KSI requested permission to temporarily or permanently impact more than 16 acres of land protected by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act to accommodate their golf course design and for stormwater facilities for their Cherry Hill/Southbridge/Harbor Station development. An additional exception request for impacts associated with road construction, which was reviewed and approved through an administrative (staff-level) process.

The Chesapeake Bay Review Board met on November 22 2004. At that meeting, the Board approved 3 requests, impacting about 14.5 acres of land, and deferred action on one request until the third Thursday in February 2005. Click here to skip to read what happened at this meeting.

Agenda Item:

• Public Hearing, discussion and vote on the Cherry Hill/Southbridge/Harbor Station Requests for Exceptions to Encroach into Chesapeake Bay Resource Preservation Areas

Chesapeake Bay Review Board Members Present:

• Jim Klakowicz (Chair)
• Terry Hill
• Adil Godrej
• Kate Norris
• Larry Waite (alternate)
• Joe Sunday (absent)

Participating Developer Representatives:

• Michael Lubeley, Attorney with Walsh Colucci Lubeley Emright & Terpak
• Michael Rolband, President, Wetland Studies and Solutions

Prince William County Staff Present:

• Patty Dietz, Public Works Watershed Management
• Curt Spear, County Attorney's office

Public Hearing Speakers - All Speakers Called for Denial of the Exceptions:

• Kim Hosen, representing the Prince William Conservation Alliance
• Andrew McDonald, Chair of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, representing his own concerns.

Meeting Recap:

There were deviations in the procedures at the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Review Board (CBPARB) November 22, 2004, meeting. At this meeting, four applications covering eight requests for exceptions to the Chesapeake Bay regulations were presented for approval. All applications concerned the Harbor Station development and proposed impacts to more than 16 acres of land within Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Areas.

The Board, at the request of the developer's representative, allowed the developer to link the four requests into a single presentation. It was clear, however, that the Board would consider and vote on each exception separately.

• One exception was related to rehabilitation/alteration of two ponds, requested by the developer in order to convert the ponds into stormwater facilities for purposes of protecting water quality during development of the site. The dams would be rebuilt to current standards, stabilized by addition of non-woody plants and the ponds would function to remove sediments. Although questions about whether these pond improvements would be adequate to serve the development remain unanswered, these requests were generally viewed as a positive improvement.

Approval of this request allows impacts to about 12 acres within the RPAs. The Board voted unanimously to grant this exception (two encroachments).

• The second exemption involved the location of a Tee Box on the dam embankment of one pond. This was for the multiple Tees. The argument for the Tee Box was that it is to be located on already disturbed site.

Approval of the requests allows impacts about 0.3 acres within the RPA. The Board voted to approve this exception by a 3 to 2 vote. Voting to approve: Hill, Wait, Godrej. Voting to deny: Klakowicz, Norris.

• The third exception concerned removal of "overstory" trees to allow a flight line for Hole 17. The applicant described overstory tree removal as the complete removal of all trees that reach a height of more that 30 feet with in the flight line area. The applicant acknowledged that, with the removal of trees, the understory plants would also be disturbed because of the change in light condition. Revegetation with plants and lower growing trees would occur.

During the Board deliberations, after a motion was made and before the vote to approve/deny, there were clear indications that the majority did not support this exception. Before a vote could be taken, the developer's attorney communicated to the Prince William County Attorney their desire to revisit this exception. The County Attorney then interrupted the Board discussion to communicate the developer's request. The County Attorney suggested that the Review Board might wish to have a special session to review the revised exception. This action by the County Attorney initiated a Board discussion with developer representatives, unanimous vote to defer and, in the end, resulted in a lack of opportunity for denial of the exception.

Approval of this request would permanently disturb about 1.6 acres within the RPA. Voting to Defer: Unanimous

• The fourth exception was involved four requests to encroach into the Chesapeake Bay protected area for crossings to accommodate golf carts. Two of the crossings would be on the embankments and two over bridges. Two crossings would use pond embankments and two would use a new bridge constructed for purposes of allowing golf carts to cross the RPA.

During the Board deliberations, after a motion was made and before the vote to approve/deny, the developer's representative anxiously stood near the podium and eventually was asked a question. This opening provided the developer's representative with an opportunity to remain at the podium and, from this point on, the developer representative actively participated in the Board deliberations, restated the arguments previously made in the opening presentation and sparred with the Board during the discussion.

During the discussion, the Board Chairman repeatedly pointed out that the previous deferral of the flight path overstory exception for Golf Hole #17 could lead to a reconfiguration of the golf course should the Board vote to deny this request in the future. This would result in modifications to the other exception requests related to the golf course. Regardless, the Board voted to approve the four requests for exceptions to allow golf cart paths in the RPAs by a 3 to 2 vote.

Approval of this request allows about 2.2 acres of land to be disturbed during construction and adds a half acre of impervious surfaces within the RPA. Voting to approve: Hill, Waite, Godrej. Voting to deny: Klakolwicz, Norris.

Process concerns include:

• The linking of the four exceptions in the developer presentation supported the Golf Course Exceptions with the positive pond improvement exceptions.
• The Developers Attorney, after observing that one exception would likely be denied, was allowed to pass on the suggestion of deferral just before a vote by the Board.
• The developers representative was allowed to participate in the Boards deliberations.