|
See Attachment 7 for previous
staff analysis and review agency comments.
Board Summary and Action of July 9, 2009:
A public hearing was held at which twenty members of the
public spoke. Twelve members of the public requested
favorable consideration of the project. Eight members of
the public spoke in opposition to the project. Board
members expressed their views and concerns on the proposal.
The public hearing was continued and action was postponed
for thirty days.
Board Summary and Action of May 14, 2009:
On May 14, 2009, the Board of Supervisors held a work
session on this application. Board members expressed their
views and concerns. A public hearing was held at which the
applicant’s representative requested favorable consideration
of the application. Nine members of the public spoke in
opposition to the application. The public hearing was
continued and action was postponed for up to 90 days.
Planning Commission Summary and Action of March 26,
2009:
The Planning Commission discussed this item at its work
session. A public hearing was held at which seven members
of the public spoke in opposition to the project. Concerns
included: adding 125 acres to the service district; the
large size of the project; inconsistency with the
Comprehensive Plan; floodplain concerns; overcrowded
schools; no input from the Bealeton residents; and
Meadowbrook Subdivision’s opposition to the proposal.
The Planning Commissioners expressed their views on the
proposal. Chairman Stone stated that a rezoning application
was needed in tandem with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
so that the County would be assured of the complete
project. Chairman Stone was less concerned with the number
of residential units, but was opposed to expansion of the
Service District. Commissioner Meadows said he was not
necessarily against moving the service district line, if
there was sufficient green space preserved to the north of
the new edge. He was disappointed that the rezoning
application did not accompany the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. Commissioner Garreau said she would be opposed
to this amendment even with a companion rezoning, as this
application was not in compliance with the citizen-driven
Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Alm noted the benefits of
one developer rather than having piecemeal development,
however, he wanted to respect the existing plan with its
northern boundary. He also expressed particular concern
over the floodplain. Commissioner McCarty stated that she
was opposed to the expansion of the service district.
Commissioner Meadows made the motion for a recommendation of
denial. The Planning Commissioners unanimously recommended
denial to the Board of Supervisors.
Planning Commission Summary and Action of February 26,
2009:
The Planning Commission discussed this item at its work
session. The applicant submitted a study entitled “Sanitary
Sewer Capacity and Demand Analysis Bealeton Service District
& Remington Sewer Treatment Facility.” Commissioners
discussed their reservations with this application.
A public hearing was held. The applicant presented a
PowerPoint overview of the project that included a “Southern
Fauquier Regional Recreation Complex and Elementary School”
on an adjacent property northwest of the Bealeton Service
District. The applicant indicated this was not part of his
formal application. Concerns have remained constant during
hearings and included: opposition to adding 125 acres to the
service district; preserving a green gateway to Bealeton;
1,000 residential units will generate too much traffic;
sewer capacity; rezoning application needed in tandem with
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPAM); and overcrowded
schools.
The public hearing was postponed until March 26, 2009.
Planning Commission Summary and Action of January 29,
2009:
The Planning Commission discussed this item at its work
session. A public hearing was held at which eight members
of the public spoke against the project. Concerns included:
opposition to adding 125 acres to the service district;
preserving a green gateway to Bealeton; 1,000 residential
units will generate too much traffic; sewer capacity;
rezoning application needed in tandem with the CPAM; and
overcrowded schools.
The public hearing was postponed until February 26, 2009.
Planning Commission Summary and Action of December 10,
2008:
The Planning Commission discussed this item at its work
session. A public hearing was held at which five members of
the public spoke against the project. Concerns voiced were:
increased flooding, lack of land designated for
institutional uses, sewer capacity, density of development,
uncertainty over regional stormwater management, need for a
companion rezoning application, increased taxes for school
costs, overcrowded schools, potential for private wells to
dry up, and general impacts to public facilities.
The public hearing was postponed until January 29, 2009.
Summary and Recommendation:
The Board of Supervisors has
held a work session and two public hearings on this
application. Members have had the opportunity to review the
staff analysis, listen to the public, and carefully weigh
the issues associated with expanding the Bealeton Service
District and changing the land use designations. Board
members and staff had considerable reservation with the
applicant’s text amendment and staff prepared an alternate
text amendment should the Board be inclined to approve the
service district expansion and land use changes proposed by
the applicant.
Staff continues to have
concerns with including the applicant’s most recent
illustrative (Attachment 1) in the Comprehensive Plan.
Unlike earlier illustratives, this one is very detailed and
staff foresees future problems should the illustrative not
comply with all aspects of the MU-Bealeton Zoning District.
To offset this concern, the staff prepared text amendment
clearly notes that the illustrative “establishes
the general framework for the road network and the general
location of commercial, institutional and residential areas
and open space to guide preparation of a Development Master
Plan upon which the future rezoning would be evaluated.” It
is not meant to be a detailed plan, such as the one that
must be filed with a future rezoning.
The applicant has spent
considerable effort on a draft Code of Development that is
dated July 22, 2009. Staff has not had time to properly
review this very detailed document. Since a complete Code
of Development is required with a rezoning application to
the MU-Bealeton Zoning District, staff does not recommend
its inclusion with this Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Requested Action of the
Board of Supervisors: |
