Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

And welcome to the November 19th 2025 Planning Commission public hearing. At 6 p.m. the Planning Commission along with our Prince William County staff had a CIP listening station where very valuable information was shared with the Planning Commission on the CIP process and the updated changes on how the CIP is formulated. At 645, the Planning Commission met in the conference room with staff and other stakeholders to discuss our agenda review. We're on item three on our agenda, which is the Pledge of Allegiance. I would like to ask us all to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Before we go any further, sir, in the back, I'm going to have to ask you to take a seat because, as you can see by that sign, the fire marshal doesn't allow standing in the chamber. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair McPhail?

Here.

Commissioner Moses-Nedd? Here. Commissioner Carroll?

Here.

Commissioner Justice? Here. Commissioner Ross? Here. Commissioner Scheifler?

Here.

We have quorum.

Thank you very much. We're on item... Five on our agenda, requests for remote participation. Mr. Venegas, do we have any requests for remote participation for this evening?

Yes, sir. Chair McPhail, we have Commissioner Shaik would like to participate remotely.

No, Commissioner Brown's here, ma'am. Thank you, though, for your diligence. I'm here. I'd like to entertain a motion to allow Commissioner Shaik to participate remotely in tonight's public hearing.

So moved. Second.

It has been moved by Commissioner Moses Ned and seconded by Commissioner Brown that Commissioner Shake be allowed and admitted into the public hearing through remote participation. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair McPhail?

Yes.

Vice Chair Brown? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Justice? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Moses Ned? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler?

Yes.

Thank you very much. Mr. Venegas, I believe you have an announcement for us.

Yes, sir. Chair McPhail, we have a request to amend the agenda. We would like to move Item 11E, Comprehensive Plan CPA 2025 Mobility Chapter Update, in front of Item 11D, which is rezoning 2024-00048 Maple Valley Grove. And we would also like to move item 11G in front of 11F.

Thank you very much, Ms. Venegas. So I would like to request a recommendation for these agenda adjustments. And that is moving item 11 E before D and item 11 G before S F I'm sorry.

So moved second.

It has been moved by commissioner Ross and seconded by commissioner justice that the planning commission. Allow adjustments to the agenda. Items 11E before D and item G before F. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair McPhail?

Yes.

Vice Chair Brown? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Justice? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Moses-Nudd? Yes. Commissioner Shaik?

Yes.

Commissioner Shriver.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much. We are now on item six on the agenda. Consent agenda items. Mr. Venegas, do we have any items for consent agenda?

Chair McPhail, we have two items. The briefs and resolutions for planning commission public hearing October 15th, 2025. And the briefs and resolution planning commission public hearing dated October 29th, 2025. Thank you very much.

I would like to ask of the dais that we make two separate motions for these items, and we will now entertain a motion for briefs and resolutions dated October 15th, 2025.

I'd like to make a motion to approve brief and resolutions planning commission public hearing October 15th, 2025.

Second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Justice and seconded by Commissioner Moses Ned that the planning commission approve Briefs and resolution dated October 15th, 2025. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair McPhail?

Yes.

Vice Chair Brown? Yes. Commissioner Carroll?

Abstain.

Commissioner Justice? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Moses-Nudd? Yes. Commissioner Shaik? Yes. Commissioner Shifer?

Yes.

Motion carries.

We'll move to item seven on our agenda, which is expedite.

We have one more brief.

Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, ma'am. I'm going to apologize right off the bat here. I've had sort of an active day today, so I'm a little tired. So my fellow planning commissions are going to keep me on track. So thank you, Commissioner Justice. Let's move to briefs and resolution dated October 29th, 2025.

Make a motion to approve brief and resolutions planning commission public hearing. October 29, 2025. Seconded.

It has been moved by Commissioner Justice and seconded by Commissioner Brown that the Planning Commission accept and approve brief and resolutions dated October 29, 2025. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair McPhail?

Yes.

Vice Chair Brown? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Justice? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Moses-Nedd? Abstain. Commissioner Shaikh?

Yes.

Commissioner Shrifler? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you very much. Let's move to Item 7, Expedited Agenda. Before I move on, let me just give a comment very quickly to our audience in the Chamber. When it comes to Expedited Agenda, if there is a item on the expedited agenda that two or more citizens would like to speak against that particular application or item, it will come off the expedited agenda and go on to our regular agenda. So if two or more citizens are here that would like to speak against any item that will be announced on the expedited agenda, it will be removed and placed back on our normal agenda for this evening. So Mr. Venegas, do we have any items Listed for expedited agenda.

Chair McPhail, we have three items for the expedited agenda. The first one is item 11A, development policy amendment, amendment to the declaration for the property of the Board of County Supervisors of Prince William County. Item 11B, special use permit 2025-00030. home Depot sup and item 11 C special use permit sup 2025 dash 0 0 0 2 6 Navy federal drive through ATM.

Thank you very much. Mr. Venegas commissioner Carol, do we have anyone signed up to speak on these particular items on the agenda?

We have no one signed up and no one signed up virtually. Is anyone here wishing to speak against those three items?

Seeing none, thank you very much, Commissioner Carroll, and thank you, citizens of Prince William County. Let's entertain some motions. A motion for item 11A, and that is DPA-2026-00003. This is in the Brentsville District, and Commissioner Carroll, you are our commissioner for Brentsville. The floor is yours, sir.

Thank you. And just to make sure, did we open all the public hearings?

Oh, I'm sorry. My fault, sir. Again, had a long day. At this time, I'm going to open all items on the agenda to the public hearing. So Commissioner Carroll, please continue.

Thank you. So I'd like to close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed for item 11A.

Thank you. I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of DPA 2026-00003, amendment to the Declaration for Property of the Board of County Supervisors of Prince William County, Virginia.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved by Commissioner Carroll and seconded by Commissioner Brown that the Planning Commission recommend approval for DPA 2026-00003. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair McPhail?

Yes.

Vice Chair Brown? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Justice? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Moses-Nedd? Yes. Commissioner Shaik?

Yes.

Commissioner Scheifler?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much. Uh, our next item on the expedited agenda is sup 2025 0 0 0 3 0. Uh, and this is in the aqua Kwan Magistral District Commissioner shake. Uh, forgive me for not welcoming you earlier by our virtual resources, but uh, you are the planning commissioner of the aqua Kwan district. So sir, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

I would like to make the recommendation the Planning Commission approve special use permit, SUP 2025-00030, Home Depot, SUP.

Second.

It has been moved by Commissioner Shaik and seconded by Commissioner Justice. that the Planning Commission recommend approval for SUP 2025-00030. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair McPhail?

Yes.

Vice Chair Brown? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Justice? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Moses-Ned? Yes. Commissioner Shaik? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you again. We're going to move to item 11C. This particular application is in the Potomac District, and I am the commissioner for the Potomac District, so I'm going to turn the facilitation duties for this particular application over to Commissioner Brown. Commissioner Brown, would you please continue with the facilitation of this particular agenda item?

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to... We're going to take a motion for a special use permit, SUP 2-25-0025 Navy Federal Drive-Thru ATM. It's in the Potomac Magisterial District, so I'll turn it over to you.

Thank you, ma'am. I would like to make a recommendation the Planning Commission approve... Oh, I'm sorry. I'd like to close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

Thank you again. I'd like to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval for SUP 2025-00026.

Second.

The motion has been made by Chair McPhail to approve special use permit SUP 2020- two five two zero two five dash zero zero zero two six for Navy federal drive through ATM and properly seconded by commissioner justice. Madam clerk, can you please call the roll?

Chair McPhail. Yes. Vice chair Brown. Yes. Commissioner Carol. Yes. Commissioner justice. Yes. Commissioner Ross. Yes. Commissioner Moses Ned. Yes. Commissioner shake. Yes. Commissioner Scheifler? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. I'll now turn it over back to Chair.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you very much for your assistance. We're going to move to item eight on our agenda, public comment time. Commissioner Carroll, would you please facilitate our public comment time at this point?

Thank you. So we have one individual signed up for public comment time. As a reminder, public comment is for any items or any issues that are not cases on the agenda tonight. So if you have questions or comments on the cases tonight, the proper time to speak on those would be during those public hearings. So again, anything not on the agenda tonight. And like I said, we have one individual, George Kowals. If you can head to the back microphone, just name magisterial district or generally where you live, and you will have three minutes.

Thank you. George Kowals. I live in the Occoquan Magisterial District, Cleburne Lane, off of Davis Ford. I have a comment and a recommendation to bring before the Planning Commission and it extends back to about 20 years in involvement on a prior development matter. We're in a time where we face a lot of alienation and the general public lack of understanding of how process works and how process is established within the county. A lot of it comes down to money from lawyers, to politicians, to developers. It also goes to money in terms of process. I'm talking right now about the Prince William County Parkway and where the money came from for the parkway in the first place. There was a planning committee, there was a planning group that was organized about 30 plus years ago. In that assessment study and the results, it was determined that the parkway from the intersection of Davis-Ford-Hodley to Liberia was to be a greenway. that could have been more clearly defined, but albeit the same, that is the way it was designated. The members of the board, totally nonpartisan, resulted in a determination and decision pointing for residential development. intended on lots of one acres and larger and no commercial development and a suitable setback for the homes that are along the parkway. I would strongly recommend a review by the planning commission and a committee or group be set up to do this and confirm what I've laid out. I was involved in another matter many years ago when there was an intent to put a church in on the county parkway. resulting in essentially changing the land use modalities. I had the good fortune of researching at that time and running into members of the committee to include Billy Isbell, who was Hilda Barg's chief of staff who served on the committee. The problem that we have today is a lot of the members of that committee are dead. And the way politics works, unfortunately, if we fail to clarify or categorize what these people say, it's lost for the future, and that was the intent where the money came from in the first place for the county parkway. I would recommend you look into this, assess it, and codify it in the sense of including it in future development interests.

Great, thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak during this segment of public comment time? Thank you very much. Let's move to item nine on our agenda, deferrals and continuations. Mr. Venegas, do we have any items for deferrals or continuation?

Chair McPhail, we have no items for deferral or continuation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Venegas. Let's move to item 10 on our agenda, planning director's time. Director Washington, the floor is yours, ma'am.

Thank you, Chair McPhail. Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. I have a brief presentation about recent activities by the Planning Office. You can go to the next slide. The next slide. So it's, yeah, it's up there. So it's only Wednesday, but we've been very active this week already, and first wanted to start with our Vent Hill Corridor Small Area Plan Community Kickoff Meeting that we held Monday night. At Patriot High School, the Vent Hill Corridor small area plan is the newest of our small area plans that the planning office just kicked off looking at the area around Vent Hill Road, which as a number of you know, is seeing a lot of development interest. The small area plan comes out of a directive from Supervisor Gordy to do a more in-depth planning analysis and ultimately to develop recommendations that will help to inform it and guide future development in the Vent Hill corridor area, as well as to look at future planning for public infrastructure and other community needs. So we have our consultant team in place. We've actually already started doing some initial analysis, but on Monday was our first opportunity to kick off the project with the community. We gave a presentation talking about the project, introducing it, what the project goals are, the timeline, and additional opportunities in the future for the community to be involved And then the majority of the meeting was focused on facilitated table discussions. We had six questions that we asked everyone to really get some insight on their experiences living in that community. And as you can see, we had a really great turnout, probably around 80 people showed up. Commissioner Carroll was there, Supervisor Gordy, as well as Supervisor Stewart came by as well. And I ended up facilitating a table discussion because we had to create another table because so many people, more people were showing up. And so the discussions were really very robust and insightful. We are currently compiling all of the responses and we'll obviously be using that to help inform what we're going to be exploring as part of the small area plan. Commissioner Carroll, I know this is my time, but do you, anything you wanted to share from that experience?

No, I think it was very well done, very well attended. I think there's a lot of interest along the Vint Hill corridor in this small area plan. So definitely thank you and your staff and the consultants for kicking us off and definitely interested to see where we go from here. Great, thank you.

Next slide, please. Also on Monday night, Mr. Venegas represented the planning office at a Potomac District Town Hall to talk about some updates Print and Planning Office as well as to provide information for the community's benefit. And then yesterday morning, I was a speaker at an event in Prince George's County. This is with the Urban Land Institute of Washington. They have what they were to call local product councils. that focused on different topics or areas. And so this was a joint event between their housing and Prince George's County local product councils. And the event was focused on housing and economic development strategies for the future of the national capital region. And so I was on a panel representing or providing a perspective from Virginia along with representatives who work in Maryland and in D.C. to talk about a variety of housing related issues. I was able to talk about Prince William County, what we've been seeing here, some of the initiatives that we've been working on, such as the affordable housing, the affordable dwelling unit ordinance, our comprehensive zoning ordinance update and other efforts to support more housing production and to address housing affordability. And then the second part of that all of the attendees were broken out into breakout groups, and so the panelists were asked to rotate and spend about 10 or 15 minutes with each group, and they asked more questions, and so I was able to have some really interesting conversations with the council members. And next slide. Also yesterday, during the Board of County Supervisors meeting, we were very, very pleased that the Board approved additional resources for the planning office. These were out-of-budget cycle requests to provide additional staff and consultant resources to support the efficient management of land use cases as well as other planning office initiatives. Specifically, we're very excited that the Board approved an additional principal planner position for the land use review division. That is the division that is responsible for leading the county's review of rezoning applications, special use permits, proffer amendments, et cetera. Additionally, we received funding to bring on boards and consultant assistants with development review expertise to help us review land use cases so that we can help get through more cases. expeditiously, as well as consultant resources to handle cultural resources reviews related to land use cases. Additionally, the board approved funding for consultant assistance to help us produce design guidelines for the Thoroughfare Historic Overlay District. I've spoken about that project previously. We are in the midst, well underway in a project working with the Thoroughfare community to create a ultimately historic overlay district. Along with that, when that goes to the board through a zoning tax amendment, we have to have design guidelines that would actually be the mechanism to help manage changes within the historic overlay district once it's established. So again, very, very pleased to get the board support for those additional resources. And that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much, Director Washington. Do we have any questions for Director Washington on the dais? Commissioner Brown?

Yes, I have a quick question. How soon can you move forward with implementing, getting some of those resources?

We are anticipating, because the on-call consultant, we're going to be using our on-call consulting contracts, which are already in place. So we are anticipating having that in place by the end of this year, early next year at the latest. And as well as the filling the new position, we've been very active in filling quite a lot of positions recently, and so we're going to be very expeditious in getting that one filled by hopefully the end of either, if not the end of this year, by early January. So very quick.

And one more question. Do we still have a present backlog on applications?

So that is a much more in-depth discussion. I will say just very briefly that we do have data on our caseload and there is a portion of those cases, and in particular if you look at rezoning applications, they are the only ones that do have a time clock specified in the code, which is one year that they are supposed to go to public hearing at the board. We do have data. There is really a a portion of cases that are beyond a year, but we do have a lot of cases that are continuing to move forward. And one thing that I have noted is that the majority of our caseload is what I will call the new normal, if not backlog. Some of it is backlog, but we receive consistently every month a high volume of cases that we are managing. And so that is the primary reason why we asked for out-of-budget cycle resources from the board in order to help us expand our capacity to address that caseload while we are going through the budget process for FY27 to discuss any other resources that we could receive. Thank you.

Commissioner Scheifler, did you have your light on, sir? No. Oh, Commissioner Ross, let's go to you.

The amounts budgeted for the on-call consulting, how does that get drawn down? Is it like use it or lose it? Do they charge us by the hour until we hit a threshold?

That's all specified in a purchase order. Typically, it's all not having it right in front of me, but typically we work out and determine what their fees would be. and we only pay when, you know, based off of the work that's done.

Okay, we pay by use. As we use it, we pay for the use of it. Yes. Okay, great. Thanks.

I don't see any other lights on, so thank you again, Director Washington, for a great presentation and responses to those questions. We're going to move now to items 11E on our agenda. If we remember, we had an agenda adjustment. We're going to hear Item E before item D item E is a comprehensive plan amendment. See it. CPA 2025, zero, zero, zero, zero seven. Um, just for, um, edification purposes and to, for any of our citizens who might be attending the public hearing for the first time and, and those who have been here for a while, uh, many, uh, public hearings, this is our order. We will hear a presentation from the applicant, one from the staff, then we will move into public comment time. Let me make a quick statement about public comment time. When citizens come forward, we on the dais, the applicant, the staff, we are not allowed to enter into dialogue with the citizens during public comment time. Public comment time is for the citizens to bring their comments, their views to the public hearing. If a citizen or citizens have questions about an application, the proceedings, and so on, I encourage you to contact your elected official, your supervisor's office, and that is your first resource to answer any questions that you might have about the Planning Commission public hearing. So, oh, and after public comment time, we will have a response From the public comments by the applicant, the staff, I would then ask for a motion normally from the commissioner of that particular jurisdiction. We will have a second. After the second, I will make a statement. Is there any further discussion? After that, we will entertain, and throughout the order, we will entertain points of order. Points of order are procedural points of order. They're not additional questions. At the end of, if there are no points of order, as we have addressed them, we will call for a vote. Each commissioner will vote, and if they have an additional statement as it relates to their vote, they have the opportunity to make it at that time. So at this time, we will hear our presentation for item 11. Am I right, commissioners? 11E, Comprehensive Plan Amendments. CPA 20, 25, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7. And I see that our staff representative at the podium, sir, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Good evening commissioners. Um, Tony also in planning department, I just wanted to open this up by saying this is a comprehensive plan amendment to make changes to the mobility chapter of our said comprehensive plan due to the nature of it being primarily a transportation, um, CPA, the transportation team has taken the lead on this working with the planning office. So they will be the ones presenting this case.

Thank you very much. So our transportation representatives can come to the mic. And for our citizens, again, because this is a county initiative, there is no applicant that will make a presentation. We will hear a presentation from our county staff. So, sir, the floor is yours.

I want to thank Tony for introducing me. Chair McFarrell, members of the commission, my name is Kevin Wyrock. I am the transportation planning manager for the county. And here to present our CPA 2025-00007 mobility chapter update route 28 changes. I am joined here by our principal planner, Bryce Barrett. So the background under Virginia code section 15.2-2229, the board of supervisors may consider amendments to the adopted comprehensive plan. This one was adopted in November of 2022. I'm sorry, December of 2022. And this is a request to change mobility chapter of the comprehensive plan with the removal of the Route 28 bypass and its associated shared use paths, as well as the addition of Route 28 from four to six lanes with a recreational trail known as the Flat Branch Trail in the approximate location of the Route 28 bypass. So this is a little bit of background. This was initiated, all CPAs are initiated by the Board of Supervisors, and this was initiated on May 13th, 2025. The board directive requested us to work with the planning office to prepare a resolution to initiate this comprehensive plan amendment. We wanted to make the following changes. They're in bullet points here. Initiate the amendment in the mobility chapter of the comprehensive plan to remove roadway references from the text and the roadway plan map and associated shared use paths for the text and countywide trails plan map of the following. Manassas Battlefield Bypass, Route 28 Bypass, Sudley Road, Route 234, and Heathcote Boulevard, at least certain segments of those roadways. We are breaking it up into different hearings based on where we're at in the process with each of these. There is some timing constraints involved with the Route 28 Bypass, so that's why we're coming before you tonight to get started on that. These will take place at another time. We also wanted to add the existing widening of Route 28 from four to six lanes between the Manassas City line and Fairfax County line. And the proposed CPA will address the requested changes to the Route 28 and Route 28 bypass. The additional changes will be addressed in separate CPA applications in the future. So the location for these changes, the Route 28 bypass was located along the flat branch between Sudley Road and the Fairfax County line. In the comprehensive plan right now, this facility is planned as a minor arterial MA1 with a shared use path on one side. The Route 28 as it exists today is known as Centerville Road and it's located between the Fairfax County line and old Centerville Road, Blooms Quarry Lane at the Manassas Park City line. It travels through the city of Manassas Park for a short time and then enters the county again at just south of Manassas Drive. and then continues to the city of Manassas line. So the county partnered with an outside consultant to run several model scenarios off of the approved 2040 comprehensive plan demand model derived from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments with slight adjustments for the approved major developments since the adoption of the mobility chapter. Chief among them was Digital Gateway. The results of the model runs were analyzed for changes in daily level of service, LOS, and vehicle miles traveled, VMT. Those are two typical metrics we look at for determining traffic impacts. I'm going to show you the results from these model runs here, and I'll use my cursor to sort of illustrate it for you. The baseline scenarios here on the left, this is from the comp plan. You can see on the Route 28 bypass, there was a level of service E. That is acceptable on arterials according to our comprehensive plan. On arterials, we need a LOS E or better. Other roadways, we prefer LOS D or better. In addition, on Route 28, there were segments that were both LOS E and LOS D along there as well. With the removal of the Route 28 bypass, but without widening Route 28, Route 28 degrades to LOSE from its entire length from Fairfax County down to the city of Manassas that's over three miles in length. That's add multiple minutes to a commute in peak directions along that roadway at that time without a widening. As you can see in the scenario where we widen Route 28 to six lanes, most of it improves back to LOSD. There is still a segment of LOSE south of Manassas Park that is acceptable. according to our comprehensive plan, but this does improve traffic flow greatly in the area, and that's why we're pursuing it. These are the changes to the roadway plan charts that we have in the comprehensive plan. As you can see, the Route 28 bypass is removed. For those not familiar, the Route 28 bypass was canceled by the Board of Supervisors. We were unable to come to an agreement with Fairfax County regarding the parameters of that project. So with Route 28 being widened, we did not include a right-of-way standard, and we have it switched from just an MA1 to an MA1 modified. That means the typical section that you see in our design guidelines for an MA1, a minor arterial, is not going to necessarily be what we see out there on Centerville Road when we do the widening because of the Yorkshire small area plan that's taking place along that corridor right now. We want to make sure that whatever improvements we do are context sensitive and are developed with the community as part of that small area plan with considerations for land use, pedestrian connectivity, and all sorts of other aspects that we want to make sure are taken into consideration. That's why we're leaving it open-ended for now and be happy to answer any questions about that. As you can see in our bicycle network chart, the Route 28 bypass shared use path has been removed. This is basically a formality because shared use paths, by definition, are part of roadways. They are on the sides of roadways. That's how they're classified. NET does not preclude us from adding a recreational trail that would essentially serve the same function as a shared use path along that corridor, which is what we plan to do. It's just a separate category. classification for comprehensive plan purposes so as you can see on the map here this is the current roadway and trail map you have the bypass minor arterial the shared use path alongside of it and then the major collector and shared use path along there as well the change here you can see the bypass is removed as the shared use path is removed as well let me go back The shared use path is removed as well, but the recreational trail, which is under the purview of the Parks Department, is on there as a result. And it's going to connect to Ben Lamont Regional Park. So in summary, our requested action is to recommend approval of Comprehensive Plan 2025-00007, Mobility Chapter Update Route 28 changes for the removal of the Route 28 bypass, the addition of the flat branch recreational trail, and the addition of the Route 28 widening from four to six lanes. And in summary, we're asking for your approval on this because the proposed changes maintain acceptable levels of service, allows for the design of Route 28 to be finalized during the Yorkshire Small Area Plan or future studies, and provides additional trail connectivity and alignment with Mobility Policy 9 to expand recreational trail opportunities within parks, greenways, and blueway corridors. So thank you for your time, and we're happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much, sir. We'll call you back up after public comment time. Commissioner Carroll, I'm going to turn the proceedings over to you right now, and if you would please facilitate our public comment time.

Thank you. As of right now, there is no one signed up for this in person or online. Is anyone here wishing to speak on the CPA? I think we have somebody out there.

Okay. I'm clowning around. Sorry. All right. So we'll move into our questions and answer period from the dais. So commissioners, if you would as normally turn your lights on so I will recognize you, I would ask that we stay with our customary tradition and ask three questions and allow the next commissioner to then ask questions and we'll move up and down the dais appropriately. So, Commissioner Ross, I saw your light on first. So, sir, we'll start with you.

Kevin, yes. When you ran the model, the final result with the widened lanes on 28 had a section, I guess it's mostly in the city or cities, that is level of service F. E, as a matter of fact. E, not F. R. Does the model predict or can you just tell me from experience? Are we going to have a lot of people trying to filter through the city blocks around 28 using apps like Waze or Apple Map or Google Maps?

That is always a concern. That happens anywhere where you have a major road that has a ton of traffic on it and there's grid systems that allow traffic. people to bypass it if they're in the know.

I'm not asking how you fix it. I'm just curious what the status is predicted.

The model does not break it down into smaller streets like that. It really is only looking at comp plan roadways. So those ones you see mapped out in the comp plan, your collectors, your arterials, freeways. So it didn't go into that much detail. But just from experience, we can expect something like that to happen, but no more than it's already happening in that area, especially in Yorkshire. There are streets in Yorkshire that are known as cut-throughs, and we're working actively to introduce traffic calming to those areas so it's less desirable as cut-through roadways in the future.

I think the audience will enjoy that last statement. Thank you. I'm done, Chair.

Commissioner Scheifler, I saw your light next. So, sir?

Can you clarify, when you talk about a recreational path, I think one of the advantages of this is kind of the general potential creation of a linear park. And again, one of the areas, are there opportunities to clarify language that there would be like connecting paths to the neighborhoods? Or is it just, because it seems like you get on at Lamont or get on at Sudley or get on at Ben Lamont. Is there... Are there opportunities within the comp plan to kind of make suggestions about where neighborhood connectors could come to this trail? Because that's one of the benefits of this process, I guess.

Understood. I don't think there's anything that precludes that sort of opportunity from taking place. For the purposes of the comprehensive plan amendment, we are sticking to just the alignment of the main trail that will be maintained by the county. as part of this. I'm sure there could be opportunities connected to other neighborhoods and or public facilities along that path.

Okay, and my next comment is for the bypass, at least the section between Sudeley and Splashdown, the comprehensive plan Land use is public land where everything around it is parks and open space. So I wasn't sure was that looked at. And again, it would seem logical that if you're moving a roadway that was there, that's why the public land was there. But when you're putting a recreational trail in there, you would want to kind of change that to parks and open space, kind of make it contiguous or make a linear park for the adjacent neighborhoods.

We have David from the planning office who can explain the rationale between the land use changes and the roadway changes, and I can add anything afterwards to his comment.

Yeah, David McGettigan from the planning office. The, um, the board did not initiate a land use change for us to, to make that recommendation. It's certainly something we can take care of during a technical update. Um, it is not, uh, make a difference, um, really because it's public land it's owned by the board. That's not, you know, whether it's, uh, parks and open space or public land, it's not guiding. any land use decisions one way or the other. So it's fine that it still remains public land, and that's something we can take care of in a future technical update to the plan.

Just to add on to David's comment, we discussed this with the Parks Department, and they told us that whether it's public land or parks and open space in the land use chapter, it does not make it any easier or harder to build a recreational trail along there. So it can be looked at in the future, but for the purposes of this, it does not really make a difference one way or another as far as our ability to construct that.

Okay, because again, this makes an opportunity to create a actual linear park as opposed to area reserve, because right now it's kind of blocked off. Don't enter this area and things like that. Sure. My last question was, as far as the modeling, I know that the city of Manassas Park was looking at potentially connecting Mathis Avenue and Old Centerville Road. Was that reviewed at all, or did they make any changes to, because again, obviously Old Centerville and 28 merge back together where it starts to turn orange. I wasn't sure if that was considered, because that was part of their CIP.

We need to look at that. We haven't received formal comments from the city of Manassas Park yet, but we have been in contact with them. I know they're also looking at the feasibility of a Euclid Avenue extension, too, that would somewhat serve the same purpose of the Route 28 bypass, just in a different area. We've been proactively coordinating with them, the city of Manassas, Fairfax County, throughout this process, as well as VDOT, obviously. So I'm sure those discussions will continue.

That was nice of me.

Thank you, sir. Commissioner Justice, did you have your light on, ma'am? No. Okay.

Commissioner Scheifler.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes. Thank you. I wanted to know what is the length of that Route 28 where you're going to widen from four lanes to six lanes?

I do not know an exact length. I believe it's around three miles. Okay.

Thank you. Okay.

Commissioner Carroll. Thank you. So first, real quick, I'd be remiss if I didn't thank you, Kevin, also for being at the Vint Hill Smart Airplane Monday night. My pleasure. As a follow-up to those comments. So I grew up in the city of Manassas. I took 28 to school for years. 25 years ago, we were talking about widening Route 28. I guess my question is, so it is, and this might be jumping the gun a little bit on like design, but you know, it's tight going up there is the plan. I mean, it's not like something where we have wide open swatches where we could potentially have that land use easements right away donated or something like that. But it is the plan kind of for eminent domain, some of those different sections, parts.

We anticipate there might be some impacts, but ultimately that's part of what the small area plan is going to answer. We're going to minimize those as much as possible as it would make sense to do so. We've done it before in other parts of the county, too. So it's striking that we're trying to strike that balance. The small area plan will tell us a lot more about how that's going to look. Okay, perfect.

Thank you. Let's go back to Commissioner Scheifler.

I just had one final question. I'm throwing a blank. Anybody else? I can't remember.

Long day for you too, sir? Okay. Here we go. Okay, here we go.

I know that there's, you know, you talked about timing constraints. Was that related to the Yorkshire Small Air Plan? I know there's like a $60 million, you know, innovative intersection project going on on 28 in this section. Does this impact that or how they are?

There's quite a bit going on. I'll try and summarize it as best I can with the cliff notes I have here. So in the 2019 mobility bond, there was $200 million potentially available for either a Route 28 bypass or Route 28 widening. That is, I believe, an eight-year bond that can be extended in increments of one year up to a total of two years. So 2029 is when we need to, you know, start doing something with that money. Now there is the innovative intersections project that is already, uh, planning to take place along route 28, um, from phase one Manassas drive to Spruce street. Uh, that project is underway construction scheduled to begin in 2028. The rest of route 28 from Spruce Spree, uh, Spruce street to the Fairfax County line. That is a future MVTA funded project, but the funding is not available until FY28. And it is, for people who aren't aware, it's innovative intersections, things like displaced left turns, sort of making a lot of the driveways right in, right out. Basically making the roadway safer, flow better for the main stretch of traffic on Route 28, but also increasing safety and making the turns a little bit more controlled. Now, the question that probably is on everyone's mind after I told you that is, how would the widening impact that project? We've already been coordinating with VDOT on ways to sort of blend the two together. They're gonna take the lead and conduct a potential corridor study and determine widening typical sections impacts to existing funded projects along with the works, uh, Yorkshire small area plan that will include additional public engagement. Uh, we can't formally get started on that process until the six lanes on route 28 is in the comprehensive plan. So, um, all of that is kind of, you know, wait until we tell you to go and that sort of thing. Um, but we are working on that, making sure that we're not, you know, you know, just replacing a well thought out project with another project immediately afterwards. there'll be a lot of blending of the two involved.

So, Kevin, that could potentially include, you know, maybe replacing the bridge over Bull Run or something like that would kind of qualify as far as the widening. I mean, I'm trying to understand, you know, because that's an area where that's a deficient bridge and needs to be replaced anyway.

Understood. I'm sure it would qualify as part of, you know, the $200 mobility bond. And, um, you know, Fairfax in Fairfax route 28 to six lanes until it gets to the County line. And, you know, we don't want a bottleneck.

So I'm sure that would be looked at as part of this project as the bridge is probably the most important part to get done for, you know, to make sure that's the bottom point. You can't walk, you can't walk or bike between Fairfax and Prince William now. So hopefully that's prioritized. Thank you.

Okay. Uh, commissioners, I don't see anybody. Oh, here we go. Commissioner justice. You sure? Oh, okay. She's jumping ahead. All right, no problem there. So I don't see any more lights on. We're going to conclude our question and answer session with our staff. Thank you very much, sir. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, my goodness. Commissioner Shaik, you guys are not helping me as much as I was hoping. Commissioner Shaik, do you have any questions, sir?

Yes. So in 2019, we had a referendum in the county. It was on the ballot where we asked the citizens if they would approve the Route 28 bypass, and it was approved for up to $400 million bond. Now, what will happen to that? Will that bond will just sit there and never be exercised, or will that funding be used for something else?

I will get you an official answer on that, but based on what I have here, $200 million of that is available for this widening of Route 28 and can be moved for that purpose. As far as the rest of it, because you said 400 million, I will get you an answer.

And can you, I saw the lines of service will improve a little bit. Can you specify like the difference between if we would have built the bypass versus what we're doing now, adding one line on each side, what will be the difference now?

We have that slide up right now. So with the bypass built under the baseline comp plan scenario, there would be level of service E on both the bypass and Route 28 with an improvement to LOSD south of the City of Manassas Park line down to the City of Manassas without the bypass, but with the widening, the stretch of Route 28 through Yorkshire improves to LOSD. There is a slight decrease to LOSD south of the City of Manassas Park, but that is in length, shorter length than the part that goes through Yorkshire. Does that answer your question?

does and if we look at it it's all between Prince William and City of Manassas Park and maybe a little bit of City of Manassas at some point but you mentioned earlier that the reason for us not to build the bypass is Fairfax County did not give us some right of way or something I don't see Fairfax County anywhere in this or the bypass so where were we asking them for right of way or commitment

The Route 28 bypass, you know, the roads sort of cut off here at the county line, but the Route 28 bypass was designed to terminate in Fairfax County at an intersection with Route 28 in Fairfax County. There were multiple options that we looked at as far as alignments. Most of them terminated in Fairfax County, included a lot of potential right-of-way impacts, total takes of homes. It would have been quite a disruptive project, and... Not without its benefits, obviously, for traffic flow in the region, but since that project has been canceled by the Board of Supervisors, that's why we're here tonight.

Thank you, sir.

So are there any other questions, ladies and gentlemen, from the dais? All right, seeing none. So what we have here is an application, item E, It actually, because it is such a vast project, it goes through two magisterial districts, the Coles District and the Gainesville Magisterial District. And so in our agenda review and in reviewing this with the members on the dais, Commissioner Justice is going to make a motion for this particular application and will ask for concurrence from Commissioner Ross of the Gainesville District. So, Commissioner Justice, the floor is now yours, ma'am.

I'd like to close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

I'd like to make a motion to approve CPA two zero two five dash zero zero zero zero seven mobility chapter update route 28 changes, including the removal of route 28 bypass from the text and roadway map and its associated shares use path from the countywide trails plan map and add to the texts and roadway map the widening of the existing route 28 from four to six lanes as well as the addition of a recreational trail. This is an amendment that I'm adding the addition of the recreational trail known as flat branch trail to the text and countywide trails map in the appropriate location of the route 28 bypass.

Commissioner Ross, do you concur? I do. Is there a second second? It has been moved by Commissioner Justice and seconded by Commissioner Ross that the Planning Commission recommend approval for Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 2025-0007. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair McPhail?

Yes.

Vice Chair Brown? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Justice. Yes. Commissioner Ross. Yes. Commissioner Moses Ned. Yes. Commissioner shake. Yes. Commissioner Shifler. Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you very much. Uh, we're going to move now to item 11 D R E Z 2024 0 0 0 4 8. And again for our citizens, while the diets, the members on the diets, Look at this opportunity to conduct County business as a very serious matter I'm sure as you can tell we are a very collegial group up here. So that's why you hear a humorous comment or two So with that we're going to move to our applicant and the presentation Miss Cameron the floor is yours ma'am Good evening chair McPhail and members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Jo Nell Cameron with Walsh Colucci Luba lie in Walsh and Here tonight on behalf of the applicant Galveston Crossing, we have a whole team with us here today to answer any questions when it's our time. The civil engineering team is here as well as the traffic consultant and environmental consultants. We are seeking a rezoning to PMR. The property is comprised of three parcels that are approximately 23.43 acres in size in total. Here is Prince William Parkway and here is Holdley Road. Here is Galveston Road where the property will be accessed from. The property is currently zoned A1, agricultural, and a small portion is zoned M2, light industrial. The property is comprehensively planned, MU3, mixed use. The mixed use designation recommends 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre. This slide is a contextual exhibit that shows you how the property and proposal fits in with the surrounding area. And this slide is an illustrative of our master zoning plan. The applicant is proposing 274 residential units, which will allow for 242 multifamily stacked units and up to 32 traditional multifamily units, which are in this building in here. The flexibility to allow for up to 32 units is that this building is designed to be a LIHTC building, and after rezoning approval, an application will be submitted for that funding. All of the units within the traditional multifamily units will be affordable, and if the LIHTC funds funding is awarded, then the average AMI would be 60% in that building. If the LIHTC is not awarded, the applicant has proffered that the AMI would be up to 80%. This slide shows the open space plan. The PMR requires 30% open space, and the comprehensive plan also recommends 30% open space. The applicant is proposing 55% of the site as open space. The applicant is proposing a 50-foot buffer along Prince William Parkway. Due to the grade of the site, it's about a 20-foot difference between the parkway and the property, um, all of the vegetation cannot be retained. There will be clearing and grading within the vegetation and it will be replanted. The applicant is requesting a 30 foot landscape strip adjacent to the commercial. This is a waiver as part of our application. Although the buffer is only 30 feet to the south, the applicant is proposing its amenities along this boundary. All of the amenities will be heavily landscaped. And as you can see, the buffer ranges from 37 feet and the lowest point to 109 feet with that landscaping and amenity areas. The applicant is also proposing a variable width undisturbed buffer in the area here to the west. The applicant is proposing several amenities on site that are walkable from no matter where you are in the community. A little less than one and a third acres is proposed as the amenity areas. There is the community garden, community park, the pocket park, fitness park, and then the promenade, which is in this area here. In addition, the multifamily building will have a community room as part of that amenity. The applicant is also proffering a monetary contribution to Parks and Rec for both the Occoquan and Neabsco Greenways. This slide shows the community garden. It provides for an outdoor space for residents to plant to their own preference and needs. In addition to plots, shared work and rest space in the form of potting benches and seating will be present within this area. This slide shows the community park, which is the primary park for a playground for children's two through 12 gathering spaces, an activity lawn, and also a fitness area. This slide shows the pocket park and second fitness area within the site. And this side is the promenade. So the promenade is the central feature when you enter the site. It has a flex lawn space. And we also proffered that it would have a minimum of two of the following seating areas, bench swing or neighborhood book exchange. As part of the proposal, the applicant had to conduct a traffic impact analysis and look at the three intersections that are shown on the screen. The traffic impact analysis required us to look at the existing trips today at these intersections and the level of service. It also required us to look at the future level of service with a 2% increase based on growth, and we had to also include the mosque special use permit expansion as background traffic. We then had to look at what would be the future traffic with this development and the background traffic, and then look at what would be the trips and levels of service at these intersections in the future with the background traffic, so that's the 2% annual, the mosque expansion, our project, and we also then had to include Hoadley Square, assuming that would be approved. What the study showed is that intersections two and three would still operate at acceptable levels of service. The background without our development, intersection one, which is the intersection of Hoadley Road, Prince William Parkway, and Davis Ford Road, is failing in the future without our development, and then it would be failing in the future with our development and with the Hoadley Square development. It's about a five and a half second additional delay. VDOT has acknowledged that this intersection is failing, and they've actually started to conduct a STARS study We had proffered $25,000 as a monetary contribution towards that star study. Because this study has been fully funded and is underway, Prince William County Transportation asked for us to proffer a monetary contribution for an interim fix at this intersection, and the applicant has been working with County Transportation on that fix in the dollar amount and would make that revision between the planning commission and board public hearing. This slide shows the interior street network. The street network within the community is designed with a structured hierarchy prioritizing connectivity, functionality, accessibility, efficiency, and safety for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. As part of the project, the applicant will be relocating the cul-de-sac that's at the end of Galveston today. We will be relocating that into the site and making that the public street turnaround. All of the other roads within the development will be private roads. The applicant is providing, as you all can see the areas in green are sidewalks as well as Cheryl markings for bicycle facilities within the development. The applicant was also asked to provide an interpersonal connection to the west in the event that property was ever redeveloped. This slide shows an interconnectivity exhibit that shows both the vehicular transportation, so what you see in red, as well as the pedestrian connections, what you see in blue, and then asphalt trails, what you see in yellow. The applicant has proffered that they would make the best efforts to have an agreement with the shops at County center in this area here to provide a pedestrian connection from the development to the shopping center. We've heard a lot about parking. So wanted to walk through this with you all. The applicant is proposing, um, additional parking. So 583 parking spaces are required. And the applicant is providing 638 parking spaces, so the applicant is over-parked by 55 spaces. This slide shows the monument signage. This slide shows the stacked multifamily elevations. I've said this before, but the PMR standards are outdated and do not match today's market. As such, the applicant is seeking a waiver of the setback from the multifamily stacked units, as well as a height modification to allow for rooftop terraces. The design guidelines require different materials, colors, bump outs to provide a breakup in these buildings. And this slide shows the traditional multifamily elevation. There is a modification to that front setback of 25 feet from the private road. The height is limited to 50 feet, and that is not a modification. And that concludes my presentation. I'll be ready to answer any questions when it's my time.

Thank you very much, ma'am. You're welcome. We'll hear from our staff representatives now.

Thank you, Alex.

Good evening, Chair McPhail, members of the Planning Commission, Scott Meyer. Nice to see everybody. So this is the – you've been oriented to where the site is. The Holy Square application, which is next on our agenda, is here at the west. It's the CPA, the rezoning. The focus of my presentation is on this set of applications. So as Janelle mentioned, this is a proposal to rezone about 23.44 acres from A1 and M2 light industrial to PMR. And this is going to be an all multifamily residential product. The western part is mostly going to be the stacked multifamily, which we also refer to as two over two, or stacked townhouses. So just to clarify that. We are treating it as multifamily. It behaves as multifamily, but it's two over twos. We have something similar in the Potomac Club development over by the Wegmans and Potomac Town Center, just to kind of give you a reference point. And then the eastern building, as Janelle mentioned, is going to be the traditional multifamily, up to 32 units. So staff is recommending approval. I do want to point out that this entire quadrant area, at least for Maple Valley Grove, is planned neighborhood mixed use. So PMR is one of the appropriate zoning districts that implements the use. there is the site is entirely treed right now this is behind the uh shopping center it's currently zoned a1 there's a little sliver here at the northeast part which is also zoned as light industrial um uh it's kind of a um i'm not really sure why but i think it was before the alignment of the parkway in here um so and then we also have environmental resource or orpa Of course, the Occoquan Protection Area, which is west of the site. So this is at the convergence of where you have a lot of environmental features, kind of north and west. But we're, again, focusing on this quadrant here at the north of the terminus of Galveston Court. So just a little bit of context. This is a pedestrian exhibit, which is from the design guidelines. The county complex. courses over here we have you know the stadium complex back here you know we have the police station up to the north there's a lot of rooftops over to the east but there's really no rooftops to the north of the development here so we've heard a lot of we've heard considerable con community input about the way that the assemblage of the development. One thing that staff really would like to see is greater buffering along the parkway because a lot of the development that's already been approved over here but not built yet has more substantial buffering and we also are not able to support the reduction in the buffer on the south side. I'll get into that a little bit more but at least this just shows you where the project is and then This eastern portion here is what Janelle mentioned is going to be either the LIHTC project or another realm of affordability at 80%. At a closer look, these are all rear-loaded units, the multifamily stacked. We feel that's a good thing because you have the frontages here and then the rear-loaded aspect is along an alley. We feel it's always desirable to have the frontage and then the rear-loaded. That's a good design element. There's a considerable open space amenity here. Commissioner Scheifele, as per your email, maybe we can talk about this at a little later point, you had suggested maybe moving this area a little further to the east where that pedestrian connection is. That makes sense planning-wise. Again, we haven't really looked at that, but I just wanted to mention that. And this is showing here, again, with the connection of this to the proposed Holy Square development. So you have land bay A, the stacked multifamily land bay B, which is a traditional multifamily. This is the environmental constraints analysis. Although the applicant is showing the limits of disturbance respecting a lot of the environmental features on the western end, we feel there's a much greater opportunity for tree save. And a lot of that could be done through, enhanced buffer along the parkway this is a really important issue we have our environmental staff here 50 foot is the minimum it doesn't always have to be the minimum we feel that if this is increase you would have greater mitigation of the height increase you would also be able to offset the transition of this to the back of the shopping center and it's still going to allow the development to do virtually everything that they're asking for It just would require an increase in buffer, an increase in tree save areas. So a lot of this is one of the big issues that we have, environmentally speaking, is that the limits of clearing, it does not give greater sensitivity to the extent of tree save on the site. And we feel there's an opportunity that's missed with this, respectfully, in terms of tree save. This is showing the open space exhibit. Again, we have the amenities central to the site and then along the south. Mentioned about, you know, there's been some discussion limitedly about shifting this over to the east because where it meets the, you know, shopping center, we would have a greater convergence of these amenity areas where you have that pedestrian connection. And again, I'm talking about right in here as well so we have the extension of the cul-de-sac which chanel mentioned this is also the public street alternative again we have the extension of the road all these streets are going to be public within here this yellow building again is where the traditional multi-family will go there is a height increase of up to 55 feet staff is okay with the height increase but we're respectfully not okay with We feel that there needs to be greater tree save along the parkway, and with greater sensitivity to on-site tree preservation, you could essentially mitigate or offset that tree height increase. There's also a reduction in the front yard setback, which we are okay with overall. This is showing, again, the stacked multifamily common entrance, rear-loaded, two floors, and then two floors above that, thus the two-over-two reference. And then to the right here, we have more of the traditional multifamily, which is the Eastern most building. So staff is recommending approval. Um, I will point out environment was no schools was no for committee design. Um, although, excuse me, that we are able to support the committee design. We feel like the massing impacts of the height increase is not fully mitigated. It could be, and we're suggesting by greater tree save along the parkway, enhancing the southern buffer to be 50 feet instead of 30 feet, It's not gonna kill the project, it's just gonna provide a greater sense of mitigation. Environment, we feel the loss of intact vegetated areas cannot be overlooked. Minimal onsite resource preservation, there are opportunities for tree save. With schools, There is unmitigated capacity for elementary school. There is not a monetary contribution, but there is for Holy Square. So not really sure why that was not done. Also, staff has some concerns about the mitigation of the methodology. So the school's memo is attached in the staff report. We haven't done a lot of additional analysis, but I just wanted to mention to you all that the applicant is discounting the affordable numbers to show the full impacts of the development. So schools is no, environment is no, but overall we look at everything, because we're planning, and we look at, you know, The negative and everything in between. We are recommending approval. In terms of the waivers, the Proffer 26C, we feel that staff could support it, but we're not going to be able to fully look at the details until we look at the fire and safety building requirements for that front yard setback, which we feel could be met, but I just wanted to mention that. and we're respectfully not able to support the southern continuous 30 foot buffer. We feel it really should be 50 feet or a greater amount of variability. with that. So staff is recommending approval. The proffers are dated October 31st. We feel that the density, this is at the higher end of the density range, but it still meets the intent. There's considerable open space and we feel that it provides a cohesive quality design. There is an affordable housing component that meets objectives of the strategic plan. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions? We have Will here, our arborist, and Ian. We also have transportation staff and others in planning to help. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Meyer. Sure. I'm sure we'll be calling you back. Commissioner Carroll, do we have anyone signed up for public comment time?

Yes. As of now, we have four people signed up in person. I will call the four to start, and then if anyone else would like to speak... we can kind of go up in groups of three or four as we go through. But to start, we have Andrew Dowdy, Martin Jeter, Clancy McQuig and Dr. Jack. Um, if you can head to the back, um, as you speak, just name magisterial district or generally where you live and you will have three minutes to speak. If you're representing an organization, you will have five minutes to speak.

Good afternoon, commissioners, or excuse me, good evening.

Sir, can you pull that mic up a little bit? There you go. Thank you.

Good evening. My name's Andrew Dowdy. I recently just moved to Lost Creek Court, which is right off Hoadley between the mosque and the community center. And unfortunately, we recently just found out about these development projects and stuff falling right behind our house. My neighbor, Mr. Stone, over here, we share the same concerns. The development of these two large communities in numbers create a dramatic change in the quality of life, the expectation of our one-acre-plus neighborhood, which was our main lift to move here from Fairfax County. So we're pretty much moving from what we were living in right into the same... predicament a few notes that I put down I'd be glad to share and the gentleman in the jacket already addressed one being the school the school is not prepared for these type of numbers you're doing two communities with 200 plus housing we'll say average one kid per house schools aren't ready for that Prince William County is not ready for that School safety, kid safety, traffic safety, these would be all concerns of me and my neighbors. I apologize for all the ums. Kind of cut off cord. I'd really suggest that the commissioners, the board, does not change anything. The zoning. We're not opposed to development, but stacked up houses, two-on-two, apartment complex, affordable housing, I don't think this is a suitable location for that. We're not against development. I mean, it would be likely homes, additional single-family homes. And that's all I have to say. I appreciate your time.

Great. Thank you. Thanks.

Good evening, Chair McPhail, members of the commission. My name is Martin Jeter. I live in the Alcuin District, and I'm here representing the Mid-County Civic Association tonight, and I would like the extra time, if I could, please. Thank you, sir. So I distributed a letter to you, or the clerk distributed a letter to you just now, and we sent that previously to your mailboxes from Mid-County Civic Association and the Prince William Conservation Alliance. And I just want to speak a little bit about what is in that letter. We have reviewed this project at a MEDCO meeting. We appreciate the applicant coming out and interfacing with us and talking about their project. However, we can't support it and just want to give you some reasons why. The undersigned groups have, as I said, reviewed the project. But some background on this area, this particular land area was in the semi-rural residential area in the previous comprehensive plan. And so in that semi-rural residential SRR, the average density would be 2.5 acres per home on a project. And all the other parcels around this area, for the most part, are SRR. And they were put into the Aquan Reservoir Protection Area when that was instituted in 2022. This parcel, for whatever reason, was not. We don't agree with that. We think due to the fact, and I'm going to speak more to this with the Hoadley Square Project, but the environmental aspects in this area, the streams and this parcel is completely treed right now with mature forest. We don't think it was a good idea to take this out of the ORPA and I should say not put it into the ORPA in the first place. And we don't think it was a good idea to basically clear cut this project for this, clear cut this land area for this project. So, but having said all that, we have to work with the comprehensive plan as it is. And so with that understanding, we would recommend, as we do with projects all across the county, that we work within the transect range to tailor the density for areas of the county that can handle that density. Now, in this project area, it's not near high-capacity transit. It's near a bus service on Ridgefield. the court there that takes about 45 minutes to get to Potomac Mills, it's not realistic that you're gonna have a lot of people riding the bus here. And so in the effort to get folks out of cars and encourage transit, we recommend that you, with these transect ranges, in this area it's four to 12 for this T3, we recommend you go to the the higher end of the transect range when you're near high capacity transit, the lower end of the transect when you're in areas like this without high capacity transit. So we would, in this case, this project is right at the top end of the transect range. In other words, it's 11.6 units per acre at a 12 unit per acre top of the range. So in this area, we'd recommend going towards the four units per acre, which would reduce the density down to about 94 or 100 units in that area. it would make it available to, or make you able to protect more of the open space and have less impervious services and protect the ORPA area a little bit better. And so for all these reasons, we think that This project, unfortunately, at this density range, at this top end of the density range, we don't think it's a viable project here. And unfortunately, can't support it. We don't really have any other comments other than we would recommend that they take a look at going towards the lower end of the density range on a project like this. That's really confusing because I'm trying. You've got two minutes. Yeah, I know. I was trying to go with that and talk a little loud. But that's all I have. So thank you for your time.

All right, thank you very much, Mr. Jeter. Sorry for the confusion.

Good evening. I'm Clancy McQuig from the Lake Ridge Occoquan Civic Association in the Occoquan Magisterial District. Both. We're strongly, strongly opposed to taking the ORPA off this land. The ORPA is the only thing we have that's protecting... or drinking water, and so far every time something has come up where somebody wants to build something that's totally inappropriate, it's been approved. So the ORPA is a joke. And I don't understand, I would like, our development director and you all together and say we need some development standards for the orca like fairfax county has done if not anything else copy it either that or seed the whole orbit to fairfax county because they seem to be serious about protecting the water supply when we're not it's uh it's really critical that we protect environment and I know and you know we're the stewards of our environment and we just can't let it go for the development of inappropriate uses so thank you very much

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. I'm Jack Kuyumchin, President of LOCA. I'd like to have the five minutes. I don't know that I'll use the full five minutes as an organizational rep, but I did want to say we did review Maple Valley Grove, at several meetings. The last one was July 31st, and at that particular meeting, we observed that the residential density increased on the MU3 mixed-use proposal toward the upper end, but the applicant change the unit mix, but the big changes we observed and discussed involved elimination of a roundabout and significant addition of more amenities from 1.43 acres to five acres. So, just to say that, and we put in, they put in a focal park, they eliminated, We were talking about a path along the HCOD buffer along the parkway. That was eliminated. But I do want to say we support a strong HCOD buffer along the parkway and also would like to see more dialogue with the applicant and the county arborist. to strengthen the buffers such as in the southern area that was referenced by Scott Meyer in planning. We'd like to see a more robust look and feel to the product to have tree save opportunities and to have a sit down discussion on those things that could make it more of a green space element in a livable, walkable community here. And what Clancy has done, who spoke earlier was referencing is the we would like to see more controls for storm water and more best management practices to mitigate the density impacts that we would have on stresses to the reservoir. We would like to see more ORPA-like controls, more best management practices instituted, and we need to have continuing dialogue on those things so that we can have a more environmentally respectful development and to the sensitivities that we have to protect our treasured Occoquan Reservoir, which is our drinking water supply. So this is an item that we're all sensitive to and will be coming up later when we do the comp plan discussion. But this is in proximity to Holy Square, and we have a lot of connectivity issues here. We like the internal movements and the inter-parcel connections so that we are removing traffic on the main prince william parkway and holdley road by using internal connectivity with so that we could have an interplay with residents working internally they could go to the shopping center and to the supermarket and everything right there internally without having to go back out on the road. So those features are very good and we see a need for continuing dialogue here. Part of that is our former chairman of the Pell Committee, Mr. Burrell, he would say to us, if you have a project that you don't like, uh that has issues that you you're trying to resolve do you walk away and then you see that the board of county supervisors approves it and what do you say should we have been engaged and so that's what we're doing we're trying to remain engaged with the applicant. And we've had some very cordial conversations, but we still need continuing dialogue to work out these issues. And with that, too, I think we probably need a courtesy review on architecture, signage, lighting, landscape, transportation, stormwater controls, and ORPA-like best management practices to be instituted in and internalized in this project. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to provide those comments. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair McPhail, Planning Commissioners. My name is Ashley Studholm. Could I actually use this projector? Would that be okay? My name is Ashley Studholm. I'm in the Occoquan District representing the Prince William Conservation Alliance. Could I please have the five minutes? So just to, I wasn't actually planning on speaking on this particular proposal tonight, but I did want to put a little finer point on some of the things that Martin Jeter mentioned in the letter that we signed together, and he provided a really excellent overview of our concerns, and so I won't reiterate those. But I did just want to add just a finer point to where this location is. That is not intuitive. So I just wanted to highlight where it is located. So that's that orange part here. And it's next to the ORPA. And what you're also seeing here is the hydrologic lines. So this is all in the Occoquan watershed, and this is all flowing into the Occoquan reservoir. And then in yellow, that is Neabsco Creek. And so I just wanted to highlight this, that it looks very, to Martin's point, that it seems like it probably should have been included in ORPA. ESPECIALLY SINCE THAT IT IS COMPLETELY FORESTED CURRENTLY. THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE DISCUSSION AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THESE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT'S GOING ON IN THIS AREA AND THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS THAT WE ARE HAVING ON OUR WATERSHED AND OUR COMMITMENT TO to being good stewards of our drinking water. So I just felt that that was an important visual to have. And I also want to reiterate something that Dr. Jack mentioned, and that is the stormwater piece. And I think that that will be really important moving forward with this project also. So I just wanted to highlight that. Thank you for your time.

Good evening. Good evening. I just also wanted to add that I am a homeowner who just recently moved into the area.

Just name magisterial district.

I'm sorry?

Just can you state your name and then your magisterial district or generally where you live?

Okay, so Julia Novotny, I am here living off of Hoadley Road. So I have been noticing the signs that there are a lot of them going up, with all of them saying rezoning in various areas. And I'm new to this kind of public speaking, But I had just wanted to come by and say that I am very concerned because, like someone who had mentioned before, that I have moved to this area because there was a lot of green space, because this area had a really natural feel to it, and it was very similar to Fairfax County where they have also the green zone protecting the Occoquan Reservoir. And so I had thought that this area was going to be protected because I saw that it had ORPA areas, to protect the area, the green space, the water. And so one of the things that I would also say is we also worried about the impact to the water quality, our wells and you know things that are going to affect us such as traffic and that you know in reading the ORPA that it's you know saying that it is currently the area is covered by dense native forests that provide significant water quality and ecological benefits including groundwater recharge pollutant removal and erosion control and I'm just worried that all of this density that's coming in the cumulative impacts will greatly impact the Occoquan area. When this was put in in the first place, it must have been because they were concerned about the impacts to the watershed. So Fairfax County, I think I heard somebody earlier say, that they needed to add these protections here. I think that that actually needs to be what's being considered and not actually putting in this heavy potential for changing the zoning for this development. And I think the one thing that I grew up in a small community and I was like, and we had commissioners who were very concerned about that, keeping it small. And there was a lot of pressure to keep growing. And I think one of the things that we always respected was that everybody wanted to keep it small because we liked our community having a lot of natural open space. So I just wanted to remind everyone that, you know, Growth is great, but keeping it with the density that we currently have or in the plan that is currently there, I think would be highly recommended. Thank you.

Thank you, everybody. Thank you, commissioners, for giving me the room to speak. I am Ali. I live off Hordley Road within walking distance where all the developments are going in. And I'm going to say something that most folks don't know. And what is that is I'm a veteran, honorable. If you remember the history, we had 6,000-plus Afghans that were brought in here in Quantico, and they mostly settled here. Actually, the number is more. That's the official number. And guess where they're staying? They're staying in people's basement, often illegally renting the basement because there's no room. Now, I live in a single-family home, you know, You know, the folks that are saying that, hey, I don't want these developments to happen. They're like me. You know, make six figure, live in a single family home, you know, quarter of acre land. I don't want to see any development. I just want to see green. Very nice for me. But who's going to look at these people that helped us overseas? cleaned our poop, you know, took the trash out, were the interpreters, and we can't leave them in harm's way. We brought them here. I'm sorry. They're here now. So now we have to make sure that we do these developments, these condos, townhouses, so they can move into proper housing and live. And this has been five years since they came. By now, they're all U.S. citizens, I'm guessing, and they have a big impact on the election. So if our election has 9,000 votes, these people saw the election. So we have to watch out that too. So I'm actually minority. These people are major, these people that came here. So my son goes to Penn Elementary, nice life, everything great, but I feel for these folks. And we need to make sure that we provide them a place to stay, a good school. So if we need more money for the schools, let's fight there. Get more money for schools so that our schools can provide for these people that moved here. And I just talked about the Afghan population. include the Bengali population, include the Pakistani population, all these races, all these ethnicities that came here. You know, Virginia is very diverse, very diverse, especially this area, Prince William County. So we have to also think for them. So sometimes we have to think not just for ourselves, also for these folks. So having that in mind, I will tell you that please go ahead, let these developments happen here so that we can accommodate these folks. Thank you so much.

Evening. Thank you, uh, for listening commissioners. I appreciate the time. So I grew up in this community. Um, my family has been here since your name real quick. Oh, certainly. My name is Michael sever. I live off law street court off Holy road. So, I've been here in this community since I was born. My family goes back generations. My grandfather sat on the presumed County school board. My father was a home developer and built houses throughout Northern Virginia. My mother worked in our local hospitals. What I'm saying is my roots go deep here and I understand the need for development, but in its current state, I do not support this project. I actually came here to speak about the Holy square project tonight, But this one, seeing that it was recommended for approval and the schools were a no and that was not addressed is greatly disturbing to me. I had moved away from the community for a few years to Fairfax County and decided to move back to this area because of the schools, because of what we've done in this county in the last 20 years to improve our schools. We have made a significant difference and to see that the schools were a no on that and we decided to recommend to move forward anyway, I think that needs to be addressed. I agree with many of the other concerns of the other folks that have spoken here. One thing that I do want to highlight that is a concern with this is currently VDOT ranks the intersections along Hoadley Road as an F. those need to be addressed for the safety of us and our children prior to these developments moving forward as i said i'm not against development there is smart development to be had and i agree with the gentleman that there is a need for different types of housing throughout the county to support people in different economic states But what we cannot do is ignore the problems that are looking us in the face and push forward with developments when those are not addressed. I give back any of my time. Thank you very much for listening.

George Coles of Occoquan Magisterial District off of Davis Ford. I'm located not directly affected by nor involved with this project, but having lived here for 30 years, I've observed quite a bit of change and quite a bit of development. The gentleman that preceded me made some very salient points, along with Mr. Jeter, Mr. McQuig, and Dr. Kiumjum. It appears to me that this application for an amendment is perhaps a little ill-conceived and incomplete, particularly to be brought and recommended by staff when the environmental concerns, and the school concerns have not been addressed. Appears to be quite open-ended. And I think one of the problems that we face, this goes back to my earlier comment, is the process within the county understanding and how it is used. There's a comprehensive plan process. What does it matter? so much attention is given to it and excitement, so to speak, when they have the plan adaptations. And there is always such a deviation from the plan with amendments like this. Following on Mr. Jeter's statistics, if you're looking at SRR, you're looking at 11 units that would go in on that property. This developer's coming in proposing 242 units. Combine that with Hoadley Square, which essentially is part of the same development, you're looking at a total of 522, 21 units. And in the end here, you're looking at a density of 22.3 units per acre, as opposed to the SRR and perhaps 11 houses that would go in. So all in all, affordable housing, as Mr. Ali had noted, is notable and it really serves a purpose. But the real question is, where does it go in and How do we go about it? Or are we supposed to rush in and include it in any and all developments? At the end of the day, as you look at all the developments that are going in along the county corridor and in the area, we clearly don't have the infrastructure to meet the developments, yet we continue to go ahead. In terms of the environmental concerns, maybe one of the things that we should also add is a museum to preserve trees for future generations. Anyway, I yield the rest of my time.

Good evening. My name is Craig Calder. I'm in the Occoquan District. I live in the neighborhood off of Lost Creek. Like the gentleman before, I wasn't planning on speaking about this project. I was going to speak about the next one. But there is a concern about the schools. I think Colgan High School is approximately seven or eight years old. I have two daughters that go there, and they're actually both taking classes in trailers. So I guess whenever they project a building in that school, they never took into consideration all the continued growth that was going to happen in the county. So it's pretty sad that they already have trailers at a school that is relatively young in the state. And another item I want to bring up and I'll talk more later is the lady who mentioned the trap the traffic study where she sounded like she said the intersection of Holy Road and Prince William Parkway there need to be an extra five seconds or so just this week coming home during rush hour it took me three lights to get through that intersection so between the mosque expansion and these two developments it's gonna take more than three times to get through that light. I'm not opposed to development. I'm opposed to the number of units that they wanna build in there. Like many of the other speakers, I moved in here from Fairfax County because of the lot size. I know my developer originally wanted to put a lot more houses in there. The county did not approve that. So where I'm at, they're anywhere from two acres to over five acres of lots. So I will concede my time, and I will see you in a few minutes.

Do we have any other citizens that would like to speak on this particular application?

Hello, my name's Adrienne. I live in the Lost Creek District, right behind all of this development. I am similar in nature to many of the people here. I was not planning on speaking today about this particular project, but I walked in right when there was that topography depiction of how the, what is this called, the Maple Valley Grove project would be incorporated into the current traffic flow, and if I understood that map correctly, and anyone please correct me if I'm wrong, it looked like the traffic pattern would be all channeled down to Hoadley Road, I believe that's correct, And the issue that a lot of the neighbors have, and I have yet to find any neighbor of mine that lives in the Lost Creek neighborhood that is happy about all of this development that is happening, it is, if you wouldn't mind, please don't take my photo, please. There is so much density that is being added to this corridor on Holy Road, it is absurd. And the fact that this project got recommended for approval is surprising to me because it sounds like Prince William County is not listening to what the residents have to say, We really don't want this volume and density coming in on this section of Hoadley Road. If you were to look at the density of the entire Hoadley Corridor, our section here near the Harris Cedar section is so dense compared to the other end of Hoadley and all of these new developments that are being channeled into Hoadley Road that's funneling all those extra cars onto Hoadley Road. Our traffic study is already at an F, so continuing to develop on top of something that's already an F is a colossal mistake. That should not be part of the development plan. We shouldn't be continuing to build on F traffic patterns. I can tell you I live inside of that F traffic pattern, And Mr. Calder's comment about needing to take three light cycles to get through just the intersection of Prince William Parkway and Hoadley is dead on. That is exactly right. And if we're gonna continue to add all of this traffic, it's only going to get worse. And so building upon a traffic study that's a grade F, is a mistake unless we're fixing the traffic pattern. We are telling you that traffic is bad and we've been saying this for years and it seems like it falls on deaf ears. We're telling you we don't want this heavy development in this section of Hoadley and it continues to get approved. I have yet to meet a neighbor that's happy about this and I can tell you I've had five neighbors on my street move because they don't want to be around this construction and this high density anymore. A lot of people have got up here and spoken today about how they've moved to our area because it had a little more elbow room than other parts of the county or even other parts of Prince William County, and it is getting destroyed by every project that gets approved, and it's really sad. So I'll be up here to speak here on the next couple of projects, similar thing, we'll see you in a couple minutes, but we don't want the density and we don't want the traffic. We don't want it, okay?

Not for this one.

Thank you. Um, I heard basically three themes or four density schools, landscaping, um, in transportation. So I'll hit them sort of in the order that I heard them in. But as far as schools and staff had mentioned it in their presentation, the proffer legislation specifically says that a jurisdiction cannot ask for an unreasonable proffer. So in order for there to be a monetary contribution towards schools, there has to be a plan for a new school. So for the elementary school in particular, there is not a plan for a backup school. The elementary schools in this district have capacity. They need a redistricting. The high school in this district, as noted in the school report, the 14th high school is designed to relieve capacity for Colgan in this area. There's also Hilton, which this property would actually pass Hilton in order to get to Colgan. And the applicant is willing to work with the schools, which we have done on other projects, to have this property designated as Hilton, for Hilton for the high school. But ultimately, Prince William County Public Schools needs to do a redistricting holistically. And I do know when they had their joint board meeting with Prince William County School Board and the Prince William County Board of County Supervisors. They talked about that potential and need for redistricting. So I wanted to hit that on schools. As far as landscaping, along Prince William Parkway, a majority of that vegetation is old scrub pine that is on a berm because a majority of the vegetation was removed with the Prince William Parkway expansion. So the 50 foot allows for us to provide and plant more substantial plantings than what is existing today. And the 50 foot buffer adjacent to the shopping center, that actually disrupts the safe walkability between the two uses. So the shopping center on its side already has a 50 foot buffer. And then we are providing a 30 foot buffer. So there's a 100 foot buffer in between before you get to our amenity area. And then as far as transportation, and county transportation may weigh in better, but the county and VDOT have acknowledged the issue at the intersection of Prince William Parkway and Holdley, and there is a study underway that has been funded to help improve that intersection. We have been working with Prince William County Transportation on an interim improvement at that intersection that they have looked at as part of this star study. So the star study looks at interim improvements as well as the final improvement. That interim improvement would help with the movement from Prince William Parkway, the left movement from Prince William Parkway to Hoadley Road. And that's the interim improvement that the applicant will be providing a monetary contribution to to help with that intersection. And I think I hit all of the highlights from the comments, and I will stand by for questions from the Planning Commission.

I don't have anything specific at this time. But I do just want to point out that this is not in the ORPA. It is adjacent to ORPA. So I just wanted to, you know, make that clear. We have to look at the comprehensive plan. So, you know, this is MU3. It is, you know, curious. I guess my presumption is that obviously with the shopping center here, the intent was to, you know, have more of the development clustered here. Can't speak to over here, but David, I don't know if you have any historical insight, or Alex, in terms of, you know, I guess, I mean, I can only speak to how this is neighborhood mixed use. But it's not ORPA, but in the next proposal, we'll discuss, you know, that change. But David, just for perspective, or historical?

Well, I just would, yeah, note that... The shopping center is mixed-use, and it has the retail portion of the mixed-use, but there's no residential portion within walking distance of the shopping center. So this is creating that mixed-use community by providing opportunities for residential around the shopping center. Also, the Occoquan Reservoir is... is drains over two-thirds of the county and large portions of Fauquier, Loudon, and Fairfax County. So this is, you know, we have lots of development in the Occoquan Reservoir watershed that is very different. A lot of the ORPA was designed to deal with steep slopes and and streams that are in the mid-county area. And so the edges of it are certainly can be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

And just one other thing to add on. With the STARS study, I did note in my report respectfully that I know the applicant is going to continue to have those discussions with transportation. $25,000, we feel, probably should be more than that. I can't speak to the specifics of that, but I just wanted to, pardon me, I did not mention before that in my staff report, the relatively low number, considering the significance of the intersection, I just didn't want you all to overlook that. And I think Janelle wanted to say something, and David, yeah, pardon me.

There is a mention that the density that's here should be served by high capacity transit, but high capacity transit is intended in the plan to be served for the T5 and T6, which is 50 to 100 in the T5 and 100 plus dwelling units per acre in the T6. So that's where our densities around high capacity transit The other transects are lined with lower levels of transit service, and the T3 and bus transit is an appropriate combination for this density.

Ms. Cameron.

Sorry, I just wanted to add one more thing about the Aquaquan watershed. So this project, about 23.43 acres, are located with the Aquiquan Watershed. The Aquiquan Watershed consists of 31,360 acres in Prince William County and 377,600 acres in total. So as a result, our property only accounts for 0.00075% of the watershed that goes within the Aquiquan watershed that's part of Prince William. And then we're 0.00062% of the entire Aquiquan watershed. So the area that's draining here is a very small percentage of what is going into the Aquiquan watershed. Dr. Jack did mention looking at additional stormwater management mitigation measures, and the applicant is willing to do that and look at types of low-impact development designs as it pertains to stormwater management.

Thank you, ma'am. So now, members of the Planning Commission, we're going to move into our Q&A session of the order of our public hearing. And so with that, I'm going to start with Commissioner Shaikh. Commissioner Shaikh, do you have any questions for the applicant or the staff at this time?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was going to ask the staff about the buffering. I know the staff has recommended a 50-foot buffer, and the applicant has asked for a waiver for a 30-foot buffer.

Commissioner Sheik, Scott Meyer here. Yes. So the waiver is along the southern property line, behind the shopping center, instead of the standard required 50-foot, the applicant's asking to modify that down to 30 feet.

Is that pretty normal amongst the development we have looked at with the T3 Transac or NG3 Transac?

Can only speak to this development, but we look at, we have Will the arborist here, and Will, maybe you can provide a little more perspective, but this is a budding, a busy shopping center, and we feel that 20 more feet is not a drastic ask. Also, it could complement and supplement the open space amenities as well. It can provide more of a cohesive and connected tree save area. So we are not able to support that reduction. But, Will, I guess if you have anything else you wanted to add in that regard for the southern buffer, please. Thank you.

Little Chute County Arborist. So we see this a lot when you're especially dealing with mixed use where you have commercial on one side, residential on the other side. And they always talk about walkability. They always talk about the effectiveness of not separating the two and that kind of thing. Again, you know, a 30 foot to a 50 foot, you're talking 20 more feet that the person would have to walk down the sidewalk. Not a lot. But if you look at the linear it adds up, right? So I'm sure it's a cost savings mechanism for the developer. Now, we're looking at the buffers with this specifically because you're trying to screen residential from the backside of that commercial. If it was maybe the commercial was flipped, maybe a different story, we could be more amenable to the reduction of the buffer. But I don't know if that was particularly a loading area, but I'm sure there's gonna be a lot of truck traffic So again, we're looking at screening. We're looking at that buffering to do that. The applicant did kind of show that some of the amenities were going to be like kind of right there. Again, amenities, certain amenities, like passive amenities, are allowed to encroach in the buffer. But we don't necessarily consider that buffering. We just consider that a passive amenity. So that's why we asked for, especially with two very distinct uses, we asked specifically for the full buffer requirement on those kind of aspects.

And now the buffer along the Prince William County Parkway here is also a 30-foot waiver by the applicant, correct?

So you're talking about the parkway buffer? So that was an inch quad buffer, and it's actually a 50-foot, which I believe the applicant is providing. But when you look at the parkway to the north and the northwest, some of the other developments have proposed up to 150 to 200 HCOD buffers. So there again, if you look at our requirements, zoning ordinance, DCSM, everything is a minimum. That doesn't mean that they can't go above and beyond. So, of course, with the parkway being so prominent right there with Hoadley and the parkway, we are asking for more. Now, we're not expecting, because of the shape of this property, 150 feet, because I don't think that's realistic. 75 feet, maybe closer to 100, you know, but there's room to play with. But we're looking for more than 50 foot.

And my last question before I pass the torch, I believe. So I understand you mentioned the amenities are not included in the buffer. So if there is an amenity, like Commissioner Scheifele recommended to move up one of the pocket parks closer to the pedestrian area, that would create that additional 20 or 30 foot. And Ms. Cameron can probably tell us how big that buffer will be. But for the county zoning purposes, it's not considered a buffer, even though in reality, that park will create that extra buffer we are looking for. Is that correct?

So, yes. So the amenities, they're proposing landscaping with the amenities, which would certainly add to the screening, add to additional space between the uses. But from our standpoint, we cannot count that towards the buffer because it's not a buffer, it's an amenity.

Thank you so much, Will. Thank you, Mr. Myers. Can the applicant just explain if that park is moved up closer to the pedestrian walkway, how big that buffer will become, even though it's not considered a buffer by the county zoning staff?

Can you find my presentation? So I apologize, what park are you thinking that we would move closer?

I believe the one that's closer to the cul-de-sac.

Here. So if we moved this park closer to the road, we wouldn't necessarily have a buffer or closer to that buffer.

Ms. Cameron, hold on. Uh, commissioner shake, hold on one second. Uh, commissioner Shifler, just for clarity to help out with commissioner shakes questions. What was that area that you were, that you had mentioned?

Again, my, my preference would be to have, uh, you know, the area where the pedestrian connection is and the area where there is kind of a place-making area within the commercial development, that would be what my recommendation would be, is to create, you know, a more third-place type of amenity area, you know, kind of trying your best within this context to kind of make it look more like an integrated type of area development or more mixed use. That was my general thought process was that there'd be more opportunities to really enhance the pedestrian connection between the two developments.

Okay, so now I understand Commissioner Scheifler's question, and I apologize.

Actually, we're still on Commissioner Sheik's question.

I understand Commissioner Sheik's question based on Commissioner Scheifler's response. And so here is an open amenity space within the shopping center, and what Commissioner Scheifler would like for us to do is we have a park here, But if there's a way to move that part closer in order to be able to have more of an integrated feel between the two. So if we were to move that part closer, we actually would not have the full 30-foot buffer. It would be a waiver of the buffer in that area. The shopping center, again, also has a 50-foot buffer on their side. And then we have the 30-foot buffer, so there's 80 feet in between. But we would work with the shopping center in that area to see what is the best way. So maybe it's making a wider sidewalk so it looks more like a cohesive open space area between the two for that connection. But that would require a waiver of the buffer in that area.

Thank you, Ms. Cameron. Thank you, Mr. Shearer. I have no further questions at this time.

So we'll start. And, Commissioner Scheifele, I'm not counting your help as one of your questions, okay? We're going to go to Commissioner Justice first, though. Commissioner Justice.

Perfect. My question is going to be for county staff environmental. So I understand that this is not in the ORPA, and I understand it constitutes a teeny tiny amount of what goes into the watershed, but I was always taught to watch your pennies, because the big dollars take care of themselves. So looking back, when this was SRR, can you go over what that was, and if this project or this property, what the environmental impacts are, not just on the tree save aspect of it?

Wilshire County Arborist. So I'm not sure about the history of how the zoning and the overlays and all that were kind of played out. But if you look at the way, I guess, our county is set up, zoning is by property line. And then you have these overlays and these small area plans, these districts and all those kind of thing that follow property lines. Water does not follow property line. So without looking at like a contour map or something like that to see how the water flows across, and of course you have the parkway that creates somewhat of a separation. It probably could have been that this particular area should have been in the ORPA. I couldn't tell you how that decision was made. I wasn't a part of it. But yeah, as far as like, you know, getting to like the tens of thousands of percent that this would contribute to the ORPA, It's that snowball compounding effect. This might be just one one-hundredth of a percent, but then Hoadley adds another one one-hundredth, and then something farther down adds another one one-hundredth, and it could turn into a snowball effect kind of thing. And kind of getting back to the tree preservation and that kind of aspect is we're noticing a trend over all development. So it's not just this. It's not just any particular person or developer. But clearing the entire site is becoming more prominent. And if you look at our zoning in DCSM, it basically says the county wants and prefers preservation. I understand constraints with clearing and grading. I understand it's easier for the developer to clear and to start over from scratch. But from our standpoint, we want to use native vegetation. We want to use what's already existing on site. Now, of course, if it's poor quality, that's a different story. But if they were to increase along the parkway, you know, the entirety of this property is almost pristine woods. And if and when this goes through, it's gone. Even if 100 years from now these aren't homes anymore, those trees are still gone. And there again, that compounding effect, once you take those trees out and you start putting parking lots, buildings, roadways, that kind of stuff, those trees aren't coming back.

So, so you're in agreement or disagreement that the trees that are being taken out and not saved are of poor quality.

Well, no, the property as a whole is very good quality hardwood. Along the parkway, there might be some areas of poor quality just because it's next to the roadway, VDOT right-of-way, that kind of thing where they've had impacts from traffic, pollution, salt, snow, all that kind of thing. But in general, the property is one of those pieces. that is high quality habitat, it's high quality woods, trees, and there's several waterways that kind of go through the property as well on the western side.

So one of the things that was mentioned was doing more robust stormwater management improvements in that regard. What I'm hearing though is if you had to prioritize, you would put the tree safe over that.

You're talking to an arborist, so yes, I would always choose.

Can I have staff answer the same question, so hear it kind of from both sides?

So, yes, I would always choose the tree save because the more tree save you have, the less impervious, pervious versus issues you would have. Even though this isn't in the ORPA with the way the maps are laid out, it still is going to bleed into, potentially, into the ORPA, into the watershed, into the drainage. And so if you can preserve the trees or preserve more forested area, the stormwater shouldn't be as big a factor. Thank you. Yes.

Those are my three.

Commissioner Brown?

I think this is for the applicant. Well, actually anyone can answer this question. I don't know. Is the topography an issue with this site at all? Can someone explain what the issue is with the topography?

Sorry. There you go. I don't know if you can read it, Matt.

Good evening. My name is Matt Marshall. I'm the land development engineer for the applicant. So we're talking topography. And so I think your question was, is it challenging?

Yes.

Subjective question. And does it affect? Subjective answer. I'm sorry. Yes, it is challenging.

Okay.

Yes. It is challenging in that we're basically sitting on top of a ridge.

Mm-hmm.

And the topography falls off on the right into the left. That's where we have our stormwater facilities in the lowest areas. On the left property line, as you're looking at it, there is an RPA, an interperennial stream that we are preserving. And then obviously the slope along the parkway is also very steep from when the VDOT created it.

Okay.

And it's about a 20-foot difference between the parkway and this property. Okay.

Would that account for perhaps your variable width? I just had a blank.

So along the parkway, that accounts for why there is clearing within that area because of the grade differences.

Okay. So saving trees, does that make it less likely to, you could save trees along the parkway?

Well, there's several things at play here. So one, we are limited in terms of what we can do in the buffers relative to retaining walls, for example. That would be a tool we could deploy to limit our disturbance such that we could save trees, right? And so in a buffer, we are limited to a maximum retaining wall height of three feet, right? So Janelle just mentioned that the slope alone is 20 feet. I would suggest that it's actually more like 34 to 50 feet in some places. And so obviously trying to find that balance where we are limiting the disturbance, minimizing retaining walls because we're prohibited in some cases by the buffer language in the DCSM. So yes, it is a limiting factor relative to saving the trees that are along the parkway.

Okay. Thank you. I think those are my three questions.

Commissioner Carroll?

Thank you. While we're on this slide, to speak on the buffers, just to make sure I'm clear, the dotted line, that's the limits of disturbance. So if we were to increase on, say, the parkway buffer, if we were to increase that buffer to 100 feet, would then that kind of mitigate some of those slip issues where we'd be able to have a more consistent kind of tree save along the parkway?

Well, if you have a 100-foot buffer, it's obviously going to push the development footprint further away. So effectively, yes.

Okay, so it could be a tool to recognizing it would push things down, but it could be a tool to make that more consistent and kind of like staff was looking for potentially a more prominent buffer on the parkway.

Yes, but I want to clear something up, and I think the – Exhibit that shows, I don't know if it will go far enough back. But on Prince William Parkway, this is Holdley Falls. This is the only development west for a while that's been developed, and they provided a 75-foot buffer, but there are no other projects. As you get further down closer to Liberia, then you get to the other residential projects. So for the shopping center on Hoadley here, they provided a 50-foot buffer as well. So we have not seen 150 or 200-foot buffers along this corridor for the rezonings that are closest to us.

So for Hoadley Falls, that's not at this density, though, is it?

I'm sorry?

The Hoadley Falls on the north, that's not at this density, though, is it? Do you know the density?

No, that is single-family detached. which is why I think they did the 75 feet.

Okay, so I mean it's kind of comparing apples to oranges.

But I was comparing the fact that there's not a buffer that's 150 or 200 feet down Prince William Parkway.

The buffer does not need to be as prominent, I would say, when you have SSR and houses, you know, much more spaced out. Like the buffer and the prominence, in my view, if that's gonna be a completely different situation on having that kind of look on the parkway. But yeah, we can disagree on that. Can we go to, you had a slide, and this was in your presentation, Janelle, it was kind of on, the slide that had the exhibit with Hoadley Square and the traffic paths,

Sorry, I realize that one is actually a little bit outdated, but this basically will do the same thing for you. So this shows, sorry, go ahead.

Sorry, there was a different one that had like the red dotted lines.

I can show that one. I do want to say it's outdated because it's showing access to Lost Creek. So it's showing this here that no longer exists. Okay. So ignore this portion here. That was what I was going to ask. Okay, that does not exist. That was removed.

Okay. gotcha and obviously no that's a different project but just correct for the lost creek resident yes that has been removed um okay and then my last question for now um and this might be for staff i know staff you know i have concerns about you know any chipping away of the orpa even if it's a little bit and you know the county arborist just kind of alluded to that as well but And I know this is a repeated question, but for staff, is there any sort of water study that is ongoing in terms of the county to look at ORPA, look at the Royal Crescent? I know this was kind of a question that came up last night as well in one of the developments near the former Royal Crescent.

The... Northern Virginia Regional Commission is leading a study of the Occoquan reservoir watershed. and looking at the impacts of growth in this multi-county area on the watershed. But again, this is a very small percentage of the watershed to make the modeling that they're doing not really applicable to this particular case.

And do we have a timeline of when that study will be complete?

No, I'm not sure. I have to get back to you on that. We can find that out for you. Okay. Thank you.

Let's go to Commissioner Moses-Nett.

Thank you, Chair. Mr. McGettigan, you don't have to sit down yet. You made a statement that the edges of the ORPA have to be looked at on projects that are on the edges of the ORPA, have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. For this particular case, what does that mean?

Well, first of all, this is not in the ORPA, but I think you need to look at the environmental impacts of it, and also with every project you have to balance those environmental impacts are with the benefits of the project. What it's providing to the county in terms of meeting our housing goals or meeting, creating mixed use areas. So there's always a balance and we try and give you all the facts up here. What's gonna be removed, trees are gonna be removed, of course we want to save them. you know, as an A1 agricultural property, could the property owner go and remove all the trees by right? Yes, they could, but that's not the ultimate factor, and we just need to balance all of these things and make sure that we're looking at everything and making a decision, our best decision, and again, the staff is recommending approval of this application, and... but we are concerned with the environmental impacts, and so we have a no on environment, but on balance of all of the factors of the comprehensive plan, that we're recommending approval.

Understandable, I just wanted some clarity, simply because you threw the statement out there. I'm wondering about, the project itself. Ms. Cameron? And possibly, I think he was the site engineer. He talked about if he moved the buffer back 100 feet. And I get it. When you go down the parkway, there is a certain look with the trees, even though that buffer may be 75 feet at the next property with homes. it doesn't have a feel of being right at the edge, which I think is a challenge for this project. You mentioned the only way to get that 100-foot buffer along the parkway would be to move the project back, which would probably take out some of the homes within this project. Is that a possibility for this project?

I think one of the impacts larger than that is what it does to impact that LIHTC building. So I'm not sure that that is a possibility.

Your client wants to speak.

In the current form, it would not. I'm sorry.

Commissioners, thank you for your time.

I'm Joe Franconi for the applicant. A 100-foot buffer on the parkway would drastically impact, reduce the yield of this. We would come back with a different project that likely would not include the multifamily building. So what you're looking at here tonight and we're talking about has been the culmination of 14 to 15 months' worth of work. several trips back and forth with staff and the supervisor's office, quite frankly. And I'm really proud of what we've put up in front of you all here tonight. And I think when you balance it on whole, I think it answers a bunch of questions towards the lower affordability of the housing, of the for sale product. And it enables a true, you know, 30 to 60% AMI rental opportunities in brand new Class A buildings in Prince William County, which we have nothing else. So with all we've put in here, we managed to maintain 50% open space over the site. Over 50% of the existing space is open. The addition of a 100-foot buffer would be tantamount to several. It would change this drastically. I mean, you could see what it would do if you push that back another 50 feet. And as the engineer said, as Matt so eloquently said, This basically, the property coming in off of Galveston, is a ridge running up to the top, going down on either side. And I've walked the property numerous times, and I'm a woodsman, I'm a hunter, I've been out in the woods my whole life. There is some trees that typically might be worth saving, but as a whole, it's poplar, it's pines, it's a lot of low scrubby stuff. It's not really a pristine site to begin with. When we develop the property, we're going to control 100% of the stormwater that's coming off of that site now, which of right now today, 0% of that is controlled and treated before it goes into the aquaquan. So I sit here, and I tend to get emotional, so please pardon me when I get up here like this in public. But this is a culmination of a long effort, a plan that meets or exceeds the stormwater standards of the state and of Prince William County. And we've agreed today with Dr. Jack and others to go even beyond that. And we found some opportunities to introduce some LIDs into the project, too. between now and planning commission. I mean, between now and the board, we also, you know, heard about the traffic. We were no comments on traffic up until about 10 or 12 days ago. Since then, we've come up with an alternative working with, with transportation staff, um, to, uh, interim fix for that third turn lane, a third left turn lane off of the parkway onto Hoadley. which will significantly improve the delay on that motion today. So a 100-foot buffer instead of a 50-foot buffer is going to send me back to the drawing board on this. And with the effort that we've put into this date, I don't think that's a reasonable ask. it would be tantamount to that to answer the question, the short form that would be tantamount to changing this, not something. And if it was, if I could give it to you here tonight and say, and make this all go away, I would, but I can't. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, and you mentioned, um, uh, the light tech project that's, that's going in. Could you talk a little bit more about that?

Yeah, absolutely. So there is the opportunity here to do a LIHTC project. There is a contract purchaser, which really they get the land for free, that is in the works to develop this project. How that works is LIHTC is a federally funded program, and you have to place a LIHTC application in. You cannot submit your application unless there is a zoning already in place for that use, and those applications are due at the beginning of every year. The LIHTC project specifically says that on average, your AMI has to average out to 60%, but it specifically breaks down the percentages that you have to have generally within each income band. So in Prince William County, for the DC metro area, the AMI is $163,900. So there is a chart that will walk through a four-person household. What does that look like at each one of those income bands? So I hope I answered your question. The unit count will depend on the application and the number of one or two or three bedrooms that there are, which is why there is that flexibility. If the LIHTC application is denied, then we've committed that if it's not LIHTC, it would still be an affordable housing up to 80% AMI, between 60% and 80% AMI.

Thank you. You're welcome. I think that's three questions. I have others, but I'll come back.

Let's go to Commissioner Scheifele.

For transportation, Kevin, I don't know who from transportation, can you clarify what the interim, is the interim system just a triple left turn lane coming off the parkway? Or what is the agreement?

Yeah, so for the record, my name is Bryce Barrett. I'm a planner with the Prince William County Department of Transportation. So just to give you a little bit of background to kind of help better answer that question, the county is currently working with VDOT. We were selected for a STAR study, which is a strategically affordable targeted road solutions program that they do. It essentially looks at an entire corridor and looks to make operational and safety improvements as well as increase multimodal connectivity in kind of a short-term, low-cost, affordable way. as well as kind of recommending some of those larger improvements. So we kicked that project off in October of 2024. We've been working with the consultant and with VDOT to go through that. Uh, we had a, uh, initial public engagement survey earlier this year, around February, March timeframe. And we're actually about to move into the second, uh, public engagement, which will be, I believe the first week in December, it will be another survey that will be going out. And that's actually, we're going to present some of the alternative recommendations that the STARS study is coming forward with. So it's going to look at potential improvements at Prince William Parkway and Hoadley. That was one of the big intersections that were identified in the STARS study. We have been identifying this intersection since the first submission when the TIA was submitted with this application and knowing that there was a failing movement in the future conditions with and without the development Looking at the increase that the development was contributing, it was relatively low. It was only about 4% increase to that failing left turn movement from Prince William Parkway on to Hoadley. But as we were kind of advancing through the STARS study and as we are getting closer and closer to alternative recommendations, we did work with the applicant and we have been engaging with them for the past several weeks to talk about contributions towards some improvements at that facility. So I think we've landed in a good place. The current proffers are for $25,000. We've negotiated with the applicant to have them submit revised proffers between now and the board that will probably include a larger amount. And that was basically going back and forth with the applicant to determine what we think an appropriate interim improvement would be. So again, the STAR study is not finalized. Those recommendations are just coming out to the public, but based off some of the lower cost recommendations, that's kind of the benchmark that we use to discuss with the applicant in determining what their pro rata share contribution could be. So I hope that answers your question, but essentially there's a lot of moving pieces, but the applicant has provided an assurance that they're willing to work with us and to continue to look for ways that we could do an interim improvement at Prince William, Parkway, and Hoadley, or that monetary contribution could potentially go towards a larger improvement that is ultimately recommended as part of the STAR study.

Thanks, Bryce. My second question for clarity is probably for staff. Has there been any formal action by the school board about redistricting? I mean, I've heard people say things, but has there been actually any formal?

I can speak to that. Tanya Washington, planning director. The answer is no. No formal action.

Okay, I do have concerns about the lack of contribution or lack of impact when these are zoned for Colgan, I assume. And there is a project in the CIP that's addressing that overcrowding for Colgan. So I just have concerns over that piece. And my last question is, as far as... As far as the MU3 versus the ORPA, does staff recommend that kind of sharp cutoff in kind of density as part of the comprehensive plan amendment when we updated the concept plan? Was that designed that way? Was that what was originally recommended by staff, or was that changed at a later time? Usually there's not that big of a drop off from high density to significantly low density. Is that?

Well, there's always a line somewhere. But I think the walkability, you know, was key in defining that area. So you didn't want to, you usually want a quarter, half mile radius around the center of a node, an activity center, so that you don't, you have that walkability when you're creating an activity center. like this would be a mixed-use area. You don't want to extend it farther that people are not going to be willing to walk to that center, which in this case is the shopping center. So you don't want to go too far away. Usually, you know, when you're talking about comprehensive planning, you prefer to use a a bigger brush to draw those lines that are, but you can't with the GIS and, and the way things are today, you have to, to go along property lines. So that was, um, probably where that, that line came from was that, that, uh, that property line and the distance from the center helped define where that edge should be.

Okay. My final question for now is, so what is the difference between MU3 and RN3? Because when I look at this, I see RN3, and I don't see, like, effort as far as, like, combining or, you know, creating that mixed use piece. It seems like they're two separate pieces and I know there's zoning issues related to that with buffers. But again, I just have concerns about, you know, having this large of a density, you know, at the high end of the density, it seemed like you'd want to have more integration with the commercial property, but it seems like it's more tense towards like a residential neighborhood too, where there's, you know, they're there next to each other, but they don't really interact at all. So, I mean, that's one of my, I don't know if that's, I'm just struggling with, you know, this seems to me like RN three is instead of a MU three. And it doesn't seem like there was much effort taken to really combine them. is that I'm just trying to, I read the commercial plan and it, you know, it reads more, this development reads more like an RN three instead of an MU three. Right.

Well, um, in the, uh, In the lower transects, it's harder to have that vertically integrated mixed use in there. The mixed use area, when we look at the percentages of residential and non-residential, we look at the whole polygon, if you will, of the mixed use three, so we don't look at a particular parcel within that polygon in determining the mix of uses, we look at the whole mixed use area in determining the mix of uses. So the non-residential component of this particular mixed use area is already taken up by the shopping center, so there wasn't any need or support for more mixed use. The activity center was missing was residential, and so this is filling that need of providing that residential component of the mixed use area that is this activity center.

Okay, I mean, it would be nice with this level of density that's being proposed to have more integration. If it's not integrated, then, you know, I don't know if it warrants going to the high end of the ME3 at this point. So based on, you know, what's surrounding it other than the shopping center, that, well, there's a huge buffer between the developments. So I'll sit at that.

Which is being reduced.

I'm going to go back to Commissioner Shaikh before we go back down the diet. So, Commissioner Shaikh, do you have any other questions for this evening, for this application?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a real quick thing from the applicant, since applicant is a developer. If this was going to be a buy-right or SRR, quarter-acre lots, what would be the average price of this house?

Looking at today's market, it's probably in between $700 and $1 million.

And that's what I wanted also to emphasize. We heard the comment earlier about ADUs, and Jo also mentioned this is a product of 15 months of work with the supervisor's office to bring a LIHTC product to care for our individuals who can afford only 30% of AMI. Um, so I wanted to make sure that we do talk about why another reason for this development is also the developer is willing to go beyond the environment requirement with the store water management system, which does not exist today. Um. Okay, can you miss Cameron? Can you talk a little bit about the materials used also? Because I know we had a discussion earlier with other commissioners as well.

Absolutely. So in our design guidelines, it talks about a variety of materials. It includes bricks, stone, siding, vinyl. And there was a question as to whether or not we would be willing to commit to a percentage of the materials for the buildings. And more so, would we be willing to commit to more, a higher percentage of using brick and stone for the buildings? And we would be willing to do that between the planning commission and the board. and we'll work with the planning commissioners on the appropriate percentage.

Thank you, Ms. Cameron.

You're welcome.

Mr. Jean, I do not have any other questions right now.

Thank you, Commissioner Shea. Commissioner Justice?

Yes, this question is for staff. Scott?

Yes. Yes.

So just to clarify on the surrounding buffers, what's to come and what's there existing? Up the parkway, there's some that are 75 feet, but did you say that there were other buffers?

Well, these, from what I understand, are the 75 feet further down the parkway. I think that's where they're bigger. Is that correct? Yes.

There's larger.

Correct.

What is the – I know that there was a – there's a height increase on the LIHTC compared to what's allowable, correct?

Yeah, there's a five-foot increase.

Five – so what's the total?

55 feet.

So that one's 55 feet.

What about the – Is that – I'm sorry, is that – is that multi-stacked? Janelle's saying it's on the multi-stacked only.

So the LIHTC building is – 50 feet or 55, 50 feet, 50 yards. And then the other homes, the two over twos, how tall are those?

Those are the ones that would be up to 55 feet, 55 feet from 50 that is allowed in the multifamily.

So when you compare this project to other projects that are along the parkway, what's the view shed going to be like? I mean, you're going to be able to see these because they're so tall, right?

Perhaps. We didn't get a line of sight, so I really can't answer that specifically. But I would presume that, yes. And as you go across the street, there would never be anything this high, obviously. It's a very, very different product. But maybe I can let Janelle speak to that. We don't have a line of sight, and we didn't really look at that perspective. But that's a good point, though.

So going back to the comprehensive plan, when we look at the area, and Scott, your presentation might be better.

No, it's okay.

Sorry. Your comp plan, I think, might be better. So when we look at the comprehensive plan and the mixed use three area, the density is really along this corridor here. And all of this is part of the government center. So as you're coming down the parkway, this is where the buildings tend to be closer to the road or more visible. And as the county planned in their comprehensive plan, the government center, which is this area, and then it sort of comes down, they designed the buildings to be closer to the road. And so from a visual perspective, it would be very similar to the office building that's at the corner of Prince William Parkway.

Does it have the same 20-foot, what did you say, 20 to 30-foot height that you're jumping up? Because this development, it's not only tall, but it also, you're making a jump to go up that ridge, right?

That building is a little bit higher, but I don't know if the grade is as high, correct.

The two over twos?

Correct.

Okay. Sorry, go ahead.

No, that was it. Okay. Okay.

Those are my three questions.

Commissioner Carroll. Yeah, thank you. So this is perfect that we're on here. Um, so just to confirm, I guess with staff, so this parcel is not part of the government activity center.

It is not.

Okay. Cause I know that was referenced that it was in the activity center a couple of times. Um, yeah, yeah, yeah.

The, the, the boundary is right across. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

They're right here.

Yep. Okay. And then, um, for the applicant, um, just going back to that by right cost, you know, is that 700 K 2 million based on, you know, four bedrooms, five bedrooms?

I didn't say 2 million. I said probably 700 to 1 million. But if you look just at the comps in the area for quarter acre lots, that's what they're going for. And the bedroom sizes vary.

Yeah. But so with the bedroom size varying and we have no basis to look at a buy right project, there's nothing precluding someone from coming in with like a two bedroom ranch that would be more affordable.

Those aren't as affordable as you would think right now in today's market either. But what I was asked for is what would it be if it's quarter acre lots? So if it's quarter acre lots, that's what they're going for right now. And there have been single floor that are still going for that amount in Prince William County.

Okay. Hopefully we can have some backup information on that. And then... Just the last question I have, just in terms of the amenities center. And the arborist kind of alluded to this, Will. But what drove that decision to put that amenities right kind of behind that shopping center? Because as it was kind of said, that's the back of that shopping center. I mean, there's a ton of loading docks. big trucks, traffic dumpsters, and I'm just concerned about having that amenity area, one from a visual perspective and the noise perspective, but more importantly, even like a safety perspective of if we're having kids running around there, going just down into that area, which that back road does get busy because it's, with all the traffic problems there, that's one of the main ways to kind of get back around to Galveston. If you're over on Millstead, if you're trying to get to a light to get on to Hoadley, you have to go around or go through the shopping center. what kind of drove that decision to put those amenities back there and what sort of beyond just the buffering or are we looking at any sort of like safety precautions that could be absolutely.

That's a great question. So when we originally submitted our application, the amenities were pushed further back, um, on the development. But what we wanted was a more integrated, amenity area so it flowed better from one amenity to the other. So working with planning in the supervisor's office, how do we create that amenity area? And you're correct. So if you're coming down Galveston, you either go here into the shopping center or you do this access here into the shopping center. And so how we've designed it Going back, we have an asphalt trail here and this is the roundabout. We can look into, I think your question is, are there any like safety calming measures? And I would think you were thinking like in these areas here.

Well, I think there, and even just, I don't want to say like a fence, because I feel like that kind of defeats, I think, what we're going for. But I just worry, because I know a lot of the buffering on the shopping center side isn't as robust. Just worried about the cut through, especially with kids and children, all of a sudden, if someone runs off and all of a sudden they're in the loading dock area. what we can do to help kind of prevent that or mitigate that.

We can potentially look at is there an opportunity for some sort of like fencing just around the playground area or like how you can sometimes create barriers that are part of the play amenity area as well.

Okay. Thanks. Commissioner Mozenet.

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to use one of my questions to ask Mr. Shoup to come back. Because I heard from you that this is quality trees in this area. However, the applicant indicated not so much. What am I missing?

a matter of opinion, maybe. He alluded to it's a predominantly poplar pine, which is a recognized forest type. It is, I haven't done an inventory, but I have done a walkthrough, and there isn't any major insect disease problems, dieback, dead trees, that kind of thing. So I guess in a general term, I consider it to be decent size, it's mature forest, and it is a recognized forest type that is a preferred forest type for this area, being that it's pine poplar.

Thank you, I just wanted to be sure I didn't miss anything in the pushback. Thank you very much. Ms. Cameron, could you, we talked a lot about the active open space, for on the project, and sorry, I should have asked that before you went away, but I know you were in stellar shape, so coming back and forth is okay. The active open space, can you talk about how large, because every time I look at this, knowing that much of the space that's not developed or have the stormwater management, or looks as were described are areas that can't be developed in this property. So could you talk about the sizes of each of, and I think we went through this when we met.

Absolutely.

And then the total.

The total is about 1.38 acres in size.

For active open space.

For our open space areas. Okay. The garden is about 0.2 acres. The community park is 0.63 acres. The pocket park and fitness areas together are 0.17 acres, and the promenade is 0.28 acres.

And so what's that total on active open space out of the 23.5 acres we have? One point...

38, I believe, but let me triple check that for you.

1.28.

1.28. Thank you. Is there any way to get additional open space? We talked about possibly doing a tot lot, and so I suggested... possibly removing one of the sticks in order to accommodate that. Because this just looks like a lot of two over twos crammed in. I get it. And we talked about the reasons you've done that because of the LIHTC projects.

We can look at an opportunity to add an additional play area. I don't know if that would also include removal of a stick to add it, but we can look at an opportunity to add an additional play area, tot lot, or area for children 2 to 12.

Okay. And, um, I talked to commissioner shake about that. So as it's appropriate, that would be, that would be great. It would be wonderful if, if you could figure out a way to possibly, um, you know, just to get some more space with it for active open space, because 1. You know, three, eight acres out of this 1.2, eight, thanks for the correction. for this entire community just seems to be an abysmal amount to me as I look at the small pocket parks and opportunities for people to recreate within their community outside. So thank you for that.

You're welcome.

And thank you for mentioning the use of brick and stone. Yes, ma'am. I'm hoping it gets to possibly 40% or more on brick or stone on both the LIHTC project as well as the two over twos as a commitment. And I don't know if your client is prepared to say that tonight.

No, I think we want to just talk to the LIHTC developer and the ultimate builder of the townhomes to make sure that it accommodates and can fit within their models.

Okay. When you say fit within their model.

Like that they understand that that is the commitment that we're committing to based on the request from the Planning Commission.

Because what we talked about is making sure that should this pass, the entire project has the same Yes, uniformity. Look for this area. And so I want to make sure that that's, you know, that those two things, there's some parity with those things.

Yes, and I didn't mean to say they each would have a choice, that one does one and one does the other. What I meant is we want to talk to both of them so they understand what the commitment is. Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. Commissioner Shifler?

I have one final question again, or request again. I have a slightly different opinion on kind of the amenity space. I mean, I would honestly prefer to be away from the traffic, not the shopping center, but the...

The public street.

The public street, that's all the cars go in and out of there. And I actually, again, when I initially discussed is opportunities to move the amenity space next to the pedestrian access point to kind of better integrate this. Is that something that the applicant could potentially look at? I would actually prefer there be zero buffer to connect the shopping center because there's one where the one area where they have access and have maybe a 50-foot buffer where the loading docks are. Because, again, just a better way to integrate where people can go. Because your best access or your formal access should be, to that placemaking area not on Galveston if you're walking to the place are there any opportunities to do that or look into that or kind of push making the amenity space more where they don't have to go by cars and you know can act you know the only crossing rule would be to cross that that road the back end road I mean is there any opportunities to do that

Let me talk to them and get back to you. But I do want to mention that there are sidewalk connections to the site besides this back road. So there are sidewalks existing today on both sides of Galveston Court as well. I don't know if I made that clear earlier, but let me ask the question and get back to you.

Okay. I generally want to get less people off where the cars are and more people, you know, to kind of create that sense of place. If you're having this much density in this location, I think that's kind of like a showstopper for me to, you know, to have that creation or make that kind of more integrated solution overall, so.

Commissioner Shaikh, do you have any other questions? No, sir. Thank you. Commissioner Justice, I see your light's on.

Yes, my question is for transportation. Hello. So I know we went over this, but just help me understand. So I'm aware of the traffic problems on Hoadley Road. So what we're talking about doing is taking an intersection that's got major issues, putting more traffic into that intersection, doing construction for a temporary fix for a third turn lane, and then at a later date go and possibly tear all that out and do something different based on what the feedback is from the study that you're doing?

That's one possible scenario. So generally speaking, when we're looking at development applications, especially ones that submit traffic impact analysis, we're looking at specific impacts that are being generated by that development. When there is an identified impact, you know, we're limited in what we can necessarily, you know, accomplish with the development community. We can't necessarily, you know, expect them to fix the entire problem. But, you know, it usually comes in two forms. Either the applicant, you know, proposes an improvement. that will help alleviate some of the impact or fully mitigate the impact that was identified in the TIA, or they provide a monetary contribution towards a larger public project that might be in the pipeline or other types of improvements like that. In this situation, because we have an ongoing study and we feel like that, you know, mid-2026, we'll have a better idea of what VDOT agrees is an appropriate solution to address the impacts at that particular intersection, Hoagley and Prince William Parkway. The applicant is proffering a monetary contribution that would go towards either an interim improvement or it could go towards that overall improvement that maybe is recommended from the STAR study. And again, maybe the interim improvement is what the STAR study recommends. I can't use our crystal ball at this time, but what we've strived for in our conversations with the applicant is a little bit of flexibility so that we are confident that they're still mitigating their impact, but we're able to kind of use that to move forward with a larger solution that hopefully benefits the larger area as well.

I guess, is there a situation though where Prince William DOT traffic, where you look at a project and say, okay, we've already got a serious traffic problem, best not to add to that issue, where your staff recommendation comes back as a no? versus a yes, what triggers that? Is it only what they add or does it have anything to do with the existing problems?

With rezoning applications, we look at them all at a case by case basis. In situations where there's a traffic impact analysis, then we're talking within the constraints of what their particular impacts are. If we get to a situation where we feel that there is mitigations that can be done by the applicant and they're not willing to do that. That's definitely a situation where we're in the territory of potentially having a recommendation of no for the transportation component of the comp plan.

Thank you.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, I don't see any other lights on. So with that, we are going to move forward.

So yes, commissioner Scheifler asked me a question and I said I would get back to him.

Oh, let's get back then.

Sorry. We can look at, there are some grade things in that area, but we can look to see if we can relocate some items in order to make the amenity area closer to where you would like it to be.

Thank you, ma'am. So now we are going to continue forward with the order of our public hearing, and we have completed with our questions and answers from the dais. Now we are going to entertain a motion. Commissioner Shaikh, this particular application is in the Occoquan District. And with that said, sir, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

I recommend that Planning Commission approve the rezoning REZ 2024-00048, Maple Valley Grove. Based upon proffers dated, October 31st, 2025. And based on recommendations. Today from, uh, uh, commissioner Moses name for. Uh, using brick and stone. between LIHTC and the regular product for 40% or more and a tar plot for 2 to 12 age group. Also, move the activity area closer to pedestrian access recommended by Commissioner Scheifler. And by LOCA Pallet's recommendation of using low impact design for the storm water management. And the last but not the least addition is look for a possibility of a fence around the plane.

Is there a second?

Seconded.

It has been moved by Commissioner Shea and seconded by Commissioner Brown that the Planning Commission approve R E Z 2024 0 0 0 4 8. Is there any further discussion? Are there any points of order? Madam clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair McPhail.

Yes.

Vice chair Brown. Yes. Commissioner Carol.

No.

Commissioner justice. No. Commissioner Ross.

Well, I'll say I don't hate this design. And in fact, I mostly like it and I appreciate the many sweeteners that it includes. But on the other hand, traffic schools and the very sharp density transition, this would create make me dislike this location for this design. I don't recommend it. No.

Commissioner Moses, Ned.

No.

Commissioner shake.

Yes.

Commissioner Scheifler?

Yes.

Motion fails. We have a tie vote.

Okay. With that said, is there a second motion?

No.

Please do not disturb the public hearing.

Chairman Phil, may I just want to note that if the planning commission takes no action on this application, uh, within 90 days and it will go to the board, uh, with the presumed recommendation of approval. Um, I do want to note that, uh, if this application will have to wait 90 days to go to the board. That is longer than the typical interval that it will take for an application to go to the board, whether the Planning Commission recommends approval or denial. And so I wanted to just note that. I do know, and not speaking on behalf of the applicant, they did note a LIHTC application and a time frame for that as well. But in any event, just wanted to make everyone aware of what the next steps would be if the Planning Commission takes no action in terms of the time frame.

So with that said, ladies and gentlemen, what is your pleasure?

Mr. Chair, I would like to amend my motion because in the interest of the LIHTC product, which has to be submitted by no later than next year, so I would not want to go there to waste it. So I would recommend that Planning Commission declines the rezoning application REZ 2024-00048 Maple Valley Grove, conditions dated October 31st, 2025.

Are you recommending denial, sir?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

It will get it to the board, yes.

Is there a second?

I second it.

It has been moved by Commissioner Shaik and seconded by Commissioner Brown that the Planning Commission recommend denial for REZ 2024-00023. Is there any further discussion? I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen. Again, it's been a long day for me. The Planning Commission recommend denial for REZ 2024-00048. Is there any further discussion? Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair McPhail?

No.

Vice Chair Brown? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? No.

Yes.

Commissioner Justice? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Moses Ned? Yes. Commissioner Shaik?

Yes.

Commissioner Scheifler?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much. We are now going to move to item, ladies and gentlemen, please do not disturb the public hearing. Slow down for nothing. Thank you. I'm giving you an answer. We're going to move to item G on the agenda, and that is CPA 2024-00003.

Chair McPhail, can we take a five-minute recess, a quick recess, two minutes?

All right, two minutes. Thank you. Our county staff is at the podium. Sir, the floor is yours.

Good evening. COMMISSIONER, I JUST WANTED TO DO ANOTHER INTRODUCTION FOR THE LAST TWO CASES THIS EVENING, BOTH FOR HOLY SQUARE. THE APPLICANT IS THE SAME. THEY'RE ASKING FOR A COMPETENTIVE PLAN AMENDMENT WITH ONE APPLICATION AND THEN A LAND USE CHANGE WITH ANOTHER THROUGH A REZONING REQUEST. COUNTYWIDE STAFF WILL, AFTER THE APPLICANT DOES THEIR PRESENTATION, COUNTYWIDE STAFF WILL LEAD THE comprehensive plan amendment presentation with their recommendation, and then the land use review team will deliver their presentation with their recommendation for the rezoning. Thank you. Thank you.

And with your permission, Commissioner McPhail, I would like to combine the presentations for FNG, if that's okay with you, for the applicant.

Yes, that'll be fine.

Thank you. So, again, good evening, Chair McPhail. My name is Jonnell Cameron with Walsh, Colucci, Lubeli, and Walsh here tonight on behalf of the applicant, JR Real Estate. Again, we have our civil engineering team, transportation team, here to be able to answer any questions that you may have. As a roadmap, we are going to walk through the property location, land use and zoning, the proposal, which includes open space and buffers, amenities, transportation, and we'll end with 3D exhibits and a video of what the proposal will look like. You're going to hear a lot tonight. You've already heard in some of the comments regarding the ORPA, so we'll walk through with you the comprehensive plan change and the items that we are doing to meet the intent of the ORPA. The applicant is the contract purchaser of eight parcels off of Hoadley Road and is seeking a comprehensive plan amendment on two of those parcels and a rezoning on the remaining parcels to PMR. The property is about 57.69 acres in size. Here is Prince William Parkway. Here is Hoadley Road. This is Queens Chapel Road here. Lost Creek and Webster's Way is at this intersection here. The property is currently zone A1 agricultural and SR1 semi-rural residential. It is comprehensively planned mixed use RN2, which is residential neighborhood in ORPA Occoquan resource protection area. The applicant is seeking, again, a comprehensive plan amendment to change the ORPA designations on two of the parcels, which are these parcels here, to mixed use three to align with the rest of the development. The property was originally submitted and as you can see this is the initial proposal. The applicant had conducted significant community outreach and based on outreach changed from the initial proposal. The original proposal included 432 units which included a mix of 2 over 2's multi-family townhomes in duplex units. It also included a community recreation center here. Based on the feedback from the community, they believe that that was too dense. And the applicant ended up with the final proposal that you see here, which is 279 units. The proposal is for different size townhome with units. as well as duplex units. It also includes amenities that we'll walk through with you on the other slides. The density for this proposal is 4.84 dwelling units per acre, inclusive of the areas that are defined as ERPO. and it's 6.28 dwelling units per acre exclusive of the areas defined as ERPO, which is at the lower end of the density range. The applicant with the second submission can bind the two stormwater, or the final submission can bind the two stormwater management facilities, so there will be only one stormwater management facility, and relocated this trail to be further away from the Lost Creek residents. The applicant also is proposing to and has proffered to conservation area, which is included in this area here. This slide shows the rear-loaded townhome elevations. We are seeking modifications to the setbacks as well as the height for the rear-loaded townhome elevations from 35 feet to 45 feet. And this will allow for rooftop terraces based on how the county defines height. And this is an illustrative of the duplex elevations. We are also seeking modifications to the setbacks from the road for these modifications. As part of the comprehensive plan amendment, county staff recommended approval of the initiation of the comprehensive plan amendment. And with that, they had four recommendations. Those recommendations included providing a minimum of 60% open space within the areas that are currently designated as ORPA. And that's because in the ORPA comprehensive plan, it recommends 60% open space. In addition, the applicant recommended was required to or suggested to provide a minimum of 60% undisturbed area within that ORPA open space area. The applicant was encouraged for the preservation of a natural buffer or existing woodland or forestation area at least 50 feet along each side of all significant non-RPA streams, and the applicant was requested to commit to additional measures to improve water quality to the Aquiquan watershed during both the construction and operation phases, such as the use of manufactured treatment devices, limiting the use of nutrient credits, and enhanced erosion and sediment controls. This slide here is our open space plan. The applicant is proposing 56% of the entire site as open space. The ORPA area is designated with this line here, this pink line. Within that ORPA area, the applicant is proposing that 64% be open space, so that exceeds the county's recommendation of 60%. The applicant is also proposing that 65% of that ORPA area will remain as undisturbed. This is approximately a little less than 18 acres, and again, that exceeds the county's recommendation of 60% within that area. The applicant was able to provide 50-foot buffers around some of the non-RPA streams, but not all of them. From a buffer perspective, the applicant is providing a 20-foot buffer along Hoadley Road, a 30-foot buffer adjacent to the Dar al-Noor Mosque, which would be here, and we're providing a 30-foot buffer adjacent to our commercial land bay, and I'll walk through that with you all. There's a 50-foot buffer in these areas here, and this is a 30-foot buffer, but all of that area is undisturbed, so it's really greater than 30 feet. The design of the landscaping and open space was really to bring the community together along Hoadley Road, which is compatible with the comprehensive plan of bringing communities together and creating more of a walkable, livable area. As far as the proffers to meet the comprehensive plan recommendations, the applicant has proffered to provide perimeter controls, which are double-tiered erosion and sediment controls. They also have proffered to do a sediment basin earlier in the development process, and essentially what that will do is it will catch runoff during construction, which is not required today. The applicant, Prince William County, as somebody commented on another case, Prince William County right now does not have any regulations as it relates to stormwater management protections in the ORPA. Fairfax County has regulations as it pertains to water quality and water management in one of their protection overlays. And so what the applicant did was look at those requirements to see if they could meet or exceed those requirements. Therefore, the applicant agreed that they would not purchase off-site nutrient credits to offset disturbance of the natural areas, and the applicant agreed to reduce the phosphorus load by 60%. The Fairfax requirement is to reduce the phosphorus load by 50%. In the next few slides, I'll walk through with you all the amenity areas. There are several amenities throughout the site. The amenities will play on themes that are relevant to the site, including the horse farm. So this slide here shows the linear park that is along Prince William Parkway. There is also a dog park, a garden, a reflection park as well, and those areas are generally in these areas here. The applicant is also proposing other parks and a central community area. The central community area is located In this area here, that central community area is designed to have outdoor open lawn spaces as well as pop-up shops. So if there's an ice cream store that wants to sell ice cream in the summer or another type of use that's compatible, that would be permitted there as well as an amphitheater. And this slide shows the community garden and the Arrowhead Trailhead, which connects to the trail that would be in this area here that is a natural surface trail. We've heard a lot of comments about transportation, and this is a good exhibit that walks through just the pedestrian connectivity and bus connectivity throughout the site. The applicant for this project had to do a traffic impact analysis. They were required to look at the five intersections that you see on the screen, and they were required to look at those five intersections. What is the existing level of service? What is the level of service in the future with background development, which includes the mosque expansion special use permit and a 2% per year annual growth? They were then required to look at What are the impacts and the levels of service at these intersections in the future with those background trips with Hoadley Square and then also with Maple Valley Grove? The applicant, all of the levels of service, the overall levels of service at these intersection remain at acceptable levels of service except for the intersection of Prince William County and Hoadley Road. As you all are aware, VDOT has initiated a STARS study to look at improvements at this intersection. With the two projects combined, the delay is about 5.5 seconds, making a left from Hoadley Road onto Prince William Parkway. The applicant has been working with county transportation. The original proffer when we started is when the STARS study began or was getting kicked off. So we proffered a monetary contribution towards that STARS study. Since then, the STARS study has been underway with several options. The applicant has agreed with county transportation to provide a monetary contribution to mitigate its impacts at that intersection. And that monetary contribution will be more than the $25,000 that is currently proffered. As part of this application, the applicant is also doing a new site access that is across from Queens Chapel Road. So currently, Dar El Noor accesses from this area here from Queens Chapel. That is offset from this intersection. The applicant will be creating a public road that is half on the applicant side and then half on the Dar El Noor side. That public road and the benefit zoomed in here is that it will pull people off of Hoadley Road here. And then folks that are going to Dar El Noor are able to make a left into the site or go straight and then come down through the public road on our development. We've heard a lot of comments about traffic specifically at the Lost Creek intersection on Fridays. So essentially what happens today, both of these intersections are have police doing traffic during the main peak times on Fridays for the mosque, and you either exit from Queens Chapel here, Or people are coming out and they are making a U-turn on Lost Creek. So the folks that are on Lost Creek and Webster's Way have a delay in being able to come out and make a left. With this proposal, one of the benefits is that instead of coming out of here and making that U-turn, the police could direct folks through the public road B to Galveston to be able to make a left to come out of the site. and that will help get more trips to Hoadley and off of this U-turn movement here. This slide shows the site connectivity within the site. Our TIA recommended that we construct new access points as shown. So we will have access from Galveston. There will be a right in, right out access in the middle of Hoadley Road that has its dedicated right turn lane. And then the full access across from Hoadley Road, which will also include modifications to that existing traffic signal and a right turn lane into the site. In meeting with the community, we've heard a lot of concerns regarding parking and the applicant for this site is over parked by over 400 spaces. So what you see on this screen on all of the colored dots are the parking spaces that are able to be counted towards your parking. The county and VDOT do not allow for you to count. public road parking spaces. So if we do just the parking that's being provided with our development, we're required to have 708 parking spaces and we're providing 1,124. Including the 59 parking spaces on the public road, we're at 1,183 spaces. So we are 402 475 spaces over parked for this project. In the next couple of slides, I will walk through with you all some aerials. One thing that I wanted to mention that is noted in the staff report is we have a land bay that is designated as B3. That B3 land bay, staff has noted, is not aligned with a comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan has compatible zoning districts that are PMR, B1, and B2. B3 is the least intense commercial district. The PMR district says you can have secondary commercial only a B3 designation. The goal for this property, which is what you see in this area here, the goal for this property is that it would be a compatible use for what is adjacent to us. So it could be a daycare or funeral home. It is not intended to be a shopping center or for retail uses, and the applicant would be willing to proffer that out to make that clear. This slide is an aerial view if you are coming down Hoadley Road and Queen's Chapel here. This is if you're looking down Hoadley from Prince William Parkway. This is the mosque. These are the aerial images. This is an aerial image in our right in, right out entrance. This is the aerial image of the Central Community Park. This is the aerial image from our clubhouse area. So the clubhouse would be here. These are the duplex units, and these are the townhome units. And then I have a video, but it's going to be slow. Can I pull it up on something else, please?

Thank you.

right in right out when you come into the site the essential amenity area

Thank you. Thank you.

The other thing that I wanted to mention just from a transportation perspective is this site was really designed to be not only pedestrian friendly, bicycle friendly, and vehicular friendly to help get traffic and cars through Hoadley Road based on feedback that we heard from the community. The applicant has also proffered a monetary contribution for three bus shelters, two on Galveston, and one on Hoadley Road. In addition, the applicant has planned for a bus stop here. In the event OmniRide decides that they would like to bring a bus route into the site, the applicant is able to accommodate that. We've seen a lot of emails over the last couple of days as it pertains to the watershed. There was an email regarding the critical watershed. So the county has a map that outlines critical watersheds within this area. This project is not located within a critical watershed. The property, about 42.85 acres, is located within the Aquiquan watershed. Of the portion that's in Prince William County, which is 31,360 acres, only 0.0014% of the watershed within Prince William County And we only account for .00011% of the entire aquaquan. The applicant is also proposing nearly 39% of that area to be undisturbed. The comprehensive plan for ORPA calls for 60% open space, and the applicant is providing that and is exceeding that requirement in the ORPA. And the applicant is also going above and beyond with 65% of that area being undisturbed, so over the county's recommendation in the comprehensive plan. Staff is recommending approval of both the comprehensive plan and the rezoning application, and we asked for the planning commissioner's favorable recommendation as well, and when it's my time, I can answer any questions.

Thank you very much. We'll hear from the staff now.

Thank you.

Close this down for a second.

Close it. Close it. Just close it down for a second.

Just close it down. Just close it down. Excuse me. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, can we take a two-minute recess while we reboot the computer? Let's go for a full reboot.

Take the thing out and then reboot it. Restart.

And so we will come back to order. Our planning staff is at the podium. Sir, the floor is yours.

Good evening. I'm Reza Ramiar with Planning Office. I'm the case planner for this comprehensive plan amendment request, CPA 2024-0003. And again, this is only for CPA. We will have a separate presentation for rezoning part. This CPA request is for 48.0 acre property from ORPA and RN2 to MU3. And the applicant requested this to add residential component to the mixed use area adjacent to this property. Staff recommend approval for this request based on what I will present in the following slide. THIS SLIDE SHOWS EXISTING AND PROPOSED LONG RANGE LAND USE MAP FOR THIS REQUEST. AS YOU SEE, THE PROPERTY MAINLY PLANNED ORPA AND RN2 And on the area to the north, they are planned for ORPA. To the west, also planned for ORPA. To the south, the area planned for RN2. And to the east, the area planned for MU3. The applicant requested to change these long-range land use for this property to MU3 to provide residential component for the mixed-use area. THIS SLIDE SHOWS BACKGROUND OF THIS REQUEST. THE REQUEST WAS INITIATED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR ON MAY 14, 2024. AND THE BOARD ESTABLISHED FOUR SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR THIS AMENDMENT. They recommend providing a minimum of 60% open space in Orfa area with this development. And they also ask the applicant to provide minimum 60% undisturbed within the provided open space. It means that 36% of Orfa area. And they asked the applicant to commit two additional measures to improve water quality to the Aquacom watershed during both construction phase and operation phase. And also they encouraged the preservation of natural buffer or existing woodland of at least 50 feet along each side of all significant non-RPA streams. the applicant committed to the first three guidelines, but not the last one. This table shows, compared the existing long-range land use with the proposed MU3 land use designation. As you see, ORPA, the main purpose of ORPA is to protect Akokan Reservoir. And the recommended density for this land use is one dwelling per five acres, and minimum open space is up to 60%. For RN2, also the primary use is residential, and one to four dwelling per acre is the enriched density for this area, and 30 to 60% open space is recommended for RN2. MU3, the primary use for MU3 is commercial, office, and residential. The density for the envision density for MU3 is four to 12 dwelling per acre and open space minimum recommended is 30%. The applicant provide what they propose in their rezoning request is 265 townhouse plus 14 single family detached house. And they also add commercial component in their proposal. And their density is, what they propose in the rezoning is 8.9 dwelling per acre. And 67% open space in Europa area they provided. It's more than what we requested, what we recommended them. There are some weaknesses with this application. As I said, the proposal does not provide sufficient buffer for significant non-RPA stream as recommended by the board. DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED ON STEEP SLOPES AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA, STEEP SLOPES AND SHRINKED SOIL AS YOU SEE IN THE MAP IN THIS AREA AND IN THIS AREA. THESE ARE THE AREA THAT HAVE SOME ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE COMPONENT THERE. There is land use inconsistency. In their initiation request, they didn't talk about commercial component in their request, but they add commercial component in their CPA. And also for the boundary, this is the boundary of CPA, but they added this part, which is located in the ORPA, and they requested to rezone this part. And it's out of their CPA request. Staff recommend approval for this request for the following reasons. The proposal provides a mix of residential housing, including affordable housing. They propose 28 affordable housing in their development. Their request promotes a walkable community and support mix of uses in the adjoining mixed-use area. And also, the applicant commits to provide a minimum of 60% open space IN ORPA AREA AND KEEP 60% OF PROVIDED OPEN SPACE ON THAT AREA. THAT'S IN MY PRESENTATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.

NO, NO, NO. HE STEPPED OUT FOR A SECOND. Yeah, does anyone, did anyone sign up to speak?

We're gonna do the staff presentations together. Oh, okay. The second staff presentation next.

Gotcha, okay, thank you.

Hello, everyone. My name is Cobra Boboye. I'm case planner of Hoadley Square rezoning application. The Hoadley Square rezoning application is located north of the Hoadley Road and south of the Prince William Parkway. This is a rezoning application. With this application, the applicant requests to rezone of the 57 from Avon and SR1 to PMR from agricultural and semi-rural to planned mixed residential to allow for development of 279 residential units. The zoning of the application is Avon agricultural and the part of the property development on the west is SR1 semi-rural. As Reza mentioned, we have a concurrence request for CPA to change the designation of the long-range land use. The long-range land use of the application is contained of the ORPA, RN2, and MU3. But again, the part of the property on the west was not on the CPA designation. and it still is SR1 and long range land use of ORPA. Based on the CPA designation that Reza talked about, with MU3 mixed use neighborhood, the target land use in MU3, it's between 50% to 85% for residential development and 10% to 45% for non-residentials. And in this application, the applicant provide mixed type of the development for residential and non-residential. The primary use in MU3 is for single-family attached, single-family detached, and retail service. And the applicant in Hotley Square rezoning application provided 200% 65 ton house and 14 duplex with recreational area and proposed for B3 development. Implementing zoning in MU3 is for PMR, B1 and B2. The target residential density in MU3 is between four to 12 dwelling units per acre. And in this application, After excluding the environmental residentials protection, the density of the application is 8.9 dwelling units per acre that is completely consistent with MU3 designation. But the proposed B3 development and ORPA space is not consistent with MU3 designation. Please let us review the summary of proposed development with this application. What happened? The first submission of the application submit on February 2024 with request for development of 432 residential units. In second and third submission, the number of the units decreased to 370 And the final of the application is contain of the 279 dwelling unit. It means from the first submission to final submission that bring for tonight, the applicant reduce the number of the units and density of the application around the 35% be changing the type of the house. The applicant completely change the multi-family house to townhouse and duplicate. As I mentioned, the application is contained of the residential and non-residential development. In part of the non-residential development, the applicant provide the outdoor kiosk and seasonal activity that is close to the recreational area. And the other purpose of the development in terms of the commercial is related to the land-based deed And the applicant proposed to provide the B3 designation in the west of the proposed development of the Holy Square application. For residential development, this is contained of the 279 units. That is 265 of the units, or 95% of the units are townhouse, and 40 of the units are residential. single-family detached or 5% of the development. But the number of the townhouse is contained of the different type of the house in size. The provided townhouse is contained of the 16 feet, 20 feet, and 24 feet. In this slide, I'm going to review and mention of the weakness and concern of the staff about the Hodley Square rezoning application, traffic impact. The project closes to, the location of this project is really close to the mosque with high level of the service, elementary school to shopping center, and pending rezoning application. So the staff is concerned to this application will provide and increase the traffic injection in this area. The other concern of the staff is related to undefined purpose of the land based on the document that provided by the applicant the land by deed label as a potential future B-tree without specifying or identifying the purpose of the development. So on the other hand, the proposed B-tree or convenience retail service for the commercial is not based on the MU-tree designation and ORPA designation. For more clarification, review the development in this part. Staff need to have more details to review that and ensure consistency with development regulation and assess potential impact on adjacent area, especially for residential area. The other concern of this application is related to school impact. The application reviewed by the Prince William County School and they inform this project in level of the elementary and high school has not enough space for generated student in the future. In this application, I would like to mention some of the key points and string of the application. Conservation of the natural open space. Respecting the conservation of the ORPA open space and also environmental resource protection area, the applicant prefers to protect more than 60% of the natural open space. The other key point of the application is related to multipurpose recreational area. With this development, the applicant tried to provide the central community park, community garden, dog park, pocket park, and trail with good design in connectivity and landscaping. The other string of the application is for housing policy. With this application, the applicant proffers to dedicate 10% or 28 of the units as affordable dwelling units. The staff respectfully recommend to the Planning Commission to approve the rezoning REZ 2024-00023, Holdley Square, subject to the proffers dated October 31, 2025, for following reasons. The zoning is consistent with the long-range land use designation, except of the western portion of the property, recreational amenity, and site connectivity to meet the requirements of the residentials, future residentials, meet the housing policy the applicant proposed to provide the 28 of the units as affordable dwelling units, and the applicant proffers to conservation of the existing natural open space and environmental resource protection area or the applicant proffers for conservation is met. Thank you so much. My pleasure to answer your question or my details.

Thank you very much, ma'am. I'm sure we'll be calling you back up. So we're going to move to public comment time in the order of the public hearing. And because we heard both applications, the applicant combined theirs, and the staff made two presentations back-to-back. For citizens, if you're a citizen, you will have a total of six minutes to speak, and if you represent an organization, you will have a total of ten minutes to speak for these two applications. Now, when we come back to make our Recommendation, there'll be two recommendations for the two applications. So Commissioner Carroll, do we have people sign up to speak?

We do have speakers signed up. I will call the first five if you can go to the back. Connie Christopher, Delta Nichols, Andrew Dowdy, Paul Howard, and Catherine Howard. And like the chair said, just name generally where you live or magisterial district and then Since we do have the two applications, you will have six minutes. If you're representing an organization, you'll have ten.

Hi. My name is Connie Christopher. I'm from the Occoquan District, and myself and my sister are the owners of Chriswood Farm. I'm sorry.

It's okay, ma'am. Take your time.

I wanted to give a brief history of Cursewood Farm, how long we've been there. My parents purchased the property in 1976. Before that, we were there three years running a boarding business with two other families. I was away at college, going to an equestrian college in West Virginia, learning to become a horse trainer and instruct students on horses, all about horse care, the whole thing. So when I got out, we started a business besides boarding horses that was already there. I started giving riding lessons and training horses. I have been doing that since then for 50 years. I'm sorry. I need to sell my place. I have been asked multiple times by people, and people have come to me from... different areas asking, you've been here so long, why are you selling? I'm selling because I've been doing this for 50 years, for one thing. It's a lot of work. It's an expensive thing. We have tried to keep our prices down to allow people in the area to have the chance to learn about horseback riding, to be able to be around horses. And I can tell you I, even as early as a year ago, have been contacted by other riding equestrian facilities in Prince William County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, that I am too cheap. And I need to up my prices because it makes them look bad. And that's point blank has happened to me for at least 15 years. But I've kept it down. For that reason. It is expensive to keep horses in this area because I am in northern Prince William County. We are not out on the outskirts. Everything costs more to get us there. That is not the reason I need to sell. I need to sell because I have a lot of health problems. I have, in the last six years, Found out I had kidney cancer. I have been through all the drugs. I am on a trial drug right now. I also cannot keep up. We have a lot of older horses. I would need to basically restart, and I just can't do it. It takes a full-time person to run this type of business. that is motivated and will work for next to no money and will work seven days a week 365 days a year and that person has been myself. I have since found another property that I wish to retire on and take my horses who are also retiring because Half of them are not usable for lessons anymore. The other half are getting there very quickly because of their age and all of that. We have a lot of health problems due to when we first purchased this place in 76, it was on Hoadley Road, was a two-lane weavy road. It was very small. We were in the country. Next to us was about three or four houses that are actually still there on the left side of us and facing Holy road on the right side was nothing forest. across the street was a farm that had been in, uh, owned by the same family for multiple generations. That is now part of Dale city. We knew when we bought the place, my parents knew because Hilton Cecil Hilton had been saying the whole time, he's going all the way to two 34. We knew that Hilton would be across the street from us. Uh, we did not think there would be people beside us, but, um, The first subdivision built there before Hilton was the one beside us. I've had a lot of people talk against this from that area. I'd just like to say on a side note, when that subdivision was put in, we did not fight it, we put up a taller fence. So my horses could not get into their property. And that fence is still there, actually. It's seven foot tall. Thank you. Oops, I'm out of town. Sorry, you have one more minute. So anyway, that is the reason I'm selling. We have been there, like I said, this long. I need to retire, and my horses need to retire. And one way or the other, that's pretty much what's going to happen. I hope to move to this new location. I have to build a barn there, but it's 170 acres close to Culpeper County, and it will be plenty of room for my horses. Thank you very much.

Excuse me, ma'am. What did you say your name was again? Connie Christopher.

Connie Christopher.

Ms. Christopher, as a lifelong resident of Prince William County, I want to thank you for your business and all that you've done for this county. Thank you very much, man, and the very best to you.

Thank you.

I, too, have the best wishes for you, Ms. Christopher. My name is Delta Nichols. I'm the HOA president of the Hunters Ridge Homeowners Association. I request more time, even though I probably will not need it. I'm in Occoquan District, and our community, Hunters Ridge, has 214 homes in it. And we are right in the middle of the Orpah. And as a matter of fact, we oppose Holtley Square and we are asking the Planning Commission to not recommend approval. Part of the proposed Holtley Square development would encroach upon the Occoquan Reservoir Protective Area. And as you know, ARPA originated from sound scientific principles and is grounded in prudent concerns to protect one of our county's most precious resources, our drinking water, and to enable it to be sustainable far into our county's future for our posterity and the county's future prosperity. It is imperative that opera is protected. It is somewhat rare for a majority of the county residents and governmental entities to identify an issue or concern and to come together and unite around that issue or concern to protect it. Regardless of what part of the county that you live in, and regardless of ethnic, political, or background affiliation. There are a lot of things that have the potential of dividing us, but ARPA is so important to this county that the individual interest groups came together and affirmed the Occoquan Reservoir Protective Area's importance. and develop the sustainability plan and codified or into our comprehensive plan not long ago. It has only been standing and codified approximately 3 years and now a developer wants the county to approve a plan to start undoing or and to and the work that has been, the good work that has been done to put ORPA into place. We found ourselves asking why, given all of the wise thought and considerations and debates that have taken place and occurred to stand ORPA up, why would one development be put forward and ask that the county start to undo the good work, the wise and the prudent work that has been done. So I submit to you that those who are asking for this are simply asking because they can ask. They are asking you to forget about sustaining this county's drinking water. The Hopely Square proposal is asking you to not be concerned about creating excessive amounts of impervious surfaces that negatively impact our groundwater recharge. This proposed development is asking you not to be concerned about worsening an already existing traffic nightmare on an already overly congested and failing Hopely Road. Holy Square would be best built close to a transportation hub, not in the middle of a transportation desert, which Mid-County is. We should focus on making the county better through better housing location planning that goes hand in hand with better transportation planning. and accessibility to efficient and affordable mass transit. The Chris Wood Farm is not it. It's not a place for Holden Square. And don't let this proposed development steal our water from the mouths of our prosperity, our future, our children, and other people who will move into this county. tell this developer to find another location for Hopeless Square. And many of us are able and very willing to help him find another location. So we may also ask the question, what makes Hopeless Square so special that it justifies starting to undo the opera? And think about this. We know for a fact how this works. If a precedent is set, other developers will want to come in and say, you did it for this developer. Developer, why not do it for me? And is that something we want to do? And at first, there's a little pecking away. You take a little bit here. You take a little bit there. And before you know it, ARPA is undone. And we've said many times before, there are some renewable resources like solar energy and other resources, but drinking water is not one of them. We already have data centers all over the place drinking up the county's water, a million gallons a day. We have to be prudent as guardians of this county in our water resource. I have nothing against the developer. And as I indicated, best wishes to the owner of Griswood Farm. But that is not the location, objectively, for Hopeless Square. So I urge you to please not recommend it for approval. And thank each of you for the work that you do for this county.

I really don't know how to follow that one. That was a good speech. If that's your thoughts. I'm going to keep it short. Andrew Dowdy, once again, I was already up here once. I'm not going to stay. I'M JUST GOING TO PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION FROM EVERYONE'S INPUT THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE LAST COUPLE OF HOURS. MAIN POINT FOR MOST PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE WATER SUPPLY WHEN CONSTRUCTION STARTS DIGGING IN, LEVELING, YOU KNOW, THE ENVIRONMENT OR NOT THE ENVIRONMENT, THE CONSTRUCTION AREA, THE RESIDENTIAL BUILD AND EVERYTHING, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE POLLUTION OF THE GROUND AND THEN SIPPING INTO OUR DRINKING WATER. WHAT IS THE COUNTY'S BUDGET ON PROJECTS WHEN THESE ISSUES ARISE? Is the CIP prepared to jump in and prepare these plans? Is there plans to address these issues when they come up? Zonings for schools are not feasible. They've already rezoned twice since I've worked in this area. For example, my daughter goes to Marshall, which is four miles down the road when there's an elementary school 300 yards away. So the rezoning has already been done and it is not very feasible for any of it to be rezoned and to drop in another 200 some odd homes, which I would say on average probably have maybe two kids. What are we really taking into consideration with the traffic issues? We're talking about the now and the present, but there are many more developments in the area that are being developed within a five-mile radius that is going to add to that number. So you can do your research, your investigations now, and in a year to three years, that time has changed. Quantitative has changed, and you'll have to reassess it. To Mr. Ali's comment, I also am a veteran, and I always want to provide the American dream for everybody here in America. But dropping families into affordable homes, into a traffic crisis, into a school crisis, into an economic crisis, is this the right place? I would say not. Habitat. Deers, fox, raccoons, snakes. Very popular in those woods behind my house that I have to chase, as my neighbors here know, chase my dog many times. There are copperheads. What is going to cause that when you start building and pushing them out? They're either coming into our neighborhood or they're going into this newly developed area where they're not used to wildlife. And then I do have a comment for the party. There was a confusion on my part, said food trucks and ice cream sales, but then they're requesting commercial privileges. Who has the authorities on these food trucks, i.e. commercials? Is it the HOA or is it the county? So I hit her again. No buffer changes, no rezoning, maybe more infrastructure development on the county and with the developers on managing the increase of people, traffic, safety, fire and police. And then what is the IT support and platform going to do with an abundance of these developments, not just with the Holy Square, but within Prince William County alone?

That's it. Thank you for your time.

Could I have the overhead projector please? Okay, good evening again, Chair McPhail and the planning commissioners. I'm Martin Jeter. I still live in the Aquan District, and I'm here representing the Mid-County Civic Association, and I'd like the extra time, please, if I could. Thank you, sir. So I just distributed, or the clerk just distributed a letter. from mid county civic association the prince william conservation alliance and loca pelt on this project and we are recommending against approval of hoadley square actually against approval of the cpa which is the underlying process for this project it would we were recommending against this because it would remove around 40 acres from the ORPA area from the Auquan Reservoir Protection Area and I just wanted to go into a little bit of background on ORPA because we've talked a lot about it tonight this slide is a good one to illustrate what we're talking about in the tan area that you see in the middle of this slide there, that is the ORPA area. You can see on this slide, it's very clear why this needs to be protected.

You can see the Aquan River coming through here.

You can see Bull Run coming down from Manassas. You can see them coming together and forming the Aquan Reservoir. You can see all the streams here in this area, and you can see All the perennial streams here in the blue, you can see the Aquan Reservoir.

You can see this little area that we've been concentrating on tonight, and you can see all the little stream fingers in here that lead into the Aquan.

And that's why our groups have gotten together, and that's why we're so adamant about this needs to be protected. And as Delton said earlier, when you do something like this, you start chipping away at the ORPA area, it'll lead to more and more incursions into the ORPA area. This has only been in effect since 2022. The Mid-County Civic Association has worked along with Locopelt and PWCA for years to try to get this kind of a protective overlay into the comprehensive plan. Midco actually had a committee that met in 2010 for a long period of time and listened to experts, and they formulated a plan. a draft plan to put forward to the county as an idea that they could use so fast forward 11 years we finally get this into the comprehensive plan and it's not a good time to start chipping away at it and another reason it's not a good time is because we don't know what the groundwater situation is in this county most everybody you see in that orpah area is on well water and so we have the county has put forward a directive to USGS to start a water study in Prince William County for the groundwater and that is just starting to be undertaken we won't have the results of that for at least a few years at least a couple years and so we don't know what the levels of the groundwater are in Prince William right now we don't know whether what the trends are whether it's a downward trend or a stasis or upward. We don't know where it's going. And these people in Mid-County rely, including me, rely on this groundwater for their families. So the point is, we need to see where we're at, especially before we start chipping away at this and leading to more and more areas taken out. Another thing is on the ORPA, we know something like this protective overlay works because Fairfax County did this over 40 years ago. They downzoned a large area of Fairfax County along the Aquan Reservoir, and we know from the people that study this, Fairfax Water and others, that the runoff from the Fairfax County side is better than the runoff from the Prince William County side, and a lot of that's because of what they did to protect that area. So we know it works.

So I just wanted to show you all this. This is the

get this right, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. And they rate the entire area for what is most at risk as far as risk to public water and to water sources. And in Prince William County, as you see here, the purple areas are the areas at highest risk in the Potomac River Basin. And this is exactly where we're talking about. This is mid-county. And this is also area up in northwestern part of the county. But as you can see here, mid county is exactly where they say that this is the highest priority for protecting water quality in Prince William County. This is still on the environmental side. This is the pond that's on the horse farm right now.

If you can see the red line here, the pond is right there.

And this is the headwaters for Neabsco Creek. So that pond is basically a spring that flows under the Hoadley Road and is the headwaters of Neabsco Creek. The plan, well it is ma'am, but the plan is with this project to fill that pond and put townhouses over part of it. So we don't think that's a great idea and we'd prefer that not be done. You know, it's a nice water feature for somebody building in a development project. It would be nice, I mean, at the quartz project, they spent a lot of money to create a pond on that site just so they'd have a nice water feature, and you have one right here. So just moving on to the natural... Well, first, if you... Talk about why would we do this? I mean, what's a good reason for taking this area out of the ORPA? Why would we put this kind of density intensity here? The answer you get sometimes is that, well, it's because we need walkable communities, we need communities with various housing types, and we need more housing in Prince William County. And yes to all three of those things. But the reality is, our new build-out analysis has recently been released, And you can see here, 214,460 current and partial residential units are shown in that build-out analysis. And the chart you see here is from MWCOG, and that shows their predictions for what the different areas of the region, what kind of housing they will need in the future, up to 2050. And if you see the red line on here, you can see that they're showing 185, thousand in Prince William County. Obviously, that's in 2040.

And even in 2050, they're showing 192,000.

And our builder analysis shows we already have that capacity within the comprehensive plan. So my point is, we don't need to do things outside of the comprehensive plan in areas that aren't planned for that kind of development. We have plenty of areas within the comprehensive plan to build the kind of development we need, the walkable communities, and the mixed housing types nearer to transit and areas in the comprehensive plan that are already planned for that. We don't need to change the comprehensive plan to try to do that. So this is an issue that is... In the staff report, you'll see that they had, you probably have already heard about this, but I just wanted to focus on this a little bit. The developer has acquired a lot in the Brent Forest community, and that originally was planned for a road connection between Hoadley Square and the Brent Forest community. Now that has been tabled, that idea for a road connection, but that area is, the developer wants that to be B3 zoning. So that lot that's in their community and another area that you see here that is on the current horse farm, would be put together and that would be B3 zonings if this was passed. And that means, allows for convenience retail up to 15,000 square feet and a single use of up to 8,000 square feet. So the fact that this is undefined and the staff had various comments on this such as that B3 doesn't fit in with any of the designations in this area, it doesn't fit in with ORPA, it doesn't fit in with RN2, it doesn't fit in with MU3 even. And they have a lot of concerns about that. And the community certainly does, too, because there's a lot of uncertainty there. They don't know what's going to be there. And they feel like it's kind of a pig in the poke kind of thing.

I just wanted to highlight that.

And finally, speaking of view shed, this is a slide of the current view in front of the project area looking south.

And if you look on your right here, this is where some of the townhouses would start.

And then over here is the cleared area where the horse farm currently is. The point of this is that the view shed on Hoadley Road is treed and buffered for the most part. There are houses, even along houses there on Hoadley Road, but they are buffered by the trees, so you don't have this urban feel on Hoadley Road, and you've never had that, and new developments come in has respected that, and this is incongruous with that kind of feeling when you have 35-foot townhomes right close to the front of the project, so it's a different kind of a more urban feel than this community has around it.

Thank you.

Thank you, and appreciate the time, and have a great meeting.

Thanks. Hello, everybody. I spoke earlier, so some of the stuff I already said still applies. I'm a resident. I live on Horley. The horse farm is really across from my house. Can you just remind us of your name, please? Ali Syed. And so first I want to thank you to the, I forgot her name, the owner of the horse firm. You know, I've talked to her. Loved the fact that horse firm was there. It is a nice view and I wish it stayed longer. But, you know, your perception, your thinking, everything changes as you see what's across, what's around you. When I moved to this area, even though my house was listed for a price, but I paid, I will say, additional $30,000 more than the price because there was a bidding among the buyers in this area. So there is a crisis for housing. And this is with VA and all this stuff, we are backed, so as a veteran, right? But I'm thinking for people who don't have that facility, don't have that benefit so these guys coming in providing affordable housing and county i think just did something with affordable housing where now you can when you apply plans or something you can check mark you know if it's affordable housing or something of that nature so you know as a resident here even though i'm already set where i am i would like to see this development go in and provide more you know, a place for families, smaller families that are coming in, so they can come in and stay in peace. And I do understand with the ORPA, I do understand with the water, but there are, you know, there are ways to mitigate, and they have offered that, as I can see, with reducing the phosphorus level and other thing at 60%, exceeding what even Fairfax does. So I'm hoping that there is experts out there that can handle the issue, because at the core level, of this is the human. Obviously, I do care for the copperhead snake. I have not seen any in this area. I come from a country where there's king cobras, so I'm not going to be scared that some copperhead is going to sneak into my subdivision, but I can guarantee you that there's none of such in this area. But anyway, going back to what I was trying to say is that we have a housing crisis. And we look at some of the projections that, oh, they are building this, they are doing this by 2030, 2040. This is what's going to happen. But right now, if I look at in my subdivision in this area, houses come, they're gone before it even shows up on the market. I remember the housing crash in 2008. I was skeptical to buy the house with this inflated price, but I didn't have a choice. We rented, we rented, we waited for a while, and then we just saw the price going up and up. And somebody said, oh, this COVID is going to crash. It never crashed. It went up even more. And it hasn't gone down. And so, you know, so I just feel for these folks, my brothers, my families, you know, my friends that I come in, that I see that are looking for housing, and I am saying that just wait out. They're going to build developments on Prince William, on Hoadley, and they are going to be affordable so you can live and have the American dream. So, you know, I mean, as I said before, that many of these folks, they are residents here. They are, like, living in somebody's basement, renting it out, because there's just not... enough housing available. So hopefully when this opens up, this many number, it's not going to eliminate the problem, but at least it will help some of these families so they can live nearby. My kids go to Penn Elementary. There's more room for expansion. And one thing I will say is that part of the thing that I like about this is, this housing, this development is that they are, I've seen those, that they're having some areas for people to gather around. We really don't have anything. In my subdivision, I wish there was a proffer say that, hey, you know what, make a playground. For me, you know where I go to for playground, I take my children to the Penn Elementary. And we can do that during school hours because you can do that. So we only wait when they get out. At 4, 5 o'clock they get out, that's when I go. We don't have anything in our area. So the fact that they're doing something like that, kudos to them. And the fact that our subdivisions didn't have any of those, I feel bad. I wish we could tear down a house and make a little play area for the children. And the only other play area is in the property of the mosque in Dar al-Noor. And that has two swings. One of them is broken. And that's literally it. So I'm not worried about Copperhead. I'm worried about my children's growing up in this area and saying, Baba, we've never seen any of these things. Oh, we had, I mean, I can go to Dell City all the way. There is some county has. They have, they do have them. But not in this area where we stay. So these guys coming in and providing this nice area of walkable path, to that Galveston Court, make this more livable, more enjoyable, more bustling. I'm all for it, and I can guarantee you there's a lot of us residents that are in that area. We are very excited to see this community grow, see these businesses come in, see these things happening so that people can move in and have affordable housing. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And I'll read the next five. Ashley Studholm, Jessica Francis, Norman Stone, George Coles, and Clancy McQuig.

Good evening, Chair McPhail, Planning Commissioners. My name is Ashley Studholm. I'm with the Occoquan District and representing the Prince William Conservation Alliance and request my five minutes. And I will also be using the projector.

It's ten minutes for you, ma'am.

Oh, 10 minutes then. I'll try not to use it all. So to begin, I just want to provide a little bit of context. Even though Martin did a really terrific job, I just want to reiterate a couple of those points. So the Occoquan Reservoir Protection Area was created about two and a half years ago with the update of the comprehensive plan. And that update simultaneously dissolved the urban growth boundary, the rural crescent. And when it did that, the result was that it significantly increased the density within the Occoquan Reservoir watershed, which is already one of the most urbanized drinking water watersheds in the country. Now, there are more urbanized watersheds, of course, they cannot convey drinking water at affordable rates. So we are playing around with this threshold of how much can we build before we break the system. Now, this was done despite the request from the Fairfax Water to conduct a water study prior to making such large decisions and land use. Now we are still waiting for the results of that study. So with this new comprehensive plan, the ORPA, the Occoquan Reservoir Protection Area, has become the county's primary strategy to protect the Occoquan Reservoir and the groundwater that's in that area. It should also be noted, just like Martin said, that they're in the process of doing a groundwater study, but we still do not have the results of that study either. So ORPA, I showed this map earlier. again, follows the hydrologic lines, but it also follows the hydrogeologic lines. And this is important, because it means that the lines aren't arbitrary. So I think most of you are probably familiar with the watershed lines, because we've talked about that a lot. But here, maybe you haven't seen this map. OK. That's the ORPA. So this is the hydrogeologic lines, and it does, so ORPA also follows along those lines. And this is important because this type of soils, they're really susceptible to drought. So as you pave over these areas, that disconnects the ability of the aquifers to recharge. And so that is important as we move forward in discussing, you know, how do we protect our drinking water resources? Because it is the Occoquan Reservoir, but it's also the groundwater. So now, just two and a half years later, after already significantly increasing density in the watershed, here we are with the first request to begin removing land from the ORPA area, which is Holy Square. So planning staff has recommended approval. And from their comments, we're prioritizing meeting our affordable housing goals rather than upholding our primary policy to protect an important drinking water source for the region, including all the residents on the eastern end of the county, me included. And so this creates an either or scenario when I think the whole point of comprehensive planning is that we can actually say yes and. So, PWCA recently launched our smart growth vision for Prince William County, reimagine, reinvest, and redevelop. And it largely builds on the frameworks that the comprehensive plan really espouses that it wants to accomplish. And by looking at the county holistically, we can actually account for continued growth by incentivizing redevelopment and infill, especially near transit hubs. While we offer additional housing configurations in the forest belt, which is kind of hard to see on that map, but it's that green area. It's pretty cool. You can actually see it from just the mouse provided. So this green area is the forested belt, and then we have the two suburban urban cores, which are in red, and then the AAOD, the Ag and Arts Overlay, which is the yellow that's kind of around there. And so by looking holistically, we can actually provide for everyone and protect our natural resources. And to the benefit of all residents, which is really important. We can't do everything on one parcel, but we can if we broaden our scope and plan comprehensively. I actually think it's irrelevant that we're only removing 40 acres of ORPA. I think that this is about upholding a policy, our primary policy, and sending a clear signal that we're taking this responsibility seriously. We should be proud that we are stewards of important drinking water sources for residents in the entire region. rather than contributing to a death by 10,000 cuts. So thank you.

JUST SHY OF SAYING GOOD MORNING, I GUESS. GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING STAFF. MY NAME IS JESSICA, AND I'M SPEAKING AS AN OCCAQUAN RESIDENT. I'M GOING TO TRY TO KEEP IT BRIEF BECAUSE I HAVE A VERY CUTE TWO-YEAR-OLD AT HOME I WANT TO GET BACK TO, AND SHE'S FAST ASLEEP. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT MY THOUGHTS ON THE CPA FIRST. the fact that I actually, I moved here, I'll say this anecdotally, I did move here within the last year I've lived in Northern Virginia my entire life. I actually moved in and immediately within the first couple months of moving in met three other moms on my street who all moved in within the last five years and they all have either two or three kids. I just have the one, but I do, you know, consider the fact that we have a growing family and I want more. So I love the idea of that I came moving here thinking that I would find community and place and places where my kids could grow up and enjoy. Again, I'm someone in their 30s who plans to live in Prince William County for a very long time. So for me, I would rather see this type of community like Holy Square. I'm supportive of it because I want something that's intentional, that's walkable, that has housing types. I have friends and family personally who said, if I moved closer to you, which they want to, they don't have opportunities for new construction and places to actually live. They'd be forced to move into something potentially a lot older and renovate and fix it up. And again, when you have young kids, for those who've had them and remember that, it's tough. You want community, you want people around you, and you want places to bring your kids that doesn't mean I have to travel to another county to get there. It's very near and dear and personal to me. That's a big reason why I'm very connected to it. I also think it's the fact that, again, I want to be here in 20, 30 years to come. I think what's coming here is extremely important to me. I think that The other thing would be that I think the fact that there's limited options. We talked a little bit. I think someone else touched on this, but housing options are extremely limited. It's created a really tough place to be, and it actually was really difficult for us to find a place to move to. So I don't want to have the same struggles for my friends, my family, or my kids in the future. So I think about all that really intentionally as well. Um, so I also think that the fact that this connects into the retail is really great. I mean, I think if you're thinking of what mixed uses and you want that connectivity, the fact that people can walk to shopping, like I go to that Harris Teeter, I dropped my packages to that UPS store. I literally go to Marco's probably weekly. Um, so for me to, to make sure that those businesses stick around for the longterm because they have people to support them and go and use them is important to me. I don't want to lose those. Those are important places and all these homes would help support that, and they're walkable to that, which I think is huge. So that's kind of my thoughts on it. I'm definitely supportive and pro towards the project, and I appreciate your time listening to me today.

Good evening. My name is Norman Stone. I live in the Occoquan District, and I'm off Holy Road. It's my home. There's three questions you need to ask yourself. Why spend years in developing a plan just to say, no, we're not going to follow it? That is pretty insane. But if you look at the watershed that we're proposing to develop, build on top of, I need to have y'all go down to the Occoquan Reservoir and see the amount of water that has evaporated that's no longer filling the reservoir. A lot of people talk about a plan, but actually seeing the watershed at its lowest level in 20 years. Have y'all noticed that? Has Fairfax County came to any of these meetings voicing concerns about the water in the reservoir? Yes, you can build homes. People need places to live at low income, but if you don't have water to drink, how can you stay there in that nice new home? So I'm on a well, and my water per gallon, I mean, they go by on your well, how many gallons of water... in so many minutes. Mine started at seven gallons a minute, it's down to three gallons a minute on the water supply. And I live right close to where this subdivision's gonna be built. So what's that gonna do with my well water? I've had two neighbors had to drill new wells because they've run out of water. So my question to you is what are you going to do to protect the people that already live here, this own well, if they run out of water and they drill another well and there's no water there, what are you going to do? Are you going to ask the developer to bring in city water to our residents or any means of hauling water in to drink if we don't have water in our well? That's things you need to think of. But mainly building and building and building and the dam has less and less water. Something's got to give. We're either going to lose all our water or we're going to lose places to live. So keep building and you'll find out the worst scenario. We have no water. We've got beautiful homes, low-cost living, but we have no water. That's all I've got to say.

Thank you, and then the next couple speakers, Dr. Jack, Michael Seaver, Craig Calder, and Diane Clark.

Good evening, Planning Commission members. Or should I say, well, it's not quite morning. I'm Jack Cuyumbo, President of LOCA. I'd like to have the five minutes, if that's okay to do that.

Ten minutes for you, sir.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Well, I was on the original group that was formed with the Corps from MIDCOH, back in 2010 that recommended the Occoquan Reservoir Protection Area be looked at. We spent about a year doing fact gathering. Henry Bibber was chairman of the group. He was the former director. the prince william county planning office and of course henry's been retired for a while and then he then he went off to be director i believe in herndon but he lives on the occoquan and so we have a deep abiding interest in prince william county the water quality the water supply you know quantity and quality we're concerned with doing things in a stewardship manner to protect that water supply. And so we're very gratified to see this end up as a vital component in the 2022 Comprehensive Plan. So when Midco and the Conservation Alliance asked LOCA, can you guys comment on the lifting of the ORPA for the Hoadley Square, we said we certainly can. But we had Dr. Bennett, chairman of the Pelt Committee, sign along with Martin and Ashley, the letter you have in front of you. So we object to lifting the ORPA out of that amendment. We would rather see it in place and LOCA does a little bit something different than the Midco. As I said earlier, in the Maple Valley Grove, We try to work with the applicant as much as we can. should the board of county supervisors approve the project we can at least say we rolled up our sleeve and work with the applicant on those things that really bothered us and so we try to do that in the pelt committee and maintain dialogue and we've done that right up to the our october 30th meeting so but What we had recommended in that letter, you'll see an addendum, and what we think should happen with the ORPA is that the county needs to move the ORPA into the zoning ordinance as a zoning district. Now that requires work, that requires the Board of County Supervisors to make make that happen to provide funding and staffing and to create an entity to do that. So we were recommending, if you look at the addendum to the letter, we were recommending that a citizen stakeholder group be set up to, in fact, begin that dialogue. I will say that The developer, the applicant was looking for how to better manage stormwater standards, and we were talking in local health to the applicant on that. I have to say that every time we've asked him to come in, he's been very gracious to come in and talk with us, and we need to continue that open dialogue. That's very important, and he's a quality developer. We're trying to work. try to work with them as much as we can. And so we would like to see something happen with the Aquaman Reservoir Protection Area in the zoning ordinance, but that's going to take two years, maybe three years. In the meantime, the applicant has a land use proposal in front of us. And we can't sit still. We need to have forward motion. So one of the things that Saif Remen had suggested was he was committed to pick up Fairfax's stormwater standard and bring it into Prince William County. At least that's some forward motion on his part to pick up a more stringent standard. for stormwater management, for water quality and water quantity. We think that's a positive outcome, but we have to see in continuing dialogue more stewardship for stormwater and more stewardship for best management practices and such in that overall process so that we can be more ORPA-like in the final product. So he's having at least 60% of the ORPA area as undisturbed. committing to a goal to reduce the phosphorus load by 50%. And we would like to see the BMPs for stormwater, low impact development, groundwater recharge opportunities, have that dialogue to have common sense things that we can do in the meantime while maybe that other activity is going on in the orpa he's also tried to work in park amenities in the product we see here a lot of things that he's he's trying to do like on the traffic impacts He's trying to address traffic safety, traffic at the intersections, and work on that, minimizing the U-turn movements. We've written in LOCA PELT, in LOCA we had four or five letters on the mosque expansion. And a constant in that was traffic safety, minimizing the U-turn movements, and trying to, have more harmony with trying to manage all that traffic. The biggest thing that we all have to deal with is when Hoadley Road was moved westerly. Now, Webster's Way was the old Hoadley Road. And then we've worked on projects like with Habitat right out on Webster's Way. There's a long story there. I don't have enough time to talk about that, but when we moved Holy Road westerly and we set up enough right of way right at that entrance intersection for a six lane divided roadway and we went right down to 234, the transportation decisions set up a pattern that the development community follows. And as Martin correctly showed, we tried to get a treescape and tree buffered along there. And it is a gateway to the mid-county. So there's a lot of angst about what happens in that intersection area. And there are different and competing visions for that intersection, but all of us have to deal with the reality that a major roadway intersection is there and that is a point where the developers and planners all gravitate to try to manage that humongous traffic and all the problems and issues that come with further development in that area compounded by beings in the ORPA area as well. So we have a lot of challenges to work out in that area, and it's not just for the developer to work the problems, it's for the entire community to work out the problems in that area. The planning staff is overtaxed, they're overloaded, but they do their best job. When you call them, they answer the phone and they communicate, and that's a compliment to the planning staff. That's a constant. They're responsive to the citizens. They're responsible to the developer. And they're there to try to work things out, to try to solve problems. And I just want to take this opportunity to thank the staff. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you very much.

Once again, I'm Michael Sever. I live over off Lost Creek Court. I'll try and be brief. Honestly, a lot of what has been spoken about the ORPA, I fully support, and I won't belabor the points that have already been made better than I can. A few things that I do want you all to think about as you're preparing for your vote tonight, though. What we talked about before in the Maple Valley Grove with the schools, that concern obviously still really stays here. with this community as well and the taxes it will put upon the actual already burdened school system. I won't go any further into that. I do want to point out, we're talking a lot about wells here and Drilling a new well about 200 feet deep will run you between easily 10 grand at an absolute minimum up to 20 grand. I had a neighbor have to put in a 400-foot well when they built a new home several years ago. So as you're making this decision tonight, think about the county residents with the fact that we do need to protect the groundwater. Those of us that already live in mid-county, I've seen my well lower in gallons per minute as well. not as significant as the other gentlemen, but we are playing with something that we don't fully understand because we don't have the study and the data to make that firm decision. And I know a lot of decisions we fly in the dark in, but I just want you to please factor that into the county residents and the result. If we start seeing wells continue to go dry. Um, I know my next door neighbor had to redrill a well several years before I moved in. So it is really a thing out there in Mid County, hence the concern in this room tonight. And then finally, the thing I do want to zero in on was the addition of the commercial property that connects through and touches Lost Creek Court. I know the road was removed from the plan, but seeing that commercial property greatly concerned me. Lost Creek Court has ditches. It is really a, when it was put in in 1986, 85, that is a rural community because at the time, growing up here, Hoadley Road was a two-lane road. I remember it. And I even remember some of the wrecks that were out here that necessitated the modernization of that road. I would like to see that commercial property removed for the very reasons that your staff that presented tonight kind of identified. I'd like to see that removed from the plan. Or at a minimum, the current SR1, I believe, residential property on Lost Creek Court separated from that commercial designation and left at its current or some appropriate designation that it currently is. Anyway, I'll let you all make your decision.

Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. That is, I believe everyone signed up in person. If anyone would like to go to the back that did not sign up, you guys can queue. Just let's try to keep it in groups of four to five. And thanks, you can go.

Good evening. Thank you all for having me. My name is Yahya Saad. I'm in Coles District. I'm a father of two young, beautiful children, and we've spent, thankfully we're housed now, but we've spent over three years looking for housing specifically in Prince William County because that's where our family is, that's where we want to stay, and that's where I want to rear my children, to have them be in proximity to myself. Many in my position are still looking for housing. Many people are still tenants. And the opportunities for housing in the county and across Northern Virginia as a whole are very limited. And many folks, especially in my position, given the economy that we're in, don't have the money to dish out on numerous renovations in an older property. So having options like the options suggested here tonight is nice. I'll keep a brief but we have a housing crisis and there are multiple factors that contribute to it one of those factors is housing supply readily available housing that's livable and can intake the growing families we have in this County and across the region so I ask why not take control of the factor that we do have some influence on here, being the housing supply, and take a positive step toward addressing that housing crisis. With respect to conservation, I heard a lot of collaboration between the conservationists and the developer, and I think that is a successful path forward, and I think we can come to an agreement that we can secure housing for everybody, and also maintain the ORPA. But overall, I, as a resident of Prince William County, and for the sake of my children and others in my position as well, recommend that the board approve the developments discussed here tonight. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good evening. My name is Ehsan Islam, Neabsco District, respected commissioners and the audience. I'm also the chair of the mosque board, Darul Noor Islamic Community Center. I'm a scout leader. Thanks for the beautiful presentation and the fact that they're leaving so much land as nature is a music to me because I want those boys and girls to be more connected with the nature. So I understand conservation to a certain extent. I'm also a humble husband of a elementary school teacher. My wife teaches the special education students. Every day I hear stories about the students whose family need affordable housing. Listening to these stories, according to my wife, it's really not the students who are failing. Their failure is caused by the families, because in many cases, the families do not have stable living hood. As a proud father of a middle school teacher, I wonder how long is my daughter going to be able to live in this county. I'm very thankful that she lives with us, that helps her financially. But at one point, almost every week, she asks, well, is this house affordable? Or yesterday, she was saying that, oh, I just found a house in Richmond. What do you think of that? But I don't want you to go to Richmond. My wife's colleagues, they teach here, but they live in Stafford County or Fauquier County because it's easier to live there. It's affordable. So I appreciate those of us live in a multi-acre land. I appreciate the concern of school crowding, but While we're thinking about crowding, we need to facilitate our students with good teachers, not run away the teachers. I hope you approve this proposal. Thank you.

Hello, good evening or good morning. My name is Julia Novotny and I live off of Hoadley Road. I wanted to again voice my concerns over this project. As a concerned citizen, I live in the neighborhood and I'm very concerned about the damage it will do to the ORPA I had moved to this area because I actually was familiar with the watershed plans that they had over in Fairfax County and that they were doing the larger or like low density so that way they would be able to protect the watershed and I moved to this area because it was also that kind of like protection of the watershed And so I've been very concerned to see that you might want to chip away at the watershed because it is going to create a precedent. If you have somebody who says, oh, well, let's do this here, even though we have all these studies that show that it's needed, that the ORPA is needed, you have also... the comprehensive plan that was put together that shows that there can be this increase. I completely agree. I really appreciate these planned communities that create this open space, but there have been plans put in place to where it can be built, where it can be sustainably built. And this is one area where it would not be sustainable. I'm very worried about our well water because I have seen how the Occoquan River has greatly also reduced. I mean, I've never seen it like this before. I have lived in the area for at least 30 years now. and have recently moved here because they had this sense of like the green space, the open spaces that you can't usually find in this area. And it was because of ORPA. And I understand that. But when you have all of these other areas that could be sustainably developed and you have this one sensitive area within ORPA that needs to be protected, it just is not something that is sustainable if you want to preserve our ability to live in our own homes that we currently live in. That we do need to have this ability to know that this is going to be protected and not just continue to be chipped away over and over. So I'm very concerned about this, and I'm also worried about traffic, as other people had mentioned, and the schools. So I appreciate this opportunity to speak, and I hope that you do not approve this. Thank you.

Thank you. Were there any other speakers in person?

Hi again, my name's Adrienne. I live in the Lost Creek neighborhood. Just to kind of highlight the map that was provided for the development of the Holy Square project, I know that the neighborhood residents in the Lost Creek area, we requested a meeting with the developers of that particular project to talk. about that residential piece. It used to be the Monaco house. The Monaco family used to own it. That has been sold to the developers. And so the families that live in the Lost Creek neighborhood rallied together and asked to have a meeting with the developers to talk very specifically about that. We were very concerned. In one of the plans that was provided, we saw that there was originally various connections to our neighborhood, and we were very concerned about the increase of traffic. the flow of traffic into our neighborhood, how that would negatively impact the residents there. We already have a lot of difficulty getting onto Holdley Road out of our neighborhood now. And so we had, I think, some success in that meeting. The developers agreed that we were going to take out the connection to the Lost Creek section, which is excellent. That's unanimously what the neighborhood voted for. Everyone that was present in that meeting said, please do not connect the Lost Creek neighborhood to the Holy Square project. Tonight, looking at some of the maps, I don't know exactly what I was looking at. I did see that there was some kind of, it looked like the Monaco residents may have been removed. A buffer was retained there. But then the actual lot where the residence is, maybe that would be cleared and that would be the place there would be potential for, I think it was the funeral home or whatever those things were. I just wanted to reiterate the fundamental point of that meeting that the residents of Losh Creek had with the developers. which was the very real concern that the residents really do not want that Monaco property developed into anything else. We actually gave what we thought was a very reasonable and simple solution. Simply put the Monaco residents back on the market and sell it and get your money back out. That seems like the most easy, reasonable solution. Clearly that wasn't what was decided. It looks like it's going a different direction. But I just wanted to reiterate the residents of Losh Creek in that community are very concerned about that particular little residential section because that has the potential to negatively increase the residents. I know we talked about this multiple times. I'm not exactly sure what that's going to be, but it does hold a fair amount of concern for us, which I think we've been very clear about the whole time. And then the Holy Square project. is really an abutment with the Maple Valley project. Those are really in tandem. They're under development that's at the same time. And in looking through the paperwork, it looks like that's an addition of 600 homes in total between the two. between 500 and 600, it's a lot. And it's within 3 tenths of a mile on Hoadley Road. All of the traffic from both of those construction projects goes on to Hoadley Road. It's almost 600 homes in 3 tenths of a mile. As a resident, I don't understand how we have so many years and so much effort developed into these projects, and yet all of the traffic is diverted onto Holy Road in a very congested section already. Why can't that traffic be diverted to the Prince William Parkway instead? Why can't there be a split median there? And I'm curious if it is a financial reason, if it's a construction reason. It seems like it's a very low-end project. cost-saving measure, which has resulted in the traffic presentation that we see here, and I don't understand. I'm sure there's a reason why, but I would like to submit that the traffic for those residential projects, and I see people shaking their heads so clearly they have their own feelings. Okay, but I don't understand why traffic can't be reverted to Prince William Parkway instead of Hoadley. All the residents are coming up here saying we are overburdened with traffic. I can't get out of my neighborhood. I can't get onto Hoadley Road. And the fact that the developers are talking about they would be providing some volume of financial to assist with whatever the, I think they should be providing all of the money to remedy the traffic issues, because you are the reason that we're having those traffic issues, it's not us. The developments are the cause of those traffic issues, so I would like to propose that why can't we reroute traffic to Prince William Parkway instead of Hoadley? I think that would be excellent. I'm sure there's a reason why, but we're constantly renegotiating the ORPA or rezoning or whatever. Why can't we make an accommodation for that? That seems like an excellent solution for that, or at least something to be discussed. And I don't think we've talked about that at all in any of these meetings lately, so I think that would be beneficial to us. Not to mention, when we talk about All of the issues, the traffic, all the well issues, we're only talking about these in very incremental topics, right? We're just talking about Hoadley Square by itself. We haven't even talked about the Kings Grove project, Sweet Spire. We're talking about Maple Valley and Hoadley Square, the county complex construction, Dean Crossing. There is so much construction going on. In this little corridor right here by Hoadley and Prince William Parkway, it is way too dense and it's way too extensive. It would be really appreciated if it would be understood how the residents here are overburdened with the density conversation. If things could be alleviated a little bit, that would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other speakers? We do have a few signed up virtually. I'm not sure if they are on still.

No. Okay. Okay. Thank you, everyone, for hanging in there. Thank you for your comments. We're going to ask the applicant and the staff to come back to the podium and respond to any public comments that they would like to participate in.

I think first I'll hit traffic. Just, there was a comment that Holdley Road itself is failing. All of the intersections that we had to study, the overall intersections are not failing. The intersection at Prince William Parkway, Davis, Ford, and Holdley Road, that is failing in the future without our project, and it's failing in the future with our project. And when that happens, you look at what is the county doing, which VDOT has already instituted and started that STARS study. What is the interim fix? And then what is our percentage towards that fix for that improvement? So the applicant is proffering that. As far as the ORPA discussion, while on paper our plan is changing the ORPA from ORPA to Mixed Use 3, the proposal is saving... 60% of the ORPA area as open space. Really what we are asking for is 15 acres of the ORPA to be developed non-open space. So that is what we are showing on our plan. We are preserving the areas in the ORPA that are intended to be preserved. So when the ORPA was created, it talked about including steep slopes, erodible soils, and severe limitations. And most of those areas on our plan are to the rear of the site, and that's the area that will be preserved and is also within that conservation easement. As far as water, Prince William Water did review our application and did not have concerns about the ability to serve public water for the property. I heard conversations from folks on Lost Creek regarding their wells, and the applicant would be willing to do a hydrological study of the wells pre-application. the development of Hoadley Square and post the development of Hoadley Square to the properties that are joining this proposal in order to confirm that they have no negative impacts to those wells. As far as the uses, the PMR district only allows for the B3 as an implementing district, the applicant is willing to proffer out uses that are not proposed here to provide staff with additional clarity about what uses could be here. I think I said earlier that we would proffer out non-retail, but we're happy to work with staff to proffer out additional uses. I think I hit most of the comments, and if I didn't, I'm sure the planning commissioners will ask me.

Thank you, ma'am. Would our staff like to come back and make any responses?

So staff doesn't have any follow-up based on the public hearing comments.

Actually, we do have one comment. Okay, I'm sorry.