MINUTES OF THE STRASBURG PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 2006, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL.
Planning Commission members present: Chairman Smith, and Commissioners Crisman, Elliott, Howard, Kepler, Terndrup, and Whittle. Absent: Commissioner Elliott. Others present: Town Manager Fauber, Town Planner Amos, Vice Mayor Nicholson, and Council Member Carl Rinker
Chairman Smith asked, because of the large crowd, if you wished to speak, to please be concise and brief and to not repeat what previous speakers had said.
Robert Mangus, owner of property at 395 N. Massanutten Street was in attendance with his neighbors, Eileen McGowen of 398 N. Massanutten Street, and Josh and Daisy Nuckells of 383 N. Massanutten Street.
We request consideration in extending the C-1 zoning further north along the west side of Massanutten. The west side of Massanutten is 15 feet from the Adventist Church and the C-1 district.
Dear ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission, two years ago I made requests on behalf of myself and my neighbors who are present this evening that we be included in the C-1 commercial district. I brought to the Council’s attention several observations that have affected our properties uniquely. As the Valley Pike traffic grew over the years, the road was widened to the west only as it was the least expensive option. Unlike our neighbors to the east, we do not have the benefit of 50’ of frontage, nor 20’ of elevation, or even the safety of a sidewalk. (Mr. Mangus showed pictures of the houses being discussed and homes across the street with elevation). I pointed out that our properties were no longer viewed as residentially desirable. Each of us, being only 8.5 feet from the curb and directly at street level are daily faced with the noise and air pollution of the continually growing traffic. (Mr. Mangus showed a picture of the swing on his porch that he con no longer use because of pollution). Our neighbors to the east have a continuous residential connection four blocks south to the main street. The C-l district on our side stops at our doorstep along with the sidewalk. We are zoned residential, but in effect we share the same characteristics as the C-1 district, including high volume commercial traffic and street proximity. Two years ago, the Council gave me three replies: 1) it’s not in our current plans; 2) we want to maintain a buffer between the old business district and the new business district; and 3) Rob, build out the back of your house where it is quieter. We no longer want to be seen as the “buffer zone,” but rather the “inviting zone.” Our homes may no longer be residentially desirable any longer, but are, with their easy street access and parking accessibility, strategically set to be an asset to the Strasburg business district and the gateway to “Old Town Strasburg.”
Sincerely, Rob Mangus, Eileen McGowen, and Josh and Daisy Nuckells”
Chairman Smith said the information given in the packets basically indicated that you wished to change your property to a duplex and now he is hearing you would like it to be rezoned C-1. Mr. Mangus said it is two different issues. (No information had been submitted to Staff for a rezoning, just the duplex). Commissioner Howard pointed out it was for input on a possible rezoning.
Commissioner Terndrup asked if the duplex was no longer an option. Mr. Mangus said it is still an option, but is not the purpose for speaking before the Commission tonight.
Commissioner Elliott asked what types of businesses were being considered. Mr. Mangus said, “Well we feel, if our options are extended to us on that side of Massanutten , then our property would be more commercially viable. We see the character of our homes being old and fairly historic and would lend themselves to some sort of small retail, at least that option, antique stores, something that would be attractive to the character of the houses. We have high visibility, as you saw, that would work for us as commercial; there’s no one between us as far as the C-1 district --- it stops right next to us.”
Chairman Smith asked if the C-1 district went that far. Planner Amos said she didn’t have that information in front of her, but knew it came to the garage/antique shop. Mr. Mangus said he was going by the information that said churches were listed under C-1. Planner Amos said she didn’t believe the church is in the commercial district. Chairman Smith agreed with this as he remembered the prior discussion where the Commissioners didn’t want to do “spot zoning.” Now, the neighbors have joined in with Mr. Mangus.
Chairman Smith said, “Given the location and residential nature of the area, both across the street and surrounding you, I would not be inclined to want rezone that area to commercial.” He said when he had gone to look at the property he was considering the house being used as a duplex and not a commercial building. He also only looked at Mr. Mangus’ house and not surrounding homes; he was looking at it with something different in mind. He would have to go back and reconsider, but his first inclination would be to deny it as he doesn’t feel it is an appropriate use for that area. Mr. Mangus asked for Chairman Smith to “give me feedback with regard to my input as to why that would be your inclination.” Chairman Smith said basically everything around these properties would not lead to a good use for commercial. He added parking could be an issue; ingress and egress could be an issue because of the street. Mr. Mangus said he and the neighbors have talked about the parking and that would not be a problem as they have generous property, easy access on both sides and an empty lot on another side; very easy turn-around. Mr. Mangus asked if Chairman Smith would like to meet him to discuss this and Chairman Smith said that would be fine, but it is good to talk to the entire Commission. Commissioner Kepler suggested Mr. Mangus submit a rezoning application with the plats shown, etc., instead of a duplex application.
David Lellock, Urban Engineering, representing the Fairfield Inns of Strasburg: Mr. Lellock said they have been working with Town Staff on the plans and addressing any comments from agencies.
Chairman Smith asked if the plans given to the Commission take into consideration the comments from Town Staff and agencies. Mr. Lellock said most of the concerns had been addressed on the plans, but they were still “tweaking” the plans a bit.
Commissioner Whittle said the applicant had come in requesting a drive-through, but he sees this will probably not be used, but will be a walk-up window. Mr. Scott Rosenfeld, owner of the property, said it will be neither a drive-thru nor a walk-up.
Chairman Smith said the zoning of the surrounding properties need to be shown. Commissioner Kepler said the bearings and distances of the boundaries are needed between the Fairfield Inn and the commercial building. Chairman Smith questioned the locations of the signs and Mr. Lellock pointed out where these are located on the plans. Commissioner Kepler said signs could be addressed during the Entrance Corridor Review. Chairman Smith also questioned the width of the parking spaces. Planner Amos said the ordinance had been changed to allow 9’ parking spaces at hotels and 10’ at the commercial building.
Commissioner Kepler discussed the storm water management and he said he likes the underground storage. He asked if there had been any outfall evaluation done downstream to make sure the water is not running down the side of the hill or that there isn’t any erosion that could happen. Mr. Lellock said this was discussed with Mr. Hepner of Shenandoah County E & S Department and it doesn’t show on the overall grading sheet, which will be revised, but they have added level spreaders to those areas to help spread water out so it will be a more natural flow.
Commission Kepler asked about the grates shown to be used at inlets dropping directly into the structures. He is concerned with pedestrian traffic on the type of grates proposed. Mr. Lellock said they will look into using smaller grates. Commissioner Kepler discussed the sub-surface storm water control and the concern of runoff; he asked if Mr. Lellock had any measures for keeping the debris, etc., out of the structures before it gets to it --- any maintenance requirements. Mr. Lellock said with the site being as tight as it is, it will be hard to maintain this before it actually gets into the structure, but they can look at some sort of maintenance to take care of this within the structure itself; Commissioner Kepler thinks this would be a good idea.
Commissioner Kepler said that sanitary structure C which goes across the front of the commercial building appears to have an extension into the grass island. Mr. Lellock explained this was “designed for the possibility of, as the adjoining property and Hite Lane are developed, there may be the ability to put some sort of small stand there and that way we can have sanitary and water that could be tied into.” He said it is a future precautionary. Commissioner Kepler explained to Mr. Lellock his concerns on this.
Commissioner Kepler said this is in the overlay district and the lighting requirements must be followed. They will “need to have no more than .5’ candles at the property lines; I see that there are poles showing lighting and you have a little bit of information on there. It would be most helpful for a lighting study be done showing us that the lights --- give pole information and light information and a light study to show us you are meeting that ordinance.” Mr. Lellock said he will look into this.
Commissioner Kepler questioned the sidewalk running in front of both parcels and said in front of the hotel, the sidewalk stops short of the curb and gutter. Mr. Lellock explained this is where the existing driveway for the adjoining parcel is located and they have tried to move the driveway off of their parcel and they have not been totally successful in this. “So, if we were to extend the sidewalk, it would be right through the middle of the driveway so we decided to stop it short so it wouldn’t get broken up until such time as it is extended.” Commissioner Kepler asked if Town Staff had a problem with this as sidewalks are wanted in this area and this will leave about 25’ that the Town could have to construct later. Planner Amos will discuss this with Director of Public Works Rhodes and said maybe they could ask for an escrow for a certain amount of time and if it doesn’t develop, the escrow amount could be returned. Commissioner Kepler asked about the way the sidewalk swings in front of the commercial building; Mr. Lellock said they decided to pull it back in anticipation of future road improvements at Hite Lane on Route 11.
Commissioner Kepler said there should be some ingress and egress easement so the public can use it.
Commissioner Kepler said the curb and gutter along the “face of the commercial building not being installed --- you have the curb and gutter stopping at the return of the entrance --- not being installed because of the turn lane?” He thinks this should be included in the bond amount to make sure the Town has the ability to pay for this if the turn lane is not developed. He also questioned the three islands and Mr. Lellock said they will be removed and seeded.
Mr. Lellock said the property line that splits the commercial building will be abandoned.
In conclusion, Commissioner Kepler recommended to Staff to require a performance bond.
Commissioner Terndrup said the Fairfield Inn is four stories high and she questioned if the ordinance only calls for three stories. Planner Amos said commercial buildings can be 60’. Mr. Gosnell with Fairfield Inns said the height would be ~44’ total.
Chairman Smith said to make sure the overhang at the hotel is high enough for emergency vehicles.
Commissioner Howard asked about the signage on the building itself. Planner Amos said the site plan ordinance says to show any signage, but this will be reviewed in the entrance corridor review. It was stated there will be a sign over the entrance and on both ends. Mr. Lellock is to provide Planner Amos with copies of the signs.
Chairman Smith said with the number of changes requested, he would be inclined to wait until the next Worksession for any further discussion. Commissioner Kepler feels it can go on the agenda as these are addressable issues. Mr. Lellock was told the revisions would need to be submitted by 2 p.m. on Friday, April 21. This will be put on the agenda for a vote.
Chairman Smith said Council Member Rinker was signed up to speak on this and wanted to know if he wished to add any comments. Council Member Rinker said he could not as his firm is working on the project.
Chairman Smith said, “What we are charged with on this is the Town Council has basically asked us to make a recommendation as to which master plan is the one that should be approved. We have basically master plans 1 through 5, I believe is the last designation we have; each one a little different from the rest.”
Al Davis, 180 Tyler Circle, Strasburg, VA: “As you’ve mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we’ve had about 4 or 5 plans submitted on this project and all have this in common: as presented they all show a violation of the zoning ordinance in that lots must front on public streets. And, you can wonder if there is some strategy involved here, whether there’s a hope that the Town officials will become so sick and tired of seeing this thing that they may vote to approve it just to get it out of the way. Of course, it won’t go away. If the plan is adopted in violation of the ordinance, then any zoning or other permits that are issued are by section 5 -6.1 of the ordinance null and void if they don’t conform to the ordinance. The bottom line is the ordinance is very clear on this --- there’s no wiggle room; there’s no ambiguity; lots must front on a public street. If the plan doesn’t conform to this, I don’t see that there’s any option but to reject the application. Thank you.”
Carl Rinker, 74 Philips Court, Strasburg, VA: Mr. Rinker said he has been to the site several times and he was at the meeting when this was discussed and he is still concerned about the street frontage. He doesn’t totally understand the differences between the zoning ordinances and the subdivision regulations. He has concerns about the lot lines of the townhouses going to the center of the streets, and he doesn’t agree with this even though other localities he has checked with allow this, also. He is most concerned with safety of the children --- who is responsible for their safety. Also, he is concerned with the fire and rescue vehicles being able to reach these units. “The jury is kind of out with me yet on this thing as to really how to attack it or how to handle it. I’m going to sort of defer to you all to make a good recommendation to us, Town Council and the citizens here, on how to handle it.” He said he heard what the attorney, Mr. Butler, said and “the more people threaten me, the more intense I become about doing something so I really didn’t take what he said yet as a threat; I think he was pointing out some very good points about it. Mr. Mislowsky made a couple of points about it. I’m going to remain neutral here until I hear what you, as Commissioners, have to say about this and then I’ll try to make a good judgement call based on what you folks think…Thank you.”
Ron Mislowsky, PHR&A, representing the applicant: “We’re back again with, as you mentioned, another version of the master plan. I think I may have heard something different from what you (Chairman Smith) heard at the Council meeting. You indicated you were going to pick which one of the plans you thought best met the requirements and recommend that to Council. I think Council said we should focus on the last one submitted and work on variations of that; I think they referred to it as master plan #5. We have submitted a revision to that based on comments received at the Town Council meeting so we are working on master plan #5, revised in the last week. I think there’s been some jest made about calling them master plan 1 through 4 and 5, and I think part of that may be that we’re trying to create a master plan that the Town can approve at different public hearings. We’re not getting a list of comments on a master plan that we address and then re-submit; we keep working through this process at every meeting so it has been a little difficult and I’m not trying to make any excuses, I’m just trying to explain why this process has gone on like it has. I think we’ve tried our best to satisfy the Commission and Council comments and we’ve made changes along the way; we’ve learned a little bit about what is required of the master plan along the way; and we’ve done our best to satisfy the requirements of Council, Commission, and also meet the requirements of the plan that was approved with the proffers. I think it is important to note that while you can go through the ordinance and pick out different requirements in different areas, the PD section of the ordinance says that townhouses will be developed in accordance with section 3-10 of the zoning ordinance and we’ve done that. The zoning ordinance does not require public streets for townhouse developments; there is no mention of that requirement in section 3-10 which covers townhouse developments. So we think our plan meets the requirements of the ordinance, in fact exceeds the requirements of the ordinance as now presented. We know there’s some disagreement on that in the Commission, but we’ll continue to try to work through these with you to the best of our abilities. I’ll answer any question you may have. Thank you.”
Chairman Smith said he knows Mr. Mislowsky is putting his best effort into the revisions to the plans as you get comments and he appreciates that even though it has been confusing at times. Chairman Smith then asked if he “mis-spoke” at the beginning of this item --- did he misinterpret what the Council was asking. Commissioner Howard said he believes Council Member Himelright asked the Commission to work off of version #5. Commissioner Crisman said he remembered it this way also. A few minutes later Town Manager Fauber read from the minutes and said the motion by Council Member Taylor to send the latest version of Cedar Valley master plan back to the Planning Commission. (The Commissioners discussed which master plan they felt should be looked at and why while the motion in the minutes was being located). The master plan to be looked at is Master Plan #5, with a revision date of April 12, 2006.
Commissioner Whittle said another item that had been brought up at the Council meeting was about legal advice and he was wondering if anything had gone forward with that --- legal advice as to what the ordinance says about the street. Commissioner Crisman said he thinks it was asked that there be some direction from Council towards the Commission concerning public versus private streets; “you didn’t get that direction so I think we as Planning Commissioners do what we’re going to do with this plan and suggest what we feel is appropriate there.” Commissioner Howard pointed out there are private streets at Hupp’s Ridge, “the PD ordinance came after Hupp’s Ridge and any other developments that have private streets and with the Town Code indicating no private streets, I don’t know why we should have to follow something that those who were working on the PD and the Town Code since then feel was a bad idea.” He would not want the Commission to go forward with private streets or parking lots that are named; I think we need public streets.
Chairman Smith said they now need to look at the master plan and make a recommendation to the Town Council. Commissioner Whittle asked if this was just for a recommendation or would it be voting it up or down and giving it back to Council to move forward. Commissioner Crisman said it is a recommendation, but a recommendation requires a vote.
Planner Amos said if the plan is not meeting the code that Mr. Davis spoke about, she doesn’t see how the Council can approve it and this could be a recommendation from the Commission to the Council.
Commissioner Crisman said he is thinking the recommendation is to not to approve it for “these” reasons and then specify the reasons. Chairman Smith agreed.
Specifics:
Commissioner Kepler said Mr. Mislowsky did a good job of addressing many of the concerns. Obviously, the street is still an issue. He is still in favor “of the original layout that the Planning Commission approved with the looped subdivision roads and the cluster type townhouse units; I’m not a fan of what’s been in numbers 2 -5. I think it doesn’t flow well; I think it doesn’t operate well; and I just have issues with it. But, we’ve got what we have in front of us. I still think it should be a public street.” He said you have a planned development that has commercial, townhouses, and single family --- how is this processed? Is it processed as a subdivision or a site plan? Which regulations do you follow? He said there are conflicting ordinances and regulations. He said there had been a comment made at previous meetings about rear setbacks on townhouses being 35’ and it is still shown as 30’. He had asked for a breakdown of open space where this is actually shown on the plan and a table has been added, but he would still like to see the breakdown. The street landscaping for the townhouses --- the plans showed ~1,400’ for trees and that should actually be doubled to accommodate both sides of the street.
Planner Amos questioned Commissioner Kepler about the 35’ requirement for rear setbacks as she believes it is a 30’ requirement. Commissioner Terndrup said the amendments in the zoning booklet show it as 35’. Planner Amos and Town Manager Fauber said all of their books show 30’; she knows the ordinance had been changed previously because of conflicts between R-3 and 3-10.
Chairman Smith said he has a true concern in approving this master plan if there are violations of the ordinances, and he believes there are such violations. If it is approved in the master plan, “I think the developer could use that and say the Town Council has given a variance because this is the master plan and this is what needs to be followed.” He thinks it needs to be looked at very closely and the details focused on closely. “My recommendation to the Town Council would be for not approving this; if we want to move on the master development plan, let’s deal with this; let’s get everything taken care of; let’s resolve the private streets versus public streets problem; and then we can move forward.”
Commissioner Terndrup said Commissioner Whittle had brought up the issue concerning the Comprehensive Plan calling for no strip development; the townhouses are definitely against the Comprehensive Plan and this needs to be taken into consideration. She read from the zoning booklet that “the purpose of this section (Planned Development District) is to allow flexibility for land which is held in single ownership or is under unified control to be planned and developed as a whole, either as one development or in a definitely programmed series of development phases.” She doesn’t see where that allows you to sell off the commercial --- “it says as a whole so if we sell the commercial, it’s not planned development.” Chairman Smith said he’s not an attorney, but he doesn’t see where this would prohibit the pieces being sold off as long as the overall master plan is met. Commissioner Kepler said planned development is “an allowable option for an entity to come in and get this land mass and say this is what we want to do to it…and do the rezoning in one phase and say this is my project and then as they find buyers, they can come out and split these parcels out.” Commissioner Terndrup doesn’t think that is what the ordinance is saying, the way she is reading it. Chairman Smith said this makes it even more important that the master development plan is followed completely. Commissioner Kepler said you can’t expect it to remain single ownership, but Commissioner Terndrup said it says while it is being developed. Commissioner Kepler said this is a loose term and it could be a discussion for the ordinance committee.
Commissioner Howard said he thinks it would be good to see a comparison between the five plans so they can see how many units each plan presents because “quite honestly I would hope that we would not approve anything not more than we saw originally and I thought, even then, that was too much; less is more, as far as I’m concerned.” Chairman Smith said he can put together the comparison, but they are to look at the master plan #5 and he thinks direct comments need to be given on what is good or what is bad.
It was decided to add this to the agenda as an action item. Commissioner Kepler asked if they should submit their concerns in writing to someone so they have a document to work from. Commissioner Crisman thinks this would be a good idea to attach this to whatever recommendation is given so they can clearly understand where the Planning Commission is coming from. Planner Amos told the Commissioners to email their comments to her and she would put them together and include it in the packet on Friday.
Mr. Mislowsky asked if the Planning Commission wanted any more changes to be made the master plan in relation to comments made tonight; Chairman Smith feels it would be best for him to wait and he thinks everything that is wrong with the master plan needs to be listed.
Clay Athey, attorney representing Madison Development Associates: “I actually represent, just with respect to this project, Madison Development Associates. With me tonight to answer any technical questions is Mr. Maddox, who I think you all know very well, and in addition to that, the corporate counsel from Madison Development Associates, LLC, Mr. Kevin Rose is here; there was an issue that came up at the last meeting about who actually were the owners of Madison Associates and I wanted to clear that up once and for all and so I requested the corporate counsel be here as well. In addition to that, a representative from Dewberry and Davis, who is the Town’s consultant on the floodplain study, I also asked that he attend in case there were any questions in respect to the modifications that we made, addressing the concerns of the Council at the last meeting.” Mr. Athey said this project started many years ago, but in August, 2005, there was a request, with an attached plan, for annexation with respect to this project. The plan was very much like the one being presented now, with much the same proposals. The annexation was approved in October, 2005. Mr. Boyd has been working very closely with the little league and midget football associations to try to offset some of the impact of the development. “As anyone who serves in public government knows, residential development has an impact to it and proffers are, is proffers are the ability, contractually, to offset those impacts so that when a town accepts a particular development, they get something in return that is good for the entire community” and Mr. Boyd has offered such a proffer package. Mr. Athey said he knows there have been problems with projects recently, “but certainly we don’t want to be held hostage with respect to something that may have happened in the past and we would ask that you would judge this on its own merits, which I’m sure that you will.” Mr. Athey said he believes this is one of the best proffer packages that has ever been offered in the history of Strasburg. He brought attention to several of the items in the Proffer Statement that was distributed to the Commissioners in their packets. The proffers include a “$500,000 cash contribution to set-up a foundation to establish a park system here that would not require any cash input from the Town’s citizens.” He said up-front the total about would be about $2, 554.000 in proffers for these 180, 18 per year housing development. He went on to say acreage would be left for a conservation easement and ~50 acres for a park, “now that land is in a floodplain and we think it is an appropriate use for a floodplain for recreational facilities and for conservation easements and I think if you go up and down the Shenandoah Valley, most of our parks are located in floodplains.” A road to Madison Heights is proffered which “would provide somewhat of an internal connector for the Town.” The total value of the proffers is over $4 million. The tax revenue generated is estimated at over $225,000 for Strasburg and over $650,000 for Shenandoah County. At the last meeting, they took specific notes and they feel they have addressed all the concerns from the last meeting in the proffer statement. He added there was some concern about the road and the habitable living spaces of the homes to be above the flood stages. Dewberry and Davis, the firm both FEMA and the Corp of Engineers uses, did an 500 year flood analysis and they Madison Associates has proffered any “habitable living spaces within homes built on this project shall be constructed above the 500 year flood elevation of 526.6.” So, the homes will be not above the 100 year flood stage, but the 500 year flood stage. Commissioner Kepler asked if habitable living spaces include basements and Mr. Athey answered habitable living spaces probably does not include basements. Mr. Maddox added, “Habitable would include sewer and water connected.” A discussion followed on basements and hung sewers and if they what would be considered habitable. Commissioner Kepler said, “But, you could build something with a full basement with a hung sewer and sell it as an unfinished basement and somebody could go back in and finish it and it would be below the 500 year floodplain;” Mr. Maddox said a building permit could not be obtained. He added this will be added as a covenant to the proffers.” Mr. Athey said the road surface from Oxbow I and II would be constructed above the 500 year flood elevation, and the road surface leading into Madison Heights would be above the 100 year flood elevation. The Town roads constructed in this project would not exceed a 10% grade.
Mr. Athey said what makes this project unique is the recreational facilities and read
proffer 8.3 which “spells” out the specifications. The ball fields would be in place for
playing in 2010 or one year after stream crossing access is completed. He also read
proffer 8.1 and pointed out the fields have been moved somewhat so the lighting
would not disturb residents of Madison Heights. He also discussed the future development of the recreational facilities on proffer 8.4.
Mr. Athey said some comments made at the previous meeting cannot be addressed such as having a moratorium on additional housing or if the codes should be changed. He also reiterated this is a low intensity development, but agreed the developable land might be higher intensity, but when you look at the entire tract, it will be about 18 houses per year for 10 years. “In exchange for that, we think the proffers that are going to be received as a result of this will be substantially good for the entire community.” Proffers are provided for in Virginia Code because the legislature has said developers must give something back to the community. Mr. Athey showed the pictures of the Michael Brothers Memorial Fields which is what the fields in this development are based on. In an added note, Mr. Athey said in the 1984 agreement in creating areas for annexation, “it was mentioned specifically in there about the need that Strasburg had for additional facilities and actually the Town Council at that time was charged with identifying what those needs were and insuring that as part of the annexation in the development of these properties, that those recreational needs are met. We would say to you that this is certainly consistent with the mandate offered at that time and we would ask you to place it on your agenda for next week, for action with respect to this particular item.”
Mr. Chuck Maddox, representing the applicant: Mr. Maddox said, “When you have a public project that is coming before you for a zoning issue, that the proffer, it’s important that you understand what the needs of a community are and you phrase the proffer in the best respect to meet those needs; that’s what we were doing over the last two to three years --- looking at the beneficial uses for the site.” He said the need for youth recreation overruns the ability of the playing fields currently available and it is difficult for the County schools to provide the necessary facilities. He knows there have been some very “impassioned” pleas over the past few years for the Planning Commission and Council to find additional space for sports facilities. The pictures shown of the park, is a park that is in a floodplain and being along a river, it floods with much more velocity than what the Oxbow area does. They can design for a facility that has a good life cycle. He added Mr. Boyd has taken this as a legacy and he really wants to do this.
Mr. Athey said they did want to show that there is support for this project and he asked that all those in the audience in favor of this project to please stand and much of the audience did so.
Chairman Smith said one item that concerns him is the code does not allow structures in the floodplain. “Will this still be able to be built?” Mr. Maddox said he doesn’t have an answer for this and is not familiar with this code. He does know that generally non-habitable structures are permitted. Chairman Smith said the code is pretty specific in regards to this.
Tim Gallagher, Dewberry and Davis: “FEMA requirements, what you can do is construct buildings as long as they are not going to be inhabited.” You can also have “flood proofing: in that they can be constructed of cinder blocks and they will only be used seasonally.
Chairman Smith said he is specifically referring to the Town’s ordinances which specifically do not allow structures in floodplains “and it doesn’t identify what kinds of structures can be built there or any exceptions.”
Mr. Athey said if this were an issue, “I would think on the approval of this project, a variance could probably be granted with respect to a particular facility.” Chairman Smith said the ordinance talks about “flood proofing” buildings being built in certain areas. Mr. Maddox said it would not be impossible to build the storage buildings and bathrooms, etc. can be built out of the 100 year floodplain with fill (dugouts would present a problem). He added the cost of doing a flood map revision and detail construction drawings, which will answer many of the questions, can only be done after the rezoning is in place or after the agreement is made as far as the proffers. .
Mr. Smith said, “The problem I have with that is if you’re proffering what we’re seeing then you’re saying you will build those structures there and if the Town Code says you can’t, I’m not sure we can accept that and I’m not trying to bring this up as a road block, I just want to point something out.”
Commissioner Howard asked for more clarification from Mr. Gallagher and said “I thought we had a very good meeting down here at the Town Office recently when your were sharing with us the flooding information and you indicated it might be in the best interest of the Town to get a new flood map on this specific project simply because of the houses that are being proposed; do you still hold by that today --- having and noting that our last flood map is dated February, 1978?” Mr. Gallagher said that essentially they did do that. Commissioner Howard said he heard Mr. Gallagher say that FEMA would come and do a new map and that he (Mr. Gallagher) thought it would be in the best interest for the Town to get a new FEMA flood map. Mr. Gallagher said this would be “post project --- after you build it; FEMA will require you to do that after the project is built; before hand, at least per FEMA regulations, there is no requirement to do that before beginning construction.” Commissioner Howard asked, though, if Mr. Gallagher thought it would be in the best interest of the Town to do this. Commissioner Kepler said the ordinance, when it talks about floodplain, says the one to be used is the one designated by FEMA with the certified floodplain elevations. Mr. Gallagher said FEMA doesn’t have the flood elevations of the affected map; it is just a Zone A. With Zone A, FEMA requires that you develop these flood elevations which is what we were contracted to do so “essentially we have done what you are saying, we just haven’t gotten the official seal of approval through FEMA.” Commissioner Howard asked how long it would take to get FEMA approval and Mr. Gallagher said it would be anywhere from 9 to 15 months. Mr. Gallagher explained in 2001, Dewberry got out of the review business for FEMA and Michael Baker, Jr. is the sole FEMA reviewer. Commissioner Howard asked who it would be best to have pay for the study, the Town or the developer and Mr. Gallagher said that would be a decision ultimately up to the Town to make; in past experiences in other localities, this is sometimes proffered by the developers. Mr. Athey said this has already been proffered. Mr. Gallagher also addressed the basement discussion and said it previously had been FEMA’s policy that the lowest habitable floor had to be at or above the base flood elevation, but they have changed this policy where you can now have a basement below the 500 year, and even the 100 year, as long as it meets certain technical requirements. Commissioner Howard said this is actually new ground for the Town and he feels the ordinance committee should look at this, too. Chairman Smith feels the ordinance is pretty strong on this now and Mr. Gallagher said “with the communities participating in the national flood insurance program, they do have a federal code of regulations…there is a set of regulations out there that is the FEMA minimum and most communities are just expected to abide by this.”
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Kim Bishop, 726 Crystal Lane, Strasburg, VA: When annexation was voted for, we were told that it was only for annexation, not for any set plan. I just wanted to remind you of that.
I’m here tonight to ask the Commissioners to deny the request for the rezoning of Island Farm. I’ve expressed my concerns about his development at previous meetings, but tonight I’m here because I’m absolutely disgusted with the open and brazen use of children in Mr. Boyd’s campaign for this subdivision. I’ve received mailings praising Mr. Boyd’s generosity at building sports facilities for the children. I noticed how the propaganda neglected to let the parents in the community know that the parks could be built right now, without any homes, without any rezoning. It neglected to say that Mr. Boyd appears only to care about the children if he can make a huge profit on housing development. Am I wrong? You could ask him.
I think when one gives back to their community, it should be done out of a spirit of pride and desire to give without receiving. The sports area could be built now, without the promise of housing. Then Mr. Boyd could come back and say look at what I did, would you support me now. I wonder how many people, parents, teachers, coaches, citizens would support the building of homes here if a sports park wasn’t promised? I wonder are people really willing to let their children be used by powerful people as long as they get something in return? A sports area, park, picnic area, skate board park, bike trails, walking trails, equestrian trails…these things would enhance Strasburg. More houses? What does that enhance? More traffic, more pollution, more littering, more crime, more big city atmosphere, that’s what more houses bring.
I moved here, into a pre-existing home, yes because it was affordable. But, my parents live here and I had never before been to a place where people you didn’t even know, would wave to you from their car, or just say hi to you on the street. I loved the small town feel. I loved the older houses, even the not so pretty ones, the trees lining the entry to town, the pride you could see on peoples faces for just being from Strasburg. The Mayor said it best at the Council meeting last week, “people used to have pride in Strasburg, this Town used to bleed purple.” Well, it doesn’t bleed purple anymore. Growth brings change. Growth too quickly brings bad change. Strasburg needs to slow down and Strasburg needs to tell developers that we will not have our children used as pawns to advance their agendas. Tell Mr. Boyd and all future developers to come here and ask for permission to build on their merits, not on the hopes of our children.”
Warren Peirott, 429 Dickerson Lane, Strasburg, VA: “I would like to thank the Commissioners for their time and allowing me to speak on this matter. I am here as a resident of the Town and a representative of our midget football league. I am here to support the Oxbow project and its very generous proffers. This is the first Town issue that I have taken to heart and tried to play an active role in. I see the complexity involved in planning a subdivision and it is not easily done. We need to work together and come up with positive ideas to make the Oxbow project a viable part of our Town. However, I have heard people state in this room on other occasions that the athletic fields for the kids are nice and if he wants to build them, go ahead. Well, that opinion shows they will have not taken the time or effort to go down and see where these fields will be built and what it would take to bring them to life. Set aside for a minute the 1 – 2 million dollars to build the fields as spelled out in the proffer statement. Set aside the non-profit foundation to support the ongoing expenses of these fields and the ½ million dollars Doug Boyd will donate to that foundation. Set all of that aside, it still needs a bridge, roads, water and sewer, and electric lines to make the fields useful. So the bottom line is we can’t have one without the other. So we need to look a little harder at this and not just make meaningless gestures. We need to keep in mind that Doug Boyd is from Strasburg and does business in Strasburg, he’s not Bill Gates and 2.5 million dollars should be a lot of money to people in this Town. Another statement that I have heard at these meetings is the Island Farm is in the floodplain. If you have been there then you know that the lower section of the property where the fields will be is next to the 100 year floodplain, which was detailed in a report that was ordered by the Town and received from Dewberry and Davis in 2002 and as far as a 500 year floodplain, I don’t know what Indian tribe has kept records back to 1506, but I doubt they exist. My big concern is that I am not sure all of the elected officials of this Town are trying to do everything they can to see those fields come to life. Every single person I have spoken with in this Town would like to see us have more baseball, football, soccer, and softball fields. Doug Boyd will build them. Not one person I have spoken with has said that we don’t need them. Now when I say he will build them, the understanding I have is that the proffer statement is a contract basically with the Town to do exactly what I am talking about. If they don’t get done, it would put Mr. Boyd in a very hard legal situation with this Town. And keep in mind, the fields are to be built in the first phase and they will have lights, bathrooms, bleachers, parking lots, walking trails, fencing, concession stands, and much needed storage for our youth athletic equipment. One note that I know about, if it is in our ordinances not to build lights, fence, etc., that needs to be changed and I think there is plenty of room out there to build the buildings with the bathrooms and the dugouts, and the concession stands out of the 100 year floodplains; I think we could get it right on the edge; I’ve been out there and I’ve seen what people have told me with this tree next to the barn and that is supposed to be the line for the 100 year flood line. I’d like to know for sure where it is, but there is immediately 20’ or so out where the elevation comes up and I would say it’s easily a 10’ rise in that field and that’s still an area that we could use. Now if that sounds like a caret then I say keep looking a gift horse in the mouth. This will be a jewel in the crown of Strasburg, not just a caret, but something that should be weighed in carets. That reminds me of a saying that history judges government by how it treats its young and old. I have also heard the term smart growth – that is the real question. This project is for no more than 18 single family homes per year and maybe less – that also is in the proffer statement; it’s in writing. Let me add that I have gotten 184 positive responses from letters I have sent out to people of this Town and the more people I tell, the more people wish we could have an athletic park in this Town the size that this will be --- 50+ acres. All we need is a plan from this Commission to get it done. So please work together and get this for our Town. Thank you.”
Mike Kehoe, 117 Dower Lane, Strasburg, VA: Mr. Kehoe said he appeared about three years ago to oppose the annexation. He grew up in the area of the Island, in Warren County, and is familiar with this area. He remembers in the 1950’s and the 1970’s when the Island was flooded; “I wasn’t around in 1937 when the big flood came, but I was around and talked to people who said the water almost got up to the barn. The barn was at the 540 elevation.” In 1996, when Hurricane Fran came through and saw a marker place where the water came up on the Warren County side; the elevation was 528. He says he knows the 100 flood study that was done says 521 and so you have 7 feet difference. The studies are general. He continued by saying the watershed area for Cedar Creek is 156 sq. miles; it goes back to North Mountain and it is true you have a backwater situation here, but you also have a situation of Cedar Creek crest. He believes this is what happened in 1937 and 1942, when Cedar Creek and the Shenandoah River both crested at the same time. He realizes figures are hard to combat, but so are observations; which are more accurate. If Hurricane Fran had tracked differently, it could have flooded the Island and he doesn’t think it would be fair to put people in an area where this could happen. He doesn’t think you could use fill for the 500 year flood bridge; he believes it would have to be a span. He thinks information is needed from the Corp of Engineers, the DEQ, and also from VDOT --- where are their comments; he only saw comments from the Shenandoah County building official who said you couldn’t build in a floodplain. He added there is an Indian site on the property. He said the site floods about every 10 years and people moving here will be “suburbanites” and they won’t know what is going to happen. He added, “Cedar Creek is an island; it’s not an oxbow; it’s not manmade; it was the original trace of Cedar Creek until man stopped that and it has now returned to its natural flow.” He knows there are situations where flood maps change and people build houses. These people go to the bank for loans and can’t get the loan without flood insurance. If there isn’t a FEMA map, they can’t get flood insurance and many problems are caused. He believes the FEMA maps should be changed before any houses are constructed. It isn’t fair to the community for the Commission to not have the necessary information to make a solid judgment. He isn’t against the ball fields and they are a great idea; he’s against the housing. He concluded by saying it is a beautiful place, but it isn’t always like that.
Commissioner Kepler said Mr. Kehoe had mentioned the floodwaters getting up to the barn that the barn was on a 540 plateau? Mr. Kehoe said he was told by a gentleman that worked the farm that the water go almost up to the barn so he would say it was up to about 530. He added he understands the Comprehensive Plan for the Town calls for this to be a conservation area and he would highly recommend to look at the Comp Plan first.
Harold Davison, 947 Bowman Mill Road, Strasburg, VA : Mr. Davison said he has lived in the area for 59 years and has known the Island his entire life. There has only been one house and one barn there the whole time. He guesses the older people knew it flooded and didn’t want to build there. The roads coming out of it are pretty steep and the sewer will have to be pumped. “The catch word here is it’s an island --- surrounded by water; when the river backs up and the creek backs up, it floods the Island.” He said someone was surveying this area and told him he was being paid to do this by the Town of Strasburg. He has a survey pin at the intersection of Rts. 611 and 635 and he told Mr. Davison the elevation of that pin was 532.57; “so you can go from there – it’s going to flood over on the island.” He said the ball fields will be underwater and the lights, too.
Commissioner Kepler asked if the Town was paying for the survey and Town Manager Fauber said it was not. Council Member Rinker asked who was paying Dewberry and Davis and Mr. Fauber said it was the developer and he said the surveying could be part of the study.
Gene Wilson, 186 E. Queen Street, Strasburg, VA: “My wife and I would like to express our vote in favor of Doug Boyd’s proposal to develop the project at the Summit at Oxbow. We are both very much in favor of his plan to put in athletic fields. The youth in our Town need them. Strasburg has a wonderful athletic program and with our population increasing, we will need the additional recreation area. We are also in favor of the plan to build housing in that area. I am a drywall contractor and have done a lot of work in this Town, mostly working for Doug. He has provided me with a steady income for several years and this housing project will continue to provide local work for not only me, but other local contractors as well. Some of the larger contractors who are building in our Town are not local people and do not use our local subcontractors. Mr. Boyd employs only local subcontractors. We need to keep our local contractors working in our Town. We can appreciate that some people want to keep our small qualities and we want that to a certain extent also, but the reality is that this Town is growing rapidly and it is largely out-of-town contractors doing the building. Mr. Boyd is a local person with our best interest in mind and a great plan. Your approval of this plan will continue to provide myself and other local workers with much work, additional housing for our residents, and much needed athletic fields. Strasburg has a great athletic program and Mr. Boyd’s plan to develop more recreational area will only enhance the program and provide a safe place for our children to spend time in sports. I would also like to add that Mr. Boyd takes pride in producing only high quality housing for our residents. Please carefully consider your approval for Mr. Boyd to develop this land, for not only quality housing and an athletic park, but also to provide work for our local contractors like myself. Respectfully, Gene and Melinda Wilson”
Mr. Rick Walker, 335 E. Brown St., Strasburg, VA: “I’m really amazed that this is even an issue. I can understand the issues of building in the floodplain and all that, but our small town quality --- that went out the window, that’s gone. Look at the hillside covered with the duplexes and the townhouses. Small town charm? You’re kidding me!” He said you can’t stop growth, but you need a good, steady growth and this is what Mr. Boyd is proposing --- 18 single family homes per year. He thinks this will look like a neighborhood or a community and not a housing project. He asked how many people know a contractor that has done any of the work on the dwellings that have recently been built in Town. “They aren’t from around here; Doug Boyd is one of us.” He said he has lived on Brown Street for 10 years and his property taxes have gone up. He doesn’t know how many people have moved to the area in the last two years, but he would like to know the population of Strasburg. He knows it has gone up, but he hasn’t seen any improvements to utilities or streets – we’re still a Town that has two traffic lights. I mean small town charm; give me a break, people.” He wonders what the other developers are giving back to the Strasburg residents. “In my opinion, they’ve raped Strasburg. The small town charm is a joke anymore. I love it here; don’t get me wrong, and you’re right, the growth needs to slow --- you can’t stop it, but we’re only talking about 18 houses a year, single family.” What have the others given us? “They didn’t even give us a traffic light out at the Food Lion.” He said he is a small time, class B contractor and he tries to keep all his business in the County and these other developers don’t even support our local businesses --- “their lumber, their building materials, their labor, everything is trucked in from somewhere else.” “Doug Boyd is giving us football fields; he’s giving us baseball fields --- oh, he’s just wanting to line his own pockets. Guess what, people, that’s what a developer does; he develops property and he sells it; that’s how you make a living. People just amaze me. The only issue that I see that needs to be addressed here are the issues of the floodplain.”
Scott Terndrup, 247 S. Fort Street, Strasburg, VA: Mr. Terndrup says this is a tough issue and a couple of things have come to mind here. He hears them talk about using fill to compensate for the differences in elevation and it would make him feel better if he knows the people who are going to buy these homes will qualify for flood insurance. Will FEMA sell flood insurance if they buy a home there? If they are insured, he feels better as far as the Town’s responsibility. If, however, you look at the Comprehensive Plan and the flooding issues and the proffers, then, however, 180 homes is a medium density development and “I just think it’s too intense for this site; it’s too fragile a site and I don’t think R-2 is appropriate; if all the other conditions are met, possibly an R-1 zoning would leave less homes and Mr. Boyd could still build his fields. Obviously, he needs to get his money out of the site and I think an R-1 zoning, if everything else is in place, would accomplish that --- he would be able to develop the site maybe as a compromise solution.”
Joyce Gary, 744 Crystal Lane, Strasburg, VA: “We, the citizens of Strasburg, must place our trust in this Commission, just as we must trust our Council to make decisions for us. So, I want to say that I hope and trust that the Planning Commission will look at all the information relative to all the issues being raised regarding this possible development – the concrete, practical information – not emotional reactions -- and then trust that they will use that information to make the right recommendation to the Council.
One thing does really disturb me, however, and that is the source of the mailings and brochure most of us received. I know the letters were signed by Mr. Pierott, but judging by the content of the brochure and its apparent costliness, it appears to be a sales promotion.
When our group of individuals wanted to distribute information on issues before the Council, we were told we MUST indicate who paid for the printing and other connected costs. Why does this material have nothing to indicate where it came from? Did Mr. Pierott pay for the design and printing of the brochure, the mailings and the return postcards? Or did the midget league? Or was it really Mr. Boyd financing the whole thing, including a telephone poll? Which, to me, makes this a sales pitch. The fact that that information was not made clear makes it – well, to use an old southern term: “unseemly” … kind of sneaky – and that makes the whole thing suspect. Is there some other hidden information or motive? We must trust YOU to determine that.”
Leslie Meaux, 184 Massanutten Street, Strasburg, VA : Ms. Meaux began by saying whoever sent out the mass mailing for this project did a “bang-up job of marketing this project.” She said she doubts that Mr. Peirott works for a marketing firm and she is wondering just who did this. She stated she works with financial agencies who are currently dealing with people who were affected by Hurricane Katrina and the issue of flooding is of great concern to her. She referred to this project as “Cedar Valley II” or the “Son of Cedar Valley.” She believes the FEMA maps need to be updated before any work on this project is allowed to start. She said homeowners are not required to take out enough flood coverage to protect their entire investment so most are just minimally covered. She said this is a very serious project in front of the Commissioners and as she has the opportunity to talk on a daily basis to those who have been impacted by flooding, she is vehemently opposed to this. She suggests the Town take its time and do much research. She added this was a “speculative buy” for Mr. Boyd. In conclusion she said that if Mr. Boyd wants to build the ballparks for the children and if he is such a great humanitarian, let him go ahead and do that without any return to him.
Commissioner Kepler asked Ms. Meaux about the flood insurance issue and she explained this a bit further.
Brian Funkhouser, 241 Breckinridge Court, Strasburg, VA: (Mr. Funkhouser was speaking in place of Mr. Greg Jenkins, President of Strasburg Little League). Mr. Funkhouser said he is a vice-president with the little league association and has lived in the area, where he has been active in sports, all of his life. He is glad to hear Mr. Boyd is willing to do something for the youth of the community in building these parks. He stated the Island may not be the greatest place for this to be built, but doesn’t see where it would be any worse than where the current football field is as it has flooded in the past. He added that if flood waters were to affect the homes where they are proposed, then the high school, too, would be flooded also.
Little League currently has 14 teams trying to practice and play on one softball field. This field, as well as the larger baseball field, is shared with Strasburg High School. This year the little league teams are not holding games on nights the high school has varsity activities taking place on either field due to problems with people saying they are going to little league activities when they are actually going to the high school games; this hurts the proceeds taken at the gate for the high school games. But, by not having little league games on these nights, it is making it even harder to find the time to play games.
“We need something. Is Doug Boyd the answer? I don’t know, but he is the only contractor who has stepped forward for this.” These fields aren’t coming out of our tax dollars. He would much rather see the youth on the ball fields where they are being supervised, than on the streets. He agrees the Town has gotten to be nuts as far as growth, but he stands by Doug (Boyd); he is just a little weary about the location.
Carl Rinker, 74 Philips Court, Strasburg, VA: “When I look at the amount of money that has been spent (on mailings), it is sinful.” He said people have been avoiding the ones who are against this project. He has received threatening letters from the developers of this and he believes that “morally and ethically, that’s no place to go for a development.” He doesn’t like it that he thinks people are " He said the developer “hides behind the skirt of a woman” when he uses little league and midget football when he tries to shame this Council and shame this Commission into passing this project. He is not against athletics as he played high school and college football and also wrestled and participated in karate, but he doesn’t think this is the location for this development. He heard what Mr. Kehoe said and he “stole a lot of my thunder” when he spoke about this. He suggested the Commissioners read Section 2-10 in the zoning ordinances that refers to floodplains. He feels this will impact our fire and rescue departments and there are too many lots in the residential area. He also has not seen a flood map with the delineation on the 500 year flood. He reiterated this is not the place for 180 houses and questioned why Mr. Boyd sold off lots to Richmond American Homes if he is so interested in keeping the work local.
Virginia Grippa, 452 Orchard Street, Strasburg, VA: Ms. Grippa asked that the Town please say no to more development, especially in this floodplain.
Discussion:
Chairman Smith asked what direction the Commissioners wished to take on this. Commissioner Crisman said he has some things he would like to look at more closely and it will take research; Chairman Smith agrees with this. Commissioner Kepler said there are many issues with this project with flooding being the biggest. He does like the proffer statement that has come back, but still has concerns. Mr. Kehoe brought up many issues and he will need to look into these before he can decide. The elevation shown on the map given to the Commissioners takes in a large area of the land that is on this property. Commissioner Kepler is concerned with the timeline for voting on this as stated in the ordinances --- that if the Commission doesn’t act within 90 days, then Council will take it as an approval. Chairman Smith said the new proffer statement submitted changes the timeframe, but Commissioner Kepler said he doesn’t agree and feels it will need to be acted on at the voting session on May 23.
Commissioner Howard said something is very muddy about this project.
The Commission discussed the number of houses proposed and various other aspects of the development. Commissioner Kepler said he wanted to bring up the fact that generalized development plan showed 166 lots and then they came back with 180 lots in the text given. He wants to know which he should go by --- the text or what is shown on the map --- and both are considered a part of the proffers so there is a conflict with the numbers. Mr. Maddox said they are trying to do a good thing and Commissioner Kepler agrees, but that “we have to have all our ducks in a row” when voting. Mr. Maddox said the proffer very plainly states a maximum of 180 dwellings and R-2 zoning. He said the road plan is the same one shown when this was approved for annexation. “Until we do all the engineering that is needed to define the FEMA flood map revisions, the stream crossings, the grading plans, the wetlands study, etc., etc., etc., we can’t possibly answer all these questions.” They are asking for R-2 zoning for the residential with the reminder of the land staying agriculture. Mr. Maddox said he will come back with the boundaries for the lots, etc. He added that nobody can go to the extent the citizens and Commission is talking about without the rezoning in place --- that’s not how business is done in American. Mr. Maddox said that if you like what you see in concept and it is above the 500 year flood plain, and the state of the art floodplain study has been done, then vote in favor of the project. They, too, wanted to see the flood study before proceeding and that is why they hired Dewberry and Davis to do this study. He isn’t sure who you would go to for a “second opinion;” Mr. Gallagher is very conservative and very professional He said he will discuss the items Mr. Kehoe was concerned about and that he brought up with him later. He continued by saying if you don’t see something you like or if you don’t think it will be good for Strasburg, you should disapprove it and then we can end it. He did state that this is annexation area B and it was called to be in Strasburg and this dates back to 1984. Mr. Ramsey intended to develop the Island and the road is graded down to it. This should come as no surprise to anyone in Strasburg that the Island will come into focus. He thinks this is one of the best plans Strasburg has seen as far as the proffers. Commissioner Kepler agrees it is a good proffer statement and he agrees it is a part of the annexation area, but the Comprehensive Plan also calls for this to be a conservation area. Mr. Maddox said that “you have to have someplace to hang your hat” on any kind of land use proposal and if it isn’t in the Comprehensive Plan, then disapprove it. If it were intended to be conservation, it should have been taken out of the annexation area. He said if it is going to remain agricultural, then the dynamics of this must also be considered --- “do you really want 135 acres of active, working farm with that connect to Town streets …” Commissioner Kepler asked why it would have to connect to Town streets and Mr. Maddox said it is in Town and he doesn’t think you can just choose to not serve it. Chairman Smith said it wouldn’t take much to serve it if it remains agricultural. Mr. Maddox said “you could take the tractor trailer with chickens in it across the creek, drive it up through Madison Heights. I wouldn’t even like to think about that.”
Commissioner Kepler said he had a few more concerns. Proffer 8.1 discusses an amount of payment to be made and there should be a timeline of when payments will be made and how it will be distributed. Proffer 8.4, which is the future use development, also needs a timeline --- needs to have some completion to this statement or he doesn’t think it will ever get done. He also discussed how the conditions of rezoning should be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan which clearly states it is a conservation area.
Commissioner Kepler said what specifically are we looking for if we need more information to make a decision?
Chairman Smith said he is personally going to call representatives from FEMA and VDOT for comments. Mr. Gallagher said you can request for a “letter of map revisions based off of existing conditions.” He said the Town now has more current information on the existing topography, hydrology, and “you can submit what we’ve done and make sure that they (FEMA) have biop and approval. FEMA will not charge a fee for that.” Commissioner Kepler says he thinks we need to take this route as we are evaluating this with the approved FEMA map and the floodplain the Town is using is a generalized one. With the new floodplain study that has been done, “I almost think we need to get FEMA’s approval with the new floodplain prior to us making a determination of rather these houses are or are not in the floodplain.”
Commissioner Elliott said, in an effort to find some middle ground, would Mr. Boyd start building those fields, knowing a study needs to be done by FEMA with an updated map --- “could we rezone this so the fields could be built without rezoning for homes and await a FEMA study, which I think was mentioned earlier could take up to a year to complete, and would that give comfort to this Commission and yet show some good faith effort on Mr. Boyd’s part of trying to bring sports fields to this Town without a necessary guarantee of a rezoning for homes?” Mr. Athey said a rezoning, by nature, is for residential and Chairman Smith said the request on this is for part to be rezoned residential and the remainder agricultural and he believes Commissioner Elliott is asking to just rezone the agricultural at this time. For clarification, Mr. Athey said “so Mr. Boyd would build about $3 million worth of improvements and start the fields, dependant upon this Planning Commission deciding if they were going to allow him to do it. In good faith, I can’t advise my client to do that, but I will certainly ask him about it.” Mr. Maddox added their intent is to do a design and apply for a FEMA flood map revision based on the design. “If you did a FEMA flood map revision now for existing, then you are going to have to go back and do another one for the proposed. We’ve got bridges or stream crossings, intrusions into the flood plains … you will have a number of issues that will have an effect on where this flood is. Technically, those issues need to be worked out. What we’re bringing to you is a proposal for a land use.” The number of houses is an issue and what is shown is a concept and it is customary to “cap” the number of lots. They really don’t know everything they need to know, yet.
The general consensus of the Commission was to put this off until they can garner more information. Commissioner Whittle said they need to look at the ordinance to see if buildings can be built on the flood plain. He likes the recreational part of the proposal, but this is not the issue he will be voting on. His decision will be on if this land is going to flood the residential area. Commissioner Howard said he attended a meeting about the Keister park and he feels we need to have some discussion with the County as to what is available with this park. Chairman Smith thinks this should be referred to the recreation committee.
In conclusion, Chairman Smith said if the Commissioners have questions, they should find answers and bring those answers back to him.
Chairman Smith said Janet Heishman had signed up to speak about a new business and called her to the podium. Ms. Heishman had already left.
Being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:22 p.m.