So my goal today was to work on an article for the blog about a land use application happening in the Occoquan District. The Mayor,Ernie Porta, has written an extensive op-ed on the proposed development on Tanyard Hill Road. One of the major issues with this rezoning is that serious negative impacts of storm water run off to the town of Occoquan.
Although I have the article in PDF format, my understanding was that Mayor Porta had been published in the Journal Messenger. So, I go to search the newspaper, and what jewel do I find front page you might ask? An article titled “Cleaning the Chesapeake Bay Watershed“.
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, Va. —
Prince William County is preparing to play its part in the cleanup of the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.The problem is, officials don’t know exactly
how to prepare due to a lack of guidance from the federal and state governments,
Prince William Watershed Management branch chief Marc Aveni said.
Really, PWC doesn’t know how to prepare? How about starting with implementing proper development guidelines! This impending rezoning in Occoquan is a fabulous opportunity to take charge and stop burying your “head” in the sand. One way or another this county has to make a real effort to become compliant or ALL citizens will be covering the fines levied on PWC by the EPA.
The county is still factoring how much of the cost of stormwater management
will fall on the backs of its residents or businesses, Aveni said. Right now,
single-family homeowners pay $26.36 a year in fees through their monthly
mortgage bill, while residents of townhouses, condominiums and apartments pay
$19.78 a year. Businesses pay $12.80 per 1,000 square feet of impervious
area.
Here is a portion of the article written by Mayor Porta of Occoquan. I hope the BOCS heeds his warning and sets the example that PWC taxpayers will no longer be responsible for funding the substandard development practices that have previously been allowed to unfold.
PWC can no longer run from its watershed responsibilities, it simply costs too much and the long term consequences are too critical. We all need safe drinking water, it isn’t a choice.
OAKS III REZONING–BAD FOR PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
On Tuesday, January 10, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors (BOCS) will vote on a rezoning application that is adamantly opposed by Occoquan Supervisor Mike May, the Town of Occoquan, and representatives from nearby communities. If approved, the rezoning would permit the construction of a 32,500 sq. ft. office building along Tanyard Hill Road, which we are convinced will significantly and negatively impact both storm water and traffic flows into and around Occoquan. But the implications of the rezoning’s approval extend beyond simply the Town of Occoquan and surrounding environs, for approval would also result in the BOCS rewarding the type of developer behavior the county should be actively discouraging, particularly when environmentally-challenging property is involved.
The storm water and traffic issues are relatively straightforward. As proposed, we believe development of the parcel will increase storm water flows into the Ballywhack Creek watershed—the same already overburdened creek responsible for serious flooding of the town last year. Furthermore, while access to the property will be available from Old Bridge Road, the only exit will be on Tanyard Hill Road.
The developer—Mr. Ken Thompson, who is a well known for having built portions of Lake Ridge in past decades and who now lives outside Prince William County—disputes that his project will increase storm water flows into the Ballywhack Creek watershed or generate significant additional traffic on Tanyard Hill Road. Although the developer is by all accounts a pleasant individual, both his prior project record in the watershed and his entire approach to this rezoning undermine confidence in the reliability of his representations and assurances.
The developer markets his proposed rezoning by citing two features in particular. First, he notes that he is setting aside a portion of the parcel in a conservation easement. On closer inspection, however, this turns out to be mostly window dressing. The conservation easement basically covers the portion of the property on which RPAs, slopes, and other features essentially preclude development. Additionally, to be effective, such conservation easements should be administered by a third-party conservation trust. As of this writing, and after months of opportunity to do so, the developer has still not secured a commitment from such a trust. Second, the developer asserts that his project will actually improve storm water management in the area. What only becomes clear with further analysis, however, is that this assertion is based in part on his offer to fix the problem created by inadequate storm water management on his adjoining commercial property. In fact, poorly-planned prior projects by the developer are the catalyst for this entire rezoning effort. By his own admission the developer was originally only interested in purchasing a small piece of the Oaks III parcel to solve the problem of insufficient parking, again on his adjoining commercial property. Unfortunately, the property owner has insisted on purchase of the entire parcel, which has in turn led the developer to attempt to cram an office building on to the one flat spot on the site in the hopes of subsidizing his purchase costs.
“I hope the BOCS heeds his warning and sets the example that PWC taxpayers will no longer be responsible for funding the substandard development practices that have previously been allowed to unfold.”
Ground Control to Major Tom, err Elena, you know as well as I that this wouldn’t be on the agenda if the outcome hadn’t been already nailed down. Mike will make a decent little speech and then get steamrolled by a majority of the BOCS. The Queen may even issue some short apology to Mike before casting her vote in favor of the project. Sort of smells like Avendale in its prosecution and timing.
A girl can dream, can’t she MoM 😉
I just don’t want to hear people cry about the fines we get from the EPA, they have been forewarned!
The beg mail from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation tells people what not to do. You know,, the communication you get that has the return address labels with the sea gulls and star fish on them? They tell you not to pour oil down storm drains and that sort of crap.
I find it hard to believe that the EPA won’t tell counties what the standards are. That doesn’t sound like the EPA we all know and love.
Good those two articles appeared together. Also the N & M has gotten a lot better recently. Perhaps their new schedule will allow them to do things up right. Kipp has done a particularly good job recently.
@MoM
… and Corey can put on his Captain Conservative Sound-Byte cape and bitch and moan about how some obscure mandate from the dreaded death star, the EPA, is going to bankrupt the county, all while voting no to take any corrective measures.
Perhaps this will help:
http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/
http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/file.axd?file=2010%2f9%2fChesapeake+EO+Action+Plan+FY2011.pdf
7 different agencies involved in leadership strategies.
Elena, thanks for your time in taking a look at this issue. The truly frustrating thing about this Oaks III issue for us is that it was all avoidable. Occoquan has two primary concerns: storm water and traffic. This developer only wants this parcel because he needs more parking spaces for his adjoining commercial property. The owner, of course, will not sell only the portion the developer needs for parking, so the developer is trying to cram an office building on the site to subsidize his purchase costs. Even that the town would not oppose if the project was done correctly.
The developer is willing to fix a storm water problem on his adjoining commercial property (that he could have fixed in the past) now that he wants to purchase a parcel that is adversely affected by it. But he is not offering anything to remediate the creek his past properties have damaged and that now flood the town.
The traffic issue is even more messy. This property will have a right-turn entrance only from Old Bridge, and an entrance and the only exit on the already overburdened Tanyard Hill Road. The developer could exit the parcel from his adjoining commercial property, though it would cost more.
Why won’t the developer do either of these things? Because he has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a flawed plan he took to the Planning Commission without one word of input from anyone in the Town of Occoquan. In other words, he chose to try to slip the project by some 1,000 people within a few minutes walking distance of the site who periodically face flooding from his past properties. If he had spent as little as one hour with the Occoquan Town Council, the developer would have a plan that met everyone’s needs without investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a flawed effort.
Why, one has to ask, would a developer who though no longer living here, has a long and intimate familiarity with the area, and with members of the BOCS, do something like this?
Earnie Porta
Mayor, Town of Occoquan
Ernie,
It must be very frustrating! I hope the BOCS listens to your concerns and makes a decision to pro-active as opposed to reactive. This will be Peter Candlands first opportunity to show the people of PWC what type of Supervisor he will be.
“Why, one has to ask, would a developer who though no longer living here, has a long and intimate familiarity with the area, and with members of the BOCS, do something like this?”
1. Because the Planning Office lets them.
2. If they have hired a particular land use law firm, because they own the Planning Office.
3. Because the BOCS doesn’t give a rat’s ass what the town, or any town, thinks.
4. Because he has bought Supervisor Jenkins vote.
5. All of the above.
@Earnie
“Why, one has to ask, would a developer who though no longer living here, has a long and intimate familiarity with the area, and with members of the BOCS, do something like this?”
Earth to the mayor: Because the fix is in?
depressingly true MoM!
The Town of Haymarket comes to mind for sure. BOCS could have cared less about walmart going in across the street or the office development on route 15.
Kenneth O ThompsonIndustry: Real Estate Developers
Employer: Ken Thompson & Associates
Location: Lancaster
Money OutCampaign ContributionsDonations Reported by Jenkins for Prince William County Board of Supervisors – John
From 2011 2010 2009 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1996 through 2011 2010 2009 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1996 (select all years ) All receipts Itemized cash contributions In-kind donations Loans
Campaign Contributions Totaling $3,555
Amount Date Description
$375 08/22/2003 Itemized cash contribution
$300 08/30/2007 Itemized cash contribution
$300 09/08/2006 Itemized cash contribution
$200 06/02/2007 Itemized cash contribution
$200 06/03/2009 Itemized cash contribution
$200 03/21/2003 Itemized cash contribution
$200 03/08/2007 Itemized cash contribution
$200 03/18/2006 Itemized cash contribution
$160 06/11/2004 Itemized cash contribution
$150 09/01/2010 Itemized cash contribution
$150 09/06/2005 Itemized cash contribution
$140 04/03/2011 Itemized cash contribution
$100 06/12/2010 Itemized cash contribution
$100 08/15/2000 Itemized cash contribution
$100 08/27/2001 Itemized cash contribution
$100 06/13/2003 Itemized cash contribution
$100 03/08/2002 Itemized cash contribution
$100 08/23/2002 Itemized cash contribution
$100 06/10/2006 Itemized cash contribution
$100 06/21/2011 Itemized cash contribution
$90 06/01/2001 Itemized cash contribution
$90 05/31/2002 Itemized cash contribution
“I hope the BOCS listens to your concerns and makes a decision to pro-active as opposed to reactive.”
May – No
Stewart – Yes
Covington – Yes
Jenkins – Yes
Nohe – Yes
Caddigan – Yes
Principi – Irrelevant (likely to vote no just to be opposite Corey)
Candland -Irrelevant (likely to vote no as the five yes votes provide cover)
Long and the short of it, a predetermined outcome wherein May comes out the good guy and the Newbie is provided cover on his first controversial vote.
Look at the rest of tomorrow’s agenda. They’re wasting no time increasing residential density and rezoning commercial to residential (Item 13 c/d) and agricultural to residential (Item 13 i).
Item 13 f “encourages” development of a town center (dense residential and retail) at Innovation. Goodbye high-wage employment and hello more congestion, higher taxes and minimum wage jobs. Let’s convert some of the planned residential and retail to high wage employment uses; not the other way around as the BOCS will likely do tomorrow.
http://www.pwcgov.org/documents/bocs/agendas/currentagenda.pdf
@Mom
Cynical, but true. Good observations, Mom.
I don’t know if I’m surprised or not at how quickly the BOCS has turned into a developers’ rubber stamp. After the election last November, we knew it was coming, but so much so fast?
geez, I feel like I need a cocktail after posts, 13 and 14!
@Need to Know
I thought innovation was supposed to be high wage employment only? Have our BOCS failed at attracting business? Whatever happened to Lilly Pharmacutecals?
@Blue Moon #9
I know Blue Moon. It was a rhetorical question :-). It is perhaps the single-most frustrating thing about this whole process. A better plan than this one for this parcel could have been put together had the developer spent less than an hour with anyone representing the 1,000 people of Occoquan within minutes walking distance of the site.
The “lack of guidance” cracks me up…gee, there is a massive tome of report from the State on what plans are for Chessie Bay. Here in City of Manassas, all the storm drains have the crab symbol on it and the no dumping in the drains.
The City is paying for a study on Storm Water Management. Vice Mayor for over a year has been talking about the Bay and what is coming down the pike so prepare now. Yes, there is no carved-in-stone-MANDATE, but plenty of guidance the last year or so.
Funny, the same guy in the paper is the same guy who sits and listens to Manassas Utilities describe on powerpoint after powerpoint what is coming and the cost to the citizens when it comes. My, my, my.
I guess that same guy isn’t allowed to take City Knowledge and apply it to PWC body of knowledge. When is someone going to cry BS to all this county wringing of hands and playing stupid?
I wonder how many county storm drains have crabs on them? I know the ones by my house do not unless they have recently been crabbed.
Eli Lilly bailed out almost two years ago now. And so there is the picturest view of a rusting hulk as you pass down the bypass. Yes, it is supposed to be high tech and also a bio-med center (via GMU and ATCC). At the moment, I am curious what that building next to the FBI going up is going to be.
Ah…the boulder building. Those huge boulders of rock have to be utilitarian….
@Moon-howler
utlilitarian….LOL! Thank you, Moon for the laugh and adding a better description than I!
Someone asked me why I held out any hope that Peter Candland might vote against the Oaks III rezoning. I only do because I met with Mr. Candland at the urging of some of his supporters who think he is a reasonable and independent thing. I went, knowing full well that if Martha Hendley or Ann Wheeler has been elected in Gainesville that there was a good chance this rezoning would not get approved. I found Mr. Candland to be engaged when I described the project’s shortcoming and candid in his preliminary assessment. My hope is that he will come to see at the public hearing that there are fixable flaws in the plan and defer to the overwhelming wishes of the local community and the resident supervisor. He is now doubt under substantial pressure to approve the rezoning.
“thinker”, not “thing”, and “had” not “has”, and “no” not “now”.
I hope that I can write a follow up article that has a positive outcome Ernie, we will just have to wait and see.
@Moon-howler
Ray is correct. Eli Lilly was going to build an insulin manufacturing plant at Innovation but cancelled those plans and paid back the incentive money they received. Their stated reason was that global demand was less than they had expected and that expanding existing facilities was cheaper. Translate that to mean that offshoring the jobs rather than hiring Americans increased their bottom line. The insulin manufacturing is now done mostly abroad.
One of the smartest things PWC ever did was invest in the Innovation business park back in the 90s. It’s intent was to attract high-wage, high-tech, bio-tech, etc. employment for PWC and Manassas. To some extent they succeeded. I don’t blame anyone in PWC for the Eli Lilly fiasco. They truly worked hard, but had no control over the situation and got screwed by Eli Lilly. Also, developing a business park like Innovation takes a very long time, espcially when you are trying to move that kind of employment farther out from the economic core, and doing so during one of the worst recessions in US history.
Patience is called for, but the problem now is the retail and residential developers salivating over that property. They can make a lot of money now by building townhouses and Starbucks. We have a BOCS fully bought and paid for by the residential developers, and a Planning Office cleansed of anyone but yes-men (and women) who will rubber stamp whatever Corey, the BOCS and the Office of Executive Management say they want. We’re about to get a Planning Commission that is the same.
Wave bye-bye to the prospects for high-wage employment coming to PWC and say hello to more congestion, higher taxes, lower levels of service, more minimum-wages jobs, and developers taking many more first-class vacations and sending their kids to expensive private schools at our expense.
NTK, thanks for adding the pieces on Eli Lilly! And good point on the retail folks waiting to jump in – with the approval of the Graduate Housing at GMU-Prince William, and those townhomes to start going in, Starbucks and company won’t be far behind. I can agree some small service/food stores/a dry cleaner would fit into a “University Housing” setting, but that won’t be how it gets played out in my mind.
@Ray Beverage
Ray, I agree that some amenities (restaurants, cleaners, etc.) are appropriate to make Innovation a more desireable, convenient location for high-wage employers. I like Starbucks. However, what’s getting ready to happen will defeat Innovation’s original purpose. Non-retail businesses don’t like to locate in or near residential areas. This “towncenter” is nothing but an excuse to turn Innovation over to residential developers. Just watch – townhouses and other dense types of residential will be coming quickly. One IT company that had been located in Woodbridge relocated to Stafford last year citing the expanding residential development and their inability to grow in PWC. As I wrote, bye-bye high-wage jobs. The BOCS action today with this towncenter will effectively shut down high-wage job growth at Innovation. It’s easy to explain why they’re doing this. Just at the campaign contributions to BOCS members on VPAP. Favors and campaign contributions are being repaid.
Too bad that in many other places what are called illegal bribes are just called campaign contributions in PWC.