Government Response to Questions Regarding Staff-level Changes to the Southbridge Development Plan
The email string copied below is the last we heard from Prince William County government regarding the questions submitted, through Supervisor Ruth Griggs, on the staff-level approval of proffer changes to the January 16 2001 Rezoning and Special Use Permit approval for the Southbridge Development (Cherry Hill Peninsula).
Note: Some discussion of concerns regarding other planning process issues not specifically pertaining to the Southbridge/Cherry Hill issue is included in the string of previous messages; the email has been copied as received from government.
From: "Hector G. Quintana" < [email protected] >
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: FW: Meeting Follow Up
Date sent: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:32:12 -0400
Copies to: Sean Connaughton < [email protected] >
Kim,
Regarding South Bridge/Harbor Station, the news will be somewhat less
to your liking, at least as I anticipate it. While your concerns may
be accurate, to date, the process has been handled appropriately. The
changes which occurred were duly considered and approved by the PC,
because it did not change that the proffers would be honored as
originally intended. You seem to believe that the changes are more
significant than we noted. You have piqued my curiosity further, but
the next step for the PC is to approve the subdivision plat, as Mr.
Griffin has accurately stated. I am going to continue to look into
this further, including yet another site visit. I will hold open the
possibility that I may call this case back up to the PC, if I find
evidence of willful proffer violations. I cannot, however, commit to
such action as of today. The possibility is open. I will keep you
posted of further findings. Please do not hesitate to remind me as
often as yo feel the need. I welcome it.
Hector
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Griffin, Stephen K." < [email protected] >
> Date: Thu Sep 25, 2003 8:30:52 AM US/Eastern
> To: < [email protected] >, "Quintana, Hector"
> < [email protected] >, "Guzman, Oscar F." < [email protected] >,
> "El'Alaily, Nimet" < [email protected] >
> Cc: < [email protected] >, < [email protected] >, < [email protected] >,
> "Patrick, Sherman" < [email protected] >
> Subject: RE: Meeting Follow Up
> Kim
> agencies. I am in the process of setting up a meeting next week with
> the involved County personnel and will report back to you promptly
> thereafter.
> Sherman Patrick faxed to you the information you requested concerning
> Southbridge (now called Harbor Station). The faxed information was
> KSI's request for Master Zoning Plan changes, staff analysis, the memo
> to the Planning Commission with our recommendation and the Planning
> Commission acceptance resolution.
> Their next step is the review of their subdivision plat and its
> approval by the Planning Commission and then the subsequent review and approval
> of the site/construction plans. I encourage you to continue to stop by
> our office and review these plans and files as they are filed to stay
> abreast.
> Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim Hosen [ mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:24 PM
> To: Quintana, Hector; Griffin, Stephen K.; Guzman, Oscar F.; El'Alaily, Nimet
> Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
> Subject: Meeting Follow Up
> Thanks very much for taking the time to review planning criteria and
> processes with us last week. Per our
> discussion, it is the my understanding that the Planning Commission has
> the option to initiate a hearing
> for site plan applications where a substantive issue has been
> identified.
> We had expressed concern regarding the site plan approval process for
> Saratoga Hunt. We would
> appreciate receiving information on your follow up and plans to address
> the violations.
> We look forward to receiving copies of the documents regarding the
> changes to the Southbridge
> rezoning that were approved administratively. Can I stop by the
> Planning
> Office to pick this up Tuesday
> afternoon or Wednesday morning?
> Regarding the South Market site plan, we talked about several areas and
> look forward to receiving
> additional information on these. These include:
> 1. Site plan does not show where or how the proposed development will
> connect to public sewer.
> Development would connect to the Boy Scouts sewer line, also not shown
> on maps.
> 2. Excessive number of cul-de-sacs shown along site perimeter. Most
> but
> not all cul-de-sacs extend into
> adjacent parcels. Some cul-de-sacs lie in off-site stormwater
> management
> areas.
> 3. Storm water management facilities lie within the FEMA designated
> flood plain and protected RPA.
> 4. Stormwater management facilities are located off-site.
> 5. A significant wetland system would be obliterated by residential
> development. The Preservation Area
> Site Assessment (PASA), which removed the requirement to protect this
> valuable wetland system, was
> completed for the Greater South Market proposal. The PASA followed the
> old regulations. This current
> proposal is a new submission and a new PASA should be completed.
> 6. Mapped information compiled from developer studies and overlaid
> with
> the current site plan shows
> residential lots that the lie within the RPA and/or the FEMA designated
flood plain. The RPA boundary
> shown on the current site plan conflicts with this information and
> should be verified.
> 7. Road connections to Rte 15 are too close together and incomplete
> information has been provided.
> Thanks very much for your assistance.
> Kim
Cherry Hill
Resource Management Issues
Prince William Conservation Alliance
