THE WATER CONDITIONS IN THE COUNTY ARE PRETTY ABYSMAL.
SO I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE ANY ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE, ANY ADDITIONAL BUILDING WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE COUNTY AND IN THAT AREA.
[01:25:10]
GOOD EVENING. YES. HOW ARE YOU DOING? MY NAME IS DAVID ARBOGAST.I LIVE AT 1103 MORRILL BANK DRIVE.
THERE IS A DEMAND IN THE COUNTY FOR MORE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING.
AND THIS PROJECT, FROM WHAT EVERYTHING I'VE SEEN, HAS BEEN WELL PLANNED AND WELL THOUGHT OUT.
CAN WE GET AN ALIBI? PARDON? CAN I GET AN ALIBI? CAN I GO BACK UP? NO.
IT'S LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES EACH PERSON.
MIKE. OH. MY QUESTION IS, HAS THERE EVER BEEN IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, AN APPROVAL OF A SITUATION LIKE THIS OR TWO ADJACENT TO AN RE? I MEAN, I LOOKED I DIDN'T FIND ANY.
HAS THERE EVER BEEN ONE IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY? THAT'S A QUESTION. THAT'S A QUESTION WE WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO STAFF.
I DO KNOW, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THAT STAFF SHOWED EARLIER, YOU KNOW, THERE CERTAINLY IS OUR YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT OUR ONE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU IN CHESTER LAKES. YOU'VE GOT YOUR R3 RE IT'S KIND OF SCATTERED AROUND THAT AREA SPECIFICALLY.
CHESTER ACROSS THE STREET IS NOT APPLICABLE TO BRICKHOUSE LAND.
IT SAYS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET OR ADJACENT TO.
SO THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S THE BYLAWS OF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.
IT'S NOT. NOT SOMETHING I'M MAKING UP IF YOU READ IT.
IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT IN THERE THAT THAT DOESN'T COUNT.
SO AGAIN, I ASK THE QUESTION, HAVE WE EVER DONE IT BEFORE? AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S KIND OF RHETORICAL AND YOU HAVE TO KIND OF RESEARCH IT TO FIND OUT.
THAT'S WHAT PROTECTS US FROM THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPENING.
JUST WANTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY.
IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTED TO COME UP AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSIONERS.
ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR THIS NOW.
THIS WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN WHICH TIM MENTIONED, IF WE WANT TO, TO ADDRESS IN QUESTION WITH SOME OF THE CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS THAT WERE ADDRESSED TO US DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A QUESTION.
I LIVE IN A SUBDIVISION THAT'S BEEN AROUND SINCE THE 90S.
SO I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO ARE POTENTIALLY SINGLE PARENTS OR, YOU KNOW, NOT IN A TWO FAMILY HOME WHERE THEY DON'T WANT TO BUY IN A BIG SPACE. SO I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT SIDE OF THINGS.
AND I THINK JUST FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS A HOMEOWNER IN PRINCE GEORGE, I KNOW PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO ARE IN THE SAME SITUATION WHO JUST RECENTLY BOUGHT IN MANCHESTER, BUT THEY WAITED OVER A YEAR FOR A HOUSE TO BE ON THE MARKET.
THAT WAS GOOD FOR THEM TO STAY IN PRINCE GEORGE, BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE HERE.
THEY WANT TO LIVE AROUND OTHER PEOPLE.
SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WITH CEDAR CREEK AND THE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, THEY HAVE ONE MAIN ENTRANCE PLUS A EMERGENCY.
IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? NO, NO, NO, THEY HAVE ONE ENTRANCE PERIOD.
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. ONE ENTRANCE.
SO WHY WOULD THE ONE ENTRANCE OFF A MIDDLE ROAD INTO PRINCE LANDING NOT BE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH? VDOT REQUIRES CONNECTIVITY.
SO THAT'S WHY THAT WAS THE THRUWAY.
[01:30:01]
CREEK AND CEDAR CREEK WEST BECAUSE WE LIVED IN CEDAR CREEK WEST.WE. WE ACTUALLY LIVED IN MANCHESTER FIRST WHEN WE RAISED OUR KIDS, AND THEN WE MOVED TO CEDAR CREEK.
CEDAR CREEK WEST THAT HAD ONE ENTRANCE AND AN HOA.
AND THEN NOW WE'RE IN BRICK HOUSE LANDING.
I CAN QUOTE SOMETHING THAT ONE OF OUR OUR COMMENTS THAT PEOPLE SUBMITTED HERE FOR.
I WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK, BUT I HAVE TO SPEAK.
WE CAN GET IT STRAIGHT FROM THE DEVELOPER THEN.
THAT DIDN'T COME. I'M ON ONE SIDE OF THE OTHER.
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE SO MANY ROADS, IT WAS BASED ON HOW MANY LOTS.
CEDAR CREEK, EAST OR WEST ONLY HAS 50 OR LESS HOUSES IN IT.
THAT'S WHEN IT TRIGGERS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE SECOND MEANS OF GETTING OUT OF IT.
IT'S A VDOT CAME UP WITH CONNECTIVITY.
I CAN'T EVEN PRONOUNCE THAT WORD.
BUT THAT'S WHY WE PUT THE STUB ROAD IN THE FUTURE.
I HAD NO IDEA, BUT THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT.
BUT IN RE IS MEANT IN AREAS OF THE COUNTY THAT DOES NOT HAVE WATER AND SEWER.
I HAD TO GET AN EXCEPTION TO THAT AND I THINK I DID A GOOD DEVELOPMENT.
I DID BRAND CHESTER, I DID BRAND CHESTER LAKES.
I DEVELOPED ABOUT 20 SUBDIVISIONS AROUND, KIND OF LOW PROFILE, BUT WE'VE DONE A LOT OF HOUSES.
AND WHAT I SEE BOTH SIDES OF THIS AND YOU DON'T MAKE A DECISION.
BUT THAT'S THE REASON THERE'S ONLY ONE EXIT AND THERE IS AN EMERGENCY EXIT OUT OF BRICKHOUSE.
AND WE ALSO HAD TO PUT A DUAL LANE IN THERE.
IF YOU NOTICE A DUAL LANE, WE HAVE TWO ROADS THAT COME UP.
PEOPLE GO TO THE RIGHT, PEOPLE GO TO THE LEFT.
BUT I ALSO PUT AN EMERGENCY EXIT IN THERE JUST IN CASE THAT GOT PLUGGED UP.
AND SO THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY ABOUT THAT.
I'M NOT SURE YOU MAY KNOW IT WAS BASED OFF OF THE DATA I WAS READING.
IT APPEARS THAT THAT VDOT REQUIREMENT ONLY BECAME A REQUIREMENT IN 2009.
SO WEREN'T CEDAR CREEK AND THE OTHER SUBDIVISION KNOW IT WAS REQUIRED? THEY REQUIRED THE COUNTY REQUIRED IT.
BUT NOW IT'S BECAME BECOME A VDOT REQUIREMENT.
AT THE TIME, THE COUNTY WOULD NOT GIVE ME ZONING UNLESS I PUT THAT ROAD IN.
MATTER OF FACT, I PUT IT IN THE MOST.
SO I FIGURED THEY AIN'T GOING TO PUT THAT ROAD IN IF THEY AIN'T GOT TO.
IF THEY GOT TO DO IT, IT'S GOING TO COST THEM A LOT OF MONEY.
I DID THAT ON PURPOSE BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT THE ROAD IN EITHER.
BUT I WAS REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY.
NOW IT'S BECOME A STATE REGULATION TO REQUIRE THAT THEY HAVE TO.
CAN WE MAKE SURE, TOO, THAT YOU GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS JUST FOR THE RECORDS, PLEASE.
I LIVE AT 2797 25 MERCHANT HOPE ROAD.
I'VE BEEN BUILDING. I KNOW ONE OF THE GUYS.
HE'S A LAWYER FOR 55, BUT I'VE BEEN BUILDING HOUSES FOR 52.
THANK YOU. I'M TELLING MY AGE, BUT I KNEW YOUR DAD.
SO BASED ON WHAT MR. JONES JUST SAID, IF I CAN RELATE, BASED ON WHAT JOHN JUST SAID ABOUT THAT INFORMATION YOU JUST PROVIDED US, IS THAT ALLOWABLE TO HIM? I WOULD SUGGEST IF YOU WANT TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT SPOKEN, YOU COULD DO THAT.
BUT BEYOND THAT, IT'S YOUR DECISION ON HOW YOU'D LIKE THIS TO RUN.
OKAY. IT'S JUST A COMMENT BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WAS JUST PROVIDED.
SO THIS IS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED.
IT GOES TO WHAT WE'RE ALL SAYING.
SO WHAT WE'VE ALL BEEN SEEING IN THIS AREA.
WE DON'T CARE IF THEY PUT HOMES IN THERE.
AND THAT'S THE WHOLE THING THAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.
AND THAT'S BASED OFF THE INFORMATION THAT HE JUST PROVIDED ON HOW HE DID IT IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HE BUILT ALL AROUND IT, LIKE HALF INSTEAD OF QUARTER ACRE LOTS, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE A QUARTER ACRE LOTS.
THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T PUT THOSE INDIVIDUAL HOUSES THERE.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE QUARTER ACRE LOTS, NOT HALF ACRE LOTS.
OKAY. WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE WITH THE AGENDA.
I KNOW ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAD COME UP, TIM, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DECIDED WE SHOULD MOVE FOR LATER IS THE WAY THE ORDINANCE, THE REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR THOSE EMERGENCY ROADS.
COULD THE ROAD BE MARKED FOR EMERGENCY USE ONLY OR BE GATED? WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAD COME UP? OR DO WE KNOW OKAY, WE WOULD HAVE TO RESEARCH AND GET BACK TO YOU.
BUT I THINK I CAN SHED A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY ON THIS.
SO VDOT REQUIRES CONNECTIVITY.
SO THEY REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO SHOW CONNECTIVITY MORE THAN ONE ENTRANCE.
AND THEN THE DETAILS OF THAT VDOT CAN SPEAK TO AND I CANNOT SPEAK TO IS WITH CERTAINTY.
[01:35:05]
HOWEVER VDOT DID NOT REQUIRE THE TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THIS DEVELOPER TO USE THAT PARTICULAR ENTRANCE.THAT'S THE ENTRANCE THAT THIS THAT'S THE SECOND ACCESS POINT THAT THIS DEVELOPER PUT FORTH.
BUT VDOT REQUIRES CONNECTIVITY THAT DID NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE THAT PARTICULAR POINT OF ACCESS.
YES, I DO, I DO THINK THAT'S CORRECT.
IT IS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LOTS.
I'M SORRY. I DON'T KNOW WITH CERTAINTY BEYOND THAT.
I'M WITH THE ENGINEERING FIRM THAT DID THE CONCEPT PLAN SO I COULD SPEAK TO THAT.
THE APPLICANT COULD HAVE A CHANCE TO TO SPEAK TO THE MANY OF THE THINGS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP.
QUESTIONS. OKAY. YEAH, I THOUGHT WE WERE.
WELL, THIS IS A PUBLIC COMMENT.
SO AFTER THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS COMPLETED, THEN THE APPLICANT OR STAFF CAN BE READDRESSED WITH ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR TO ANSWER ANY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
SO I'M ANN MILLER, I'M A PLANNER WITH BALDWIN ASSOCIATES, AND WE'RE THE ENGINEERING FIRM THAT THE LUNSFORD FAMILY HIRED TO HELP THEM WITH THIS PROCESS AND DID THE CONCEPT PLAN, AS YOU'VE SEEN SHOWN.
SO TO TIM'S POINT, WE DO HAVE TO DO MULTIPLE CONNECTIONS AND MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS.
AND SO THAT IS A RECORDED STUB ROAD.
AND PER VDOT REGULATIONS YOU HAVE TO CONNECT TO RECORDED STUB OUT.
SO THAT'S WHY IT'S AT THAT LOCATION.
AND WE COULD NOT PICK ANOTHER LOCATION.
AND THEN WE HAVE TO HAVE A MAIN ACCESS TO MIDDLE ROAD AS SHOWN THERE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF CLARIFY THAT.
AND I KNOW THERE'S 76 LOTS IN BRICKHOUSE LANDING.
SO UNDER TODAY'S STANDARDS THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A SECOND ACCESS AS WELL.
I THINK IT WAS TO THE POINT EARLIER IT WAS PROBABLY DONE WITH THE COUNTY, BUT WITH THE 2011 SSR REGULATIONS, ANYTHING OVER 50 LOTS WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A SECOND ACCESS. BUT EVEN IF IT'S UNDER 50 LOTS, IF THERE'S A STUB OUT THAT YOU CONNECT TO, VDOT WANTS YOU TO CONNECT TO THAT AND PROVIDE THAT SECOND CONNECTIVITY.
SO WE ARE REZONING TO OUR TWO AND AND THAT'S WHAT THE COUNTY ALLOWS FOR.
AND THAT DISTRICT AND TO THE EARLIER POINTS.
YOU KNOW, IT JUST PEOPLE THE CURRENT AND FUTURE HOUSING MARKET ARE SHOWING.
LOTS OF PEOPLE WANT THE SMALLER LOTS.
YOU STILL GET A DETACHED UNIT.
SO IN ANY CASE, THAT WAS DONE IN 2002.
AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED BY SOME PEOPLE, IT ALSO ALLOWS ALL THE RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA AND WETLANDS THAT YOU SEE, ALL THE TOPOGRAPHY ON KIND OF THE AREAS TO REMAIN IN OPEN SPACE SO PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DISTURB THAT ON THEIR OWN.
IT'S ALL GOING TO BE MAINTAINED BY AN HOA THAT WOULD BE FORMED BY THE THE LOTS.
OKAY. ANY OTHER YOU'RE DONE A SITE VISIT.
ANY OF Y'ALL UP THERE ARE GOING TO BE VOTING.
IF Y'ALL PHYSICALLY GO INTO BRICK HOUSE LANE AND DO A SITE VISIT.
YES. WHERE ARE THEY? I KNOW I HAVE.
DO YOU ALL THINK A ROAD CAN GO THROUGH THERE? THIS IS GOING TO MATCH THE REST OF THE ROADS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING. ALL THE ROADS WILL BE PUBLIC AND HAVE TO BE YOU KNOW, WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, THEY'LL ALL HAVE TO BE DONE BY AN ENGINEER, APPROVED, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY VDOT.
SO THEY'LL HAVE TO MEET ALL THE VDOT STANDARDS.
SO THEY'LL HAVE TO BE BUILT TO THE PUBLIC ROAD STANDARDS.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PRESERVING THE WILDLIFE AND THE RULE OF OF THE AREA THERE.
WHEN DOCTOR BRICKHOUSE OWNED THAT PROPERTY, I FARMED IT.
SO IT WAS WENT FROM FARMLAND TO HOUSING.
YEAH, I THINK TO THE POINT EARLIER, TOO.
[01:40:06]
HAVE TODAY ON THEIR LAND.I DON'T KNOW HOW ALL THE SPECIAL, THE DETAILS STUCK IN MY HEAD, BUT I KNOW THAT WE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH REPORTS THAT VDOT AND THE COUNTY HAVE ALREADY AGREED AND APPROVED FOR ROUNDABOUTS TO BE INSTALLED ON BOTH ENDS OF MIDDLE ROAD, WHERE IT CONNECTS TO BOTH.
I DON'T THINK IT'S AT BOTH ENDS.
TIM, CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT? AND WAS IT APPROVED? JEFFERSON PARK? WELL, FIRST, I KNOW JEFFERSON PARK WAS APPROVED FIRST, BUT I THOUGHT THAT JULIE HAD PRESENTED TO US THAT THE SECOND ONE, GRANT HAD BEEN RECEIVED TO BE ABLE TO ALSO PUT ONE AT 156 END.
THERE ARE VARIOUS PROJECTS IN VARIOUS DIFFERENT STAGES.
OKAY. SO BASICALLY, JUST TO POINT THAT OUT TO YOU SO THAT, YOU KNOW THAT THEY THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF WORK BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND VDOT TO FOCUS ON THE ROADS AND THE TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA.
AND I WOULD ADD THAT THE PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE MIDDLE ROAD IS IN THE SIX YEAR PLAN.
SO THAT MEANS THAT ONE IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
OKAY. THEY'RE BOTH GOING TO HAPPEN.
IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO MOBILIZE EVERYTHING.
BUT THEY HAVE ACTUALLY ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND THE FUNDING HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE.
CORRECT. I THINK, AGAIN, THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT SOMEONE HAD BROUGHT UP THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE HAD LOOKED AT, LOOKED INTO ALSO BASED OFF OF A COMMENT WE PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED.
THAT'S OUR CONCERN, RIGHT? AND LIKE I SAID, WE WE CAN RECEIVE WE WILL RECEIVE MORE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
AND I'M SURE YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPER BASED OFF OF THEIR, YOU KNOW, THEIR WILLINGNESS TO TRY TO WORK, YOU KNOW, TO SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME FURTHER CLARIFICATIONS ON WHAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE.
YOU KNOW, COULD IT BE FOR EMERGENCY USE ONLY? COULD IT HAVE A GATE ON IT? YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE QUESTIONS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND CLARIFY WITH VDOT AND THE COUNTY OR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO LOOK INTO TO SEE WHAT THOSE OPTIONS, YOU KNOW, ARE. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN MADE VERY OBVIOUS TO US THAT THE INTENT IS THERE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE MORE THAN WILLING TO TRY TO WORK WITH THAT AS LONG AS IT'S ALLOWED. THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO ADHERE TO THE VDOT REQUIREMENTS TO, TO TIE INTO THE ADJOINING COMMUNITY.
I MEAN, WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO TURN AND HAVE TO ZIGZAG THROUGH BRICK HOUSE LANDING INSTEAD OF JUST GOING STRAIGHT TO MIDDLE ROAD? BUT, I MEAN, I CAN UNDERSTAND IN ANY SUBDIVISION, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'VE GOT ONE ROAD IN, WE ACTUALLY HAVE THIS IN OUR SUBDIVISION.
YOU'VE GOT ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT.
IF YOU GET A FIRE, THERE'S NO WAY FOR ANYBODY TO GET IN OR OUT.
SO THERE HAS TO BE, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER ACCESS POINT IN CASE OF EMERGENCIES.
YOU KNOW, BUT I THINK THAT'S THE INTENT ACROSS FROM VDOT AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPER AND EVERYONE ELSE.
IS THAT IT NOT BE A THOROUGHFARE? IT WOULD BE AN EMERGENCY SECOND BACKUP EMERGENCY ACCESS USE.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE LIMITATIONS ARE AS TO WHAT CAN BE DONE.
IS THAT NOT A FACTOR? I MEAN, IT COMES OUT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REGULATION.
I AND I MENTIONED IT A COUPLE OF TIMES.
I THOUGHT SOMEBODY WOULD SAY SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS, WHY IT'S IN THERE, AND WHY AREN'T WE FOLLOWING IT? I HAVEN'T HEARD A WORD FROM ANY OF YOU ABOUT THAT.
THIS STAFF HAVE A COMMENT AS TO.
I THINK THE QUESTION IS WHY DID WE SAY IT WAS COMPATIBLE? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, DEFINE COMPATIBILITY.
OKAY. SO WE DO AS A NEUTRAL OF A REVIEW AS WE CAN.
WE LOOKED AT THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL USE NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL USES.
SO WE SAID YES IT'S COMPATIBLE.
BEYOND THAT IT'S UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD TO DECIDE IF IT'S COMPATIBLE.
ULTIMATELY THIS IS JUST HOW STAFF LOOKED AT IT.
SO SO YOU TOOK A LOOK AT COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THESE TWO AREAS.
CORRECT. AND SAID THAT THAT THIS ZONE OF R-2 IS COMPATIBLE TO RV.
[01:45:08]
THAT'S WHAT YOU.YEAH. THIS WAS THE STAFF REPORT.
CAN Y'ALL LOOK WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, CAN Y'ALL LOOK AT THE WHOLE ZONING FOR THAT AREA.
BECAUSE IT'S R E R E R E AND YEAH.
SO YOU GOT I GUESS YOU GOT TO SEE THE BIG PICTURE.
YEAH. I'M SORRY, BUT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO CONTAIN, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC.
AND AT THIS STEP OF THE MEETING, YOU KNOW, IT'S STRICTLY IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT WE WANT, CLARIFICATIONS BASED OFF OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR STAFF OR THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE THE DEVELOPER AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE FILING IN FOR THE REQUEST.
SO AT THIS POINT, DO THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR STAFF FOR EITHER EITHER STAFF OR THE DEVELOPER REQUESTING? NO.
NOW WE'RE TO THE POINT THEN, THAT I NEED TO KNOW IF ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS WANT TO MAKE ENOUGH QUESTIONS ANSWERED TO VOTE ON IT OR POSTPONE IT.
YOU KNOW, UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.
ARE YOU COMFORTABLE? IT'S FINE. I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION.
I GUESS AT THIS POINT, WE JUST NEED A MOTION.
AND THE REASON FOR THIS RECOMMENDATION IS I BELIEVE THAT IT WILL GENERALLY BENEFIT THE WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY AND PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING TO BECOME FIRST TIME HOMEOWNERS. ROLL CALL.
I'LL SECOND. Y'ALL CAN VOTE ON THIS WITHOUT THE OTHER PEOPLE HERE.
YES, MA'AM. THE QUORUM IS THERE.
SHOULDN'T YOU GET CLARITY FROM VDOT BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT THE ZONING? YOU SAID IT IS STILL OUT.
WE CAN'T HAVE THE PUBLIC AT THIS POINT.
WE NEED TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE PROTOCOL.
WE'VE HAD A MOTION AND WE'VE HAD THE MOTION SECONDED.
SO WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A ROLL CALL FOR THE COMMISSIONERS.
YOU STILL NEED MORE INFORMATION? NO. HOW CAN YOU VOTE ON THIS? DID YOU ASK FOR A ROLL CALL? YES. OKAY.
MISS ANDERSON? YES. MR. BRESKO. YES.
OH. WHY DID WE HAVE THIS MEETING? MR. WOMACK? YES. YOUR POCKETS ARE LINED.
THIS ISN'T GOING TO STOP HERE.
THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD.
SO THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
THIS WILL GO TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL MAKE A DECISION AFTER HOLDING ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ATTEND THAT HEARING WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
YOU STILL HAVE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO RESEARCH.
OUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IS FOR REZONING AMENDMENT RC 2407.
OKAY. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET MOVING ON THIS ONE.
THIS IS THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE PROFFERED CONDITIONS OF REZONING CASE RC 12 ZERO ONE.
IT'S LOCATED ON JEFFERSON PARK ROAD.
AND THE COMP PLAN SAYS IT'S PLANNED FOR COMMERCIAL USE.
HERE'S A HERE'S A MAP OF THE PROPERTY.
THE LIGHT BLUE LINE IS THE ACTUAL PROPERTY THAT WAS REZONED IN 2011, 2012.
PLEASE, CAN WE HAVE EVERYBODY WHO'S NOT STAYING AROUND FOR THIS?
[01:50:03]
LEAVE THE ROOM, PLEASE.SORRY TO GET IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT ONE, BUT.
THE LIGHT BLUE LINE IS THE LAND THAT WAS REZONED IN 2011, AND THE DARK BLUE LINE IS LAND THAT WAS PROMISED TO THE COUNTY FOR A FIRE STATION PARCEL AS PART OF THAT REZONING REQUEST BACK IN 2011.
THE MAP HERE SHOWS THAT THOSE THOSE LINES AGAIN, YOU'VE GOT THE RED IS THE B1 ZONED LAND.
THAT WAS THE LAND THAT WAS REZONED IN THE PAST.
AND THEN AGAIN, THE DARK BLUE OUTLINED AREA WAS NOT REZONED AT THE TIME, BUT IT WAS RELEVANT TO THAT CASE BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER PROPOSED TO PROVIDE THAT PARCEL TO THE COUNTY FOR A FIRE STATION IN THE FUTURE.
SO EARLIER THIS YEAR, THE BOARD AUTHORIZED THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST TO AMEND THE PROFFERS TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE ANY PROFFERS NEED TO HAVE BE ANY CHANGES TO PROFFERS NEED TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
AND SO THEY'VE DONE THAT EVEN THOUGH THE BOARD HAS ALREADY SIGNALED SUPPORT.
YES, A PROFFER AMENDMENT REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD.
SO THE AGAIN, THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND PROFFER NUMBER NINE OF THE REZONING CASE, RC 12 ZERO ONE WHICH WAS AN AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING CASE FROM 2011.
TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO CONVEY A PARCEL TO THE COUNTY FOR A FIRE STATION.
THIS IS THE EXACT CHANGE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.
IT WOULD DELETE THE NEED TO CONVEY A PARCEL, IT WOULD RETAIN A PROFFERED PAYMENT FOR A FUTURE PAYMENT. ONCE THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE ALL OTHER EXISTING PROPERTIES WOULD REMAIN IN EFFECT WITH NO CHANGES.
THIS WAS ADVERTISED AS A PUBLIC HEARING.
WE DID ADVERTISE IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS.
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT THIS REZONING AMENDMENT REQUEST.
SO THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
YOU DO HAVE JUSTIFICATION FROM THE BOARD SAYING THAT THEY'RE OKAY WITH THIS HAPPENING.
SO I'D LIKE TO ASK HIM TO COME UP AND JUST SAY HI AGAIN.
AND IF HE WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING, THAT'S GREAT.
FAMILY SAYS KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT, BUT SOMETIMES I CAN'T.
I DID OFFER THAT PIECE OF LAND TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUT IT WAS IN EXCHANGE, THEY WERE GOING TO TEAR DOWN THE EXISTING FIRE STATION, AND I WAS GOING TO GET THAT LAND BECAUSE I OWNED THE LAND, ALL THE PROPERTY, THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY UP AND DOWN.
AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY HAD GROUNDBREAKING.
THEY HIRED AN ARCHITECT, WHICH HAPPENED TO BE MY SECOND COUSIN, AND THEY HE CALLED ME AND SAID, WHAT ARE THEY DOING DOWN THERE? THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND ABOUT $12 MILLION.
AND ONCE IT GOT DOWN TO IT, THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BUILD THE FIRE STATION.
THEY HAD GROUNDBREAKING CEREMONIES.
THEY PAID AN ENGINEER TO DO THE ENGINEERING WORK.
FOR FIVE YEARS I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GO THROUGH THAT 2 OR 3 PLANNERS.
I MEAN, YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE WHAT I WAS GOING THROUGH.
I WANTED TO GIVE IT TO THE COUNTY.
I JUST WANT TO HAVE FREEDOM FOR MY PROPERTY.
AND I THINK EVERYBODY IS IN AGREEMENT THAT IT SHOULD BE DONE.
AND AS THIS OTHER FIASCO, I HAD TO SPEAK ABOUT SOMETHING.
AND ALSO IF YOU HAVE A DUAL ENTRY INTO A SUBDIVISION.
YOU CAN PUT MORE HOUSES ON IT LIKE A PARKWAY.
THAT'S WHY BRICK HOUSE HAS A PARKWAY.
I DIDN'T WANT TO GET UP AND SAY ANYTHING MORE ABOUT IT, BUT THAT'S MY THAT'S MY STORY.
OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU GOT? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? STAFF. WHY DOES IT SAY SITE SIZE 16.3 ACRES.
IT'S JUST BECAUSE THAT WAS THE.
THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL. THE OLD AMOUNT.
YES, SIR. ALL OF IT THAT WAS REZONED.
[01:55:01]
SO THE PEOPLE. THE PART IN THE BACK IS R2.CORRECT. I'M ALMOST POSITIVE IT'S THE ONES I WAS PLANNING ON BEING IN.
FOR TOWNHOUSES. AND WE HAD ALL THAT APPROVED.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS APPROVED, BUT THE ACTUAL SIZE IS 3.33 ACRES.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO GIVE THE COUNTY.
AND THAT'S WHAT THEY ASKED FOR.
OKAY. TO BUILD A FIRE DEPARTMENT.
AND THEY DECIDED THEY DIDN'T WANT IT.
YEP. I'M GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, WE HAVE A MOTION.
OH, YEAH. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
SORRY. I EVEN WROTE MYSELF A NOTE.
SO AT THIS TIME, WE'LL HAVE TO OPEN THIS UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, PERIOD.
IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND HAVE ANY COMMENTS RELATED TO THIS MATTER, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU'LL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.
ALL RIGHT. NO ONE IS MAKING ANY MOVEMENT, SIR.
ARE YOU COMING TO SPEAK? NO, I'M NOT GOING TO WASTE MY BREATH.
THE DECISION ALREADY BEEN MADE.
IT MAKES SENSE FOR YOU TO MOVE FIRE STATION, OR PUT A FIRE STATION, OR TEAR DOWN ONE AND MOVE ONE.
I DON'T NEED TO WASTE. I DON'T NEED TO SAY ANYTHING.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
PERIOD. NOBODY COMING APPROACHING THE PODIUM.
I MOVED IF I WERE TO REQUEST RC 2407 TO THE BOARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
THAT RECOMMENDATION WILL GO TO THE BOARD.
WHERE WILL IT GO? JUST A MOMENT.
YEAH, WE'VE GOT IT. WE'VE GOT IT SET FOR DECEMBER 10TH.
[COMMUNICATIONS]
COMMUNICATIONS UPDATES FROM STAFF.I'M JUST GOING TO REFER TO THE AGENDA UNDER COMMUNICATIONS TO SEE WHAT TO COVER HERE.
ACTIONS. THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
THERE WERE NONE. THERE WAS NO CASE THIS MONTH.
THERE IS A CASE SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER.
ACTIONS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, THERE WEREN'T ANY PLANNING PUBLIC HEARINGS ON NOVEMBER 13TH.
MISS MISS PUDLO GAVE A PRESENTATION ABOUT ZONING DISTRICTS AND BY RIGHT, USES AT THAT MEETING.
SO IF YOU WANTED TO WATCH THAT ONE LATER, YOU COULD.
UPCOMING CASES FOR DECEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION.
TWO OF THOSE CHAPTERS WENT TO THE WERE REPORTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN SEPTEMBER, AND WE'VE JUST BEEN WORKING WITH THE CONSULTANT ON SOME CHANGES SOME REVISIONS.
SO THOSE WILL BE GOING OUT TO THE PUBLIC.
AS, AS ACTUALLY ALL FOUR OF THOSE CHAPTERS.
CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
THAT'S THE OTHER MAIN PROJECT THAT WE'RE WORKING, SPECIAL PROJECT THAT WE'RE WORKING ON.
AT THE WORK SESSION EARLIER THIS WEEK, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECEIVED A REPORT.
[02:00:01]
THAT REPORT A COPY OF THAT REPORT IS IN THIS MEETING PACKET FOR THIS THIS MONTH'S MEETING THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY IN.THAT MEETING PACKET INCLUDED A SUMMARY OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ABOUT THE TOPIC OF RESIDENTIAL CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION LISTENED TO THE REPORT AND SAW THE REPORT THAT WAS IN THE MATERIALS.
SOME MORE INFORMATION WILL BE PROVIDED TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP THAT WILL BE PROVIDED NEXT MONTH TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE TO CONSIDER WHETHER IT'S READY TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD.
DOES THAT LINE UP WITH WHAT EVERYONE RECALLS.
SO THAT'S THAT'S STAFF'S UPDATE ON SPECIAL PROJECTS.
DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANTED TO ASK OR COMMENT OR REQUEST FROM STAFF? NO, NO, NO.
ALL RIGHT. I MOVE THAT CAN I IS IT OKAY.
MOTION TO ADJOURNMENT. CAN I MOTION TO ADJOURN.
MR. LAMACCHIA? YES. ALL RIGHT.
OKAY. THREE PEOPLE CHECKING OUT.
THREE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.