Board of Supervisors Meeting Date:

Donald R. Tharpe, Trustee


June 14, 2007

Staff Lead:
Melissa Dargis, Assistant Chief of Planning

Community Development


Magisterial District: Lee
Service District:

6899-29-5691-000 (60 Acres) &



A Resolution to Approve Colonial Crossing Rezoning REZN05-LE-014 and Special Exception SPEX06-LE-020


Topic Description:


The applicant has submitted a proffered request to rezone the parcel identified as 6990-10-5075-000, currently zoned Village (V) (3.1 acres in size) and a 60-acre portion of parcel 6899-29-5691-000 (85.03 acres total size), currently zoned V and Rural Agricultural (RA), to Residential-4 (R-4).  The applicant seeks rezoning approval in order to construct a development of 95 single family detached dwellings.

Special Exception:

This companion application was submitted requesting an above ground sewer pumping station(s) (Category 20 Special Exception) to serve the proposed development. 

Project Update:

Since the May 10, 2007 Board of Supervisors meeting, the applicant and its representative have been diligently working with Community Development staff and VDOT.  Several versions of proffers have been submitted.  The most recent being dated June 4, 2007.  That document reflects the input of those meetings and refinements related to referral agency comments.  Referral agency comments in this report reflect the May 30, 2007 proffers.

Project History:

Please refer to Attachment 4 for the May 10, 2007 Board of Supervisors staff report for project history.


Action Requested of the Board of Supervisors:

Conduct a public hearing and consider the attached Ordinance and resolution.

Two options have been prepared:

1.         A resolution for denial, based on the Planning Commission’s recommendation for the Rezoning and Special Exception (Category 20: Above Ground Sewer Pumping Station); or

2.         An Ordinance for rezoning approval and a resolution, with conditions, for approval of the Category 20 Special Exception.


Planning Commission Recommendation:

On October 26, 2006, the Planning Commission forwarded this item to the Board of Supervisors with a unanimous recommendation of denial.  Attached is the Commission’s resolution recommending denial.  When the applicant requested action of the Planning Commission, the project was not ready for referral to the Board of Supervisors as there were still several major refinements needed. 

Staff notes that since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant and its representative have worked to refine the Proffer Statement to cover the issues raised at this time.


Staff Analysis:

Staff and the appropriate referral agencies have reviewed these requests for conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other relevant policies and regulations. A summary of current staff and referral agency findings, comments, and recommendations are provided below for the Proffer Statement dated May 30, 2007.  The actual responses from referral agencies are available upon request.


The Engineering Department has reviewed plans for the referenced project.

1.         The question of the location of 100-year flood plain location remains.  This office continues to believe that planning for this project must be based on the currently recognized legal flood plain as determined by FEMA until better information becomes available, is presented to the County and FEMA for acceptance, and is approved by the County and FEMA.  The proffers should be amended to state that the final design submission will utilize the FEMA established flood plain (latest edition) for development of the project and the applicant will conform with all County and FEMA requirements in relation thereto.

Staff notes that the applicant is working with the County to incorporate language in the proffers to address this comment.  At present, the CDP shows both the FEMA 100-year floodplain and the proposed revised floodplain that the applicant has modeled.  This information has not yet been submitted to FEMA or the County for review.  Although there are no floodplain impacts associated with the residential development, that require Special Exception approval, the future extension of the East/West Connector through the property will have impacts to both wetland and floodplain.  The engineering office should review that data to determine if the location of the proposed crossing and its sizing are appropriate.

Water and Sewer

The WSA provided the following comments on the most recent proffers:

1.         Regarding item V.B. - The sentence “The applicant reserves the right to connect to the WSA systems in the most economical location consistent with sound engineering principles” must be stricken from the proffer statement.  ALL applicants are required to connect to the WSA systems at locations as directed by the Authority and/or in accordance with its Water & Sewer Master plan.  Connections are required to be in such a manner as to comply with the Authority’s Operating Code.  Applicants are not permitted to “reserve the right” to make their connections based on any other consideration.  Further, I question whether the County has the legal authority to encumber the FCWSA with a “proffer” which might be construed to allow an applicant to connect to one of the Authority’s systems in a manner which is not wholly consistent with our regulations.  Finally, please remove the references to the Authority’s “Oversizing Policy” from this section of the proffers.  WSA has seen nothing associated with this project which indicates that the developer will qualify for an agreement under this policy.  The water line sizes needed for this project (as defined within the Authority’s Utility Standards Manual, fire flow requirements and the Water Master Plan) will be sufficient for both this project and the future needs in that area (provided the County does not further increase their desired fire flows).  WSA does not want the developer to get the idea that he may be eligible for something which is not applicable to his project.

2.         Regarding item V.C - The Authority has not been consulted regarding the “appearance” of the pump station.  It is not uncommon for design features which are included to address aesthetic concerns to interfere with the operability of a facility.  WSA recommends that the Authority be included in discussions on the layout and appearance of the required pump station BEFORE the proffers encumber the developer with some requirement or requirements which may not meet the Authority’s standards for sewage pumping facilities.  Regarding the sizing of the pump station, the Authority routinely works with developers to determine the design capacity of pumping stations to be constructed by them and owned by the Authority.  There are factors other than “anticipated future flows” which must be accounted for in the initial and ultimate design of a pump station.  Please simply require that the pump station be designed and sized as required by the Authority and in accordance with the Water & Sewer Master Plan.

3.         Regarding item V.D. - The developer’s primary connection point to the Bealeton water system will be into the Authority’s water lines on the high school property.  The condition that an easement be available at no cost to the developer needs to be removed (developers routinely have to pay for off-site utility easements).  This connection is necessary in order to provide water to the subdivision (also see comment #1, above).  However, this connection does not constitute a “loop.”  Looping involves connecting to the water system at more than one non-adjacent location.  The loop, which will be required by the Authority, runs under Route 17 and connects to the Freedom Place subdivision.  Of course, ultimate physical completion of the loop will be dependent upon the construction of both projects, but each will be required to provide a portion of it.  This is consistent with the Authority’s Water Master Plan.  Please revise this part of the proffers to simply require that a loop be constructed as required by the Authority.


School Administration has provided the following comments:

1.         Section III.B.5:  It is unclear to whom the emergency access easement will be dedicated.  In addition, the department believes the proffer needs to state what will occur if the School Board does not grant the easement such as “If the School Board does not grant permission to use Independence Avenue, the emergency access will be relocated to an area that does not impact Independence Avenue.”

2.         Section IV.A.2  The proffer amounts noted herein should be adjusted to reflect CPI increases since the proffer policy was adopted.  {Note: The CPI adjustment is reflected within the Proffer Statement; reference IX. Miscellaneous Provisions (A)}

3.         Section V.D.  Clarify whether the water line loop constructed in an existing WSA easement.  If not, then the developer should be required to discuss an easement and the possible impact to school property with the School Board prior to rezoning approval.

Parks & Recreation

The Department provides the following comments on the May 30, 2007 proffers:

The Department is concerned with text change found on page 6 Section III Transportation Improvements B.3. Concerned with change from shall to may be, seems that where appropriate is the key phrase.  If structure is appropriate, it should not say maybe.  In addition, “the County” needs to be added to the line, “subject to VDOT approval” as not all trails are within the VDOT right-of-way.

Summary and Recommendations:

The applicant has addressed referral agency comments and met with VDOT and technical staff to discuss the engineering technical issues associated with the proffered road improvements.    Although the applicant’s willingness to quickly respond to staff comments is appreciated, it needs to be noted that referral agencies daily work assignments and deadlines do not adjust well to draft Proffer Statements being re-submitted several times over a short time period.  Staff is waiting to receive revised drainage calculations, per a technical meeting at VDOT on May 24, 2007.  This material is essential in order for technical staff to be able to comment on the project.  Depending on the referral agencies responses to the Proffer Statement revisions, and the drainage calculations, staff may need to respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors consider closing the public hearing and allowing for a 30-day postponement to ensure that the technical issues are resolved.

Staff has met with Supervisor Stribling, the applicant and its representative and notes that they have worked diligently to respond to the complex issues raised.  The latest proffer submittal, dated June 4, 2007, seeks to incorporate issues discussed in meetings with staff and referral agencies.

During preparation of this report, staff continues to be in contact with the applicant’s representative who is working on responses to the comments received, thus far, from referral agencies.  Due to the extremely short turnaround time to review the proffers received on May 30, 2007, staff has not received all referral agency comments. The final version dated June 4, 2007, represents the inclusion of refinements made based on the referral agency comments in this report.

VDOT continues to recommend that any roads that are required for the development of the adjacent properties or in accordance with the County’s Comprehensive Plan be constructed to the property line.  VDOT also continues to recommend that the four lane road section be constructed through the first intersecting road for the subdivision (not Old Marsh Road), and then tapered back to a two lane road section.  Although this remains the ultimate recommendation, VDOT and the applicant have found consensus in new proffer language that addresses this issue by committing to building the two land road with the ultimate grading and preparation for the full size 4-lane road bed.

At the time of preparation of this report, it is still not clear as to whether the applicant has permission from the School Board to utilize Independence Avenue as an emergency access for Fire & Rescue personnel and apparatus.  The applicant is working on that issue and it has been addressed in the proffers to allow for future agreement, if approved by Schools Administration, at the Preliminary Plat stage.

The following highlights project changes received since the last hearing:

·           Extension of right turn lanes on Route 17;

·           Design criteria for the East-West connector;

·           Phasing plan of 35 units per year, from date of Site Plan approval;

·           Language to allow for the adjustment or deletion of lots to allow for the least impactive alignment of the East-West connector within the 110 foot dedication area;

·           Bealeton Bypass monetary contribution of $4,500 per unit, contingent on approval of the road by VDOT within 15 years; and

·           Fire and Rescue monetary contribution of $500 per unit, contingent on approval by VDOT of the road in 15 years.


Identify any other Departments, Organizations or Individuals that would be affected by this request:

Department of Community Development
Virginia Department of Transportation



1.      Statements of Justification

2.      Proposed Proffers (dated June 4, 2007)

3.      Project Plats

4.      May 10, 2007 Staff Report

5.      Resolution to Deny

6.      Resolution to Approve

7.   Ordinance to Approve

Back to Agenda...