Meeting Date:

Brookside Communities, LLC

Brookside Development, LLC

R.G. Holdings, LP and Others

April 15, 2002

Staff Lead:


Frederick P.D. Carr

Community Development


Topic: Brookside Farm (Waterfield) Proffer Statement Revision, Including Requested Modifications, PR 01-S-02


1.      Background Information.  The Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on March 18, 2002 for the requested Brookside Farm Proffer Amendment and Modifications.  Due to the major issues summarized in Attachment 2, the public hearing was left open until April 15, 2002.  The Board of Supervisors’ action was to allow the Applicant to submit project revisions in response to the major issues identified, and the public an opportunity to comment on the changes. 

2.  Proposed Refinements.  The revised documents were submitted on April 2, 2002, and the applicant has made numerous refinements to the proffered conditions.  Staff is continuing to review these refinements with the revised concept development plan and associated graphics, which were received on April 4, 2002.   

The key issue continues to be the Brookside and Brookside Farm transportation impacts.  With the revised proffers, the applicant has made a substantial step forward to mitigate the anticipated off-site traffic impacts associated with the development.  As revised, the proffers now provide for a monetary contribution of $1,000 for each new, sewered single-family residential unit at the occupancy permit stage and $0.50 per square foot of commercial space.  This contribution is estimated to be $952,500 over the lifetime of the project.  Those funds would be placed in an established New Baltimore Transportation Escrow Fund.  


Transportation Project                 Project Cost           Applicant Share of the Improvement


·        Route 676/Route 600 Signal           $100,000                                    $50,000

·        Route 676/600 Intersectional

       Improvements (Left/Right Turn)    $600,000                                  $300,000

·        Route 793/600 Turn Lanes              $400,000                                  $400,000

·        Route 793/600 Signal                      $100,000                                   $50,000

·        Route 676/1306 Turn Lanes            $200,000                                 $200,000

·        Route 600/215 Turn Lanes              $500,000                                       -0-

·        Route 600/215 Signal                      $100,000                                    $50,000

·        Route 600 Shoulder Improvements $600,000                                  $100,000

·        Route 676/605 Turn Lanes              $300,000                                  $150,000

·        Route 676/605 Signal                      $100,000                                    $50,000

      TOTALS   $3,000,000                               $1,350,000

*    Based on VDOT costs, and the Kellerco Traffic Impact Analysis.  Includes engineering and general contingencies.  Excludes the cost of easements, right-of-way acquisition, utilities relocation, and environmental mitigation. 


After consultation with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the County's transportation consultant, staff has prepared an analysis of the offsite transportation costs for major intersectional or other improvements and assigned a portion of those costs to the Brookside/Brookside Farm development based on the Kellerco's traffic analysis.  This analysis is included as Table 1, and represents the proposed community’s offsite improvements needed at discrete phases during its development.  The Applicant share is noted in the third column of the referenced table for each specified improvement.  In some instances, Vint Hill Economic Development Authorida (VHEDA) has proffered contributions for a portion of these improvements and in other cases future development will be required to contribute to the needed improvements.  As a result of this assessment, there is an identified shortfall of $397,500 needed to complete the listed projects, based on the Applicant’s referenced transportation contribution.  The County and VDOT have no intention to provide supplemental funds to ensure completion of those improvements, and they are the responsibility of the development.  That issue needs Applicant attention.  As proposed, VDOT or the applicant will complete the referenced offsite improvements with the funds from the referenced Escrow Account. 

In addition to the referenced cash contributions for offsite improvements, the Applicant has proffered onsite transportation improvements for the:  (1) Vint Hill Parkway extension from Route 676 to the Vint Hill property line, as well as the connection to the Vint Hill traffic circle and Kennedy Road; (2) Street connection and intersectional improvements at Route 602-Rogues Road; and (3) Shepherdstown Road connection to the paved section.   

There have been some positive changes with the parkway option.  The Applicant will complete the parkway in stages for the entire project:  (1) Prior to the 300th occupancy permit: dedicate the right-of-way and complete the two-lane connection from Riley Road to the border of Brookside Farm; (2) Prior to the 450th occupancy permit: complete the two-lane section from the Brookside Farm southern boundary to Lake Drive; and (3) Prior to the 600th occupancy permit, construct the two-lane section from Lake Drive to Kennedy Road.  The new incentive here for completion is that, if the construction does not occur as described for each stage, the County shall withhold occupancy and building permits.  The Applicant’s representative has indicated that the onsite extension to Route 602 and its requisite intersectional improvements will be included in the revised proffers; as of April 5th, that revision has not occurred.  Note that staff and VDOT have recommended that this connection be made prior to the 300th occupancy permit for additional access away from Route 676. 

The principal stumbling block has been and continues to be the inability of the Applicant and the Vint Hill Economic Development Authority (VHEDA) to conclude a mutually acceptable agreement, which ensures the completion of the Vint Hill Parkway connection in a timely manner.  Refer to Owen Bludau’s comments included as Attachment 1.  If that agreement can be consummated, then the Applicant’s project can deliver additional and staged improved access for the project and the overall community through Vint Hill as well as to Route 605 and Route 602.  However, the Applicant needs to resolve the offsite contribution shortfall.  With resolution of these issues, the Applicant will have provided the essential network improvements.  

Note that the Staff is having on-going discussions with the Applicant and VDOT with regards to site design changes, which might reduce the impact to Lake Drive.  These include limiting the number of access points to Lake Drive and removing the direct connection of Lake Drive to the Parkway.  The buffer yard issue also has been adequately resolved, for example, with the return of the buffer between the project property line and the proposed lots where they abut existing neighborhood lots.

Next Step:   Postpone action for thirty days, if the Board of Supervisors considers the Proffer Amendment application approvable, subject to the VDOT and staff recommended transportation improvements and County Attorney comments, with Applicant concurrence.   The postponement provides the Applicant and staff ample time to revise the Proffer Statement and assorted maps regarding other lesser details, refine, as appropriate, the special exception and preliminary subdivision applications to ensure consistency in all documents, and develop final special exception conditions for approval.  It also provides the Applicant additional time to consummate: 

·      An agreement with the VHEDA regarding the completion of the Vint Hill Connector;

·      An agreement with the WSA regarding requisite funding for the wastewater treatment plant design, expansion and connection timing.  

If the Applicant cannot accept the transportation recommendations and consummate the agreement with the VHEDA, then a critical element of the overall application becomes an impediment for project approval.  In that case, the Board of Supervisors needs to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial.



1:  Memorandum from Owen Bludau, Vint Hill Economic Development Authority

2:  Board of Supervisors Brookside Farm Public Hearing Agenda Request for March 18


Exhibit A:  Draft Brookside Farm Proffers (Draft 27A; 4/1/02)