Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the December 10th, 2025 Prince William County Planning Commission public hearing. At 645, the Planning Commission and the staff and others had our agenda review in the Potomac Conference Room. I would like to ask everyone to please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. So if you're following the agenda, I'm going to make an announcement before we call the roll. We have some logistical information that I'd like to share with everybody. Vice Chair Brown is not here right now. She's running a little late. and she has a family commitment that she is attending. And if the public hearing goes to a certain hour, I have a commitment tomorrow morning that's going to pull me away from the dais. At that time, Commissioner Brown is going to continue with the public hearing and facilitation so that Prince William County business can continue, and that transition will be seamless. The only thing that we'll see is that Commissioner Brown will be facilitating the public hearing if I have to leave the dais. So, with that said, Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Sure, McPhail.

Here.

Commissioner Mosesnett.

Here.

Commissioner Justice. Here. Commissioner Ross.

Here.

Commissioner Scheifler.

Here.

We have quorum.

Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Venegas, let me make sure I'm in the right place here. Do we have any requests for remote participation?

Yes, we do. Commissioner Shaik.

Commissioner Shaik. Thank you very much. I would entertain a motion to allow Commissioner Shaik to participate in the December 10, 2025 public hearing remotely.

So moved. Second.

It has been moved by Commissioner Ross and seconded by Commissioner Moses Ned that Commissioner Shaik be allowed to participate remotely in the December 10th, 2025 public hearing. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Chair McPhail?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much. Mr. Venegas, do we have any items for consent agenda this evening?

We do not.

Thank you, Mr. Venegas. Let's move on to item six on our agenda, expedited agenda. Mr. Venegas, I understand we have quite a few items for expedited agenda this evening.

That is correct. Chair McPhail, we have item 10C, resuming 2025-0001 cabin branch at Quantico Creek. Item 10E, rezoning 2025-00012 Carver Road subdivision. Item 10F, rezoning 2025-00002 Chin Landing. And item 10G, rezoning 2024-00037 North Carters Grove. Thank you very much, Mr. Venegas. Before I go any further,

Sir and madam, I'm going to ask you to come up and find a seat because as you can see by that beautiful blue and white sign, the fire marshal does not allow standing in the chamber. And if we can't find a seat in the chamber, then you can hear the public hearing in the forum as well. So with that said, for our citizens and our guests, Expedited agenda works this way. If there are two or more citizens requesting to speak against or in an apposal of any item on the expedited agenda, it will be pulled from the expedited agenda and put back on our regular public hearing agenda. So with that said, Commissioner Justice, do we have anyone signed up to speak for item 10C?

10C, I have one person.

Can you call the name, please?

Kevin Parker.

Mr. Parker, are you pro or con? Are you here? We have two people. Are you pro or con? 10C, item 10C.

Cabin branch at Quantico Creek.

Okay, and sir? Okay, are you pro or con against the applications? Okay, we'll definitely allow you to speak, and we will not consider these to be cons. So what's the first name, Commissioner Justice?

Kevin Parker.

Mr. Parker, go to the mic in the back, and, sir, you can stand beside Mr. Parker.

Thank you.

Please state your name, your magisterial district.

My name is Kevin Parker, Neabsco District. This is the proposal that is sort of tucked right in next to 95 at Van Buren Road. And I wanted to talk about... how this would be a really great proposal, except for a couple things. The Van Buren Road has no bike infrastructure, and I've traveled from where I live in Dale City, Woodbridge, down to Dumfries, and that's the most harrowing section, and it would be connected to Dumfries in a way that could really enhance everything if there was more connectivity on that road. I also think that there should be, with the pollution on 95, it might be a good idea to leave trees next to 95 instead of the other way around where the way it's at now. So that's what I want to say.

Thank you, sir. Please don't forget that phone. Go ahead, sir.

Name and magisterial district. Hi, I'm David Macy. I live in the Forest Park area in Dumfries. I've been a longtime resident approaching seven years in that neighborhood. So kind of familiar with the traffic flow. As this gentleman just pointed out, the Saharwing Road there at Van Buren kind of narrows down to that Forest Park entrance. And it's just kind of a dip there, and it just kind of makes it kind of dangerous coming out. And then you get to the Chick-fil-A area there. There's just lots of congestion with traffic between the hotel, the New Grace Church, and just that common business district. So just being a longtime resident, coming and going out of there, it's gotten more and more congested. Even today, just coming home at normal traffic hour, the line to turn into Chick-fil-A was so long that I was like on the intersection of 234. So with some quick math, I'm an OR data scientist person, so there's 191 units, and you figure one and a half to two cars per 191 units, that's about 300 cars they're gonna add coming and going. Let's say 60% or 75% of them travel and commute, that's an extra 200 cars that need to turn left every day at the commuting hour. And that just extends that outflow. So I'm concerned about that traffic flow. And then the proposal only puts out about $60,000 for that left turn lane extension. That doesn't do anything with the traffic. There's no traffic circle, no planned light, or any other mechanism to kind of bottleneck that traffic. It just really congests right there. I mean, just rough numbers, 200 cars extra is a significant number of traffic flow through that area. One of the pros that I like to say with them, they're adding additional walkways. They want to put like a pond with a walkway that goes around, but that's secluded to that particular neighborhood, and they've basically blocked off that northern side of 234 or the Van Buren Road, and there's no improvements along that. And to this gentleman's point, maybe adding some sidewalks, maybe some bike paths, along that road east west to promote more walking distance right there's over 500 units inside the forest park we come and go out of there fairly regularly so if you want to promote community between the two instead of just blocking it off maybe we can open it up and have some crosswalk you know the yellow lights like they have in like shirlington area we can push the button and we can walk across to that community maybe we could walk to chick-fil-a maybe we can take a walk around the neighborhood But I just, my biggest concern is I'm not against people adding more residency, right? It helps the neighborhood, it helps the community, helps more people and property values, but the expense of making sure that we plan for that traffic coming and going and getting out of the areas is one of our biggest concerns in the area. So just like this gentleman, he has a similar one there. BUT YEAH, MY BIGGEST RECOMMENDATION IS TRAFFIC FLOW AND PROPOSING MORE FUNDS TO UPDATING THAT ROAD AREA TO GET THAT TRAFFIC. THERE'S ENOUGH SPACE THERE POTENTIALLY FOR A TRAFFIC CIRCLE, BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE, I'M SURE, SOME SORT OF STUDY. SO NOT AGAINST THE HOUSING, BUT AGAIN, I THINK THERE COULD BE SOME MORE EFFORT INTO MANAGING THAT. IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE WE CAN MAKE AN EXTRA ROAD DUE TO THE It looks like there's a water or stream there. But if they can make a loop and go around, it would give us more traffic flow.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

And, Chair, we do have Nancy Savage online. I don't know if she's...

I am asking her to unmute now.

Good evening, Ms. Savage.

Yes.

Are you pro or con for this particular application?

Hey, we're not against it, and I'm talking for the little condo association next door to where they're going to build it. And our consideration, what our concern is, as several people mentioned, we really need a traffic light on Van Buren where it connects with Fettler Park because Hey, I work here, and there is multiple accidents at that area where people are trying to turn left or right, and it's only been made worse by the large Grace Church that is located – Across the street, really from Fetlar Park. So that would be a major concern when you have. Residences adding to an already. Very congested area. And I'm just concerned about not having sufficient traffic control there. 1 other thing is there from that area where they're thinking of building townhouses. on Fettler Park Drive, there's already been a drainage problem into our properties where our condos are from that field. And we've had to build French drains here because it slopes down towards us. So any kind of building there we would request that they really plan for extra drainage out of it into kind of the Canyon Creek area that is, you know, what would be behind the townhouses and before you get over to Van Buren Road so that the drainage does not create more problems in the parking lot of our condos.

Thank you, Ms. Savage. Do we have anyone else, Commissioner Justice?

No, sir.

Thank you. With that, I'm going to turn the facilitation duties temporarily over to Commissioner Justice.

Thank you, Chair, for rezoning REZ 2025-00011 cabin branch at Quantico Creek that is in the Potomac District. So I'm going to turn that over to...

Commissioner McPhail.

Commissioner McPhail is going to call you chair. No, I'm the chair.

It's okay. I'd like to close the public, public hearing.

Public hearing is now closed.

Thank you very much. I would like to, uh, recommend, uh, approval of REZ 2025-00011 Cabin Branch at Quantico Creek with two conditions. That the applicant look to if necessary, expand their trail network throughout this development to include bike connectivity, uh, to other nearby locations and to work to lower the AMI rate between the planning commission and the board of County supervisors meeting.

Second,

It has been motioned for approval by Commissioner McVail and seconded by Commissioner Scheifler for rezoning REZ202500011 Cabin Branch at Quantico Creek. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Commissioner McVail?

Yes. Commissioner Carroll.

For this project, I'm still a little concerned about the proffers connected to the school CIP, but despite that, I am also a yes.

Commissioner Justice? Yes. Commissioner Ross?

I'd point out for the three speakers, I believe Supervisor Bailey would welcome a chance to discuss what you brought up. Several of the things that you mentioned were important, but they're not things the Planning Commission has any authority or ability to change. And with that, I'll vote yes.

Commissioner Mosesnet?

Yes.

Commissioner Shea?

Yes.

Commissioner Scheifler? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you very much. We're going to move to the next expedited item, which is item 10E, and that is REZ 2025-00012, Carver Road Subdivision. Commissioner Justice, do we have anyone signed up to speak for this application?

That would be for E. No, sir.

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on our easy 20, 25, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, seeing none. Uh, this particular, we do have, Oh, we have a remote speaker.

We have one person for remote chair. No.

No one's on? All right. With that said, this application is in the Brentsville District. And Commissioner Carroll, you are the Brentsville Planning Commissioner, and the floor is yours, sir.

Yes, I'd like to close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

I move to recommend approval of REZ 2025-00012, Carver Road, subject to the proffers dated October 20th, 2025, with the following recommendation. Prior to the Board of County Supervisors hearing, continue to work with transportation staff to ensure the development and proposed improvements provide no degradation of service on Old Carolina Road and the surrounding traffic corridor.

Is there a second? Second. It has been moved by Commissioner Carroll and seconded by Commissioner Justice that the Planning Commission recommend approval for REZ 2025-00012, Carver Road Subdivision. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair McPhail?

Yes.

Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Justice? Yes. Commissioner Ross?

Abstain.

Commissioner Mosesnet? Yes. Commissioner Shaik?

Yes.

Commissioner Scheifler.

While I do have some concerns about kind of what the overall strategy is for Carver Road, I'm going to be asked.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much. We're going to move to Item 10F, REZ 2025-00002, Chin Landing. Commissioner Carroll, is there anyone signed up to speak for Item 10F?

Yes, we have two signed up, four and one not identified.

Okay. Can you read the names of the person that didn't identify?

Kevin Parker.

Okay. Mr. Parker, are you here? Okay, Mr. Parker, are you pro or con? You're not con. Okay. Well, I'll tell you what. As we did with the previous application, for those who would like to make a statement, please go to the mic, and you have three minutes. And if you represent an organization, of course, you have five minutes.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Jack Kuyumjian, president of LOCA, and I'd like to have the five minutes, but I don't think I need it. I just wanted to mention... that we're for this project is vital that we have an impartial connection with the Toll Brothers project at the landing at Prince William. So that's a very important addition, which I believe the developer has agreed to and will become a reality. So we do ask Commissioner Sheik to add the courtesy review for Locapelt for the architecture, signage, lighting, landscaping, transportation, et cetera, that we do. And Mr. McQuig was signed up as well. I don't know if he wishes to comment on that, but thank you. I don't think he needs to comment, thank you.

Kevin Parker, Neabsco District. I just wanted to talk about this area in terms of the small use area plan and how it connects with the small area plan for the landing. It seems like it's creating a whole another town center walkable area when we already have some walkable area. type situation at Tackett's Mill. And it seems like we're adding little things here and there when we could just expand the Tackett's Mill area. It doesn't seem right that the small area plan did not focus on this area right outside of it. I'm not that verse on this, but I just feel like the development should be more towards Tackett's Mill to have the walkability and bikeability that we want. Thanks.

Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone online to speak on this particular application?

There is nobody signed up online. All right.

All right. Thank you very much, Commissioner Carroll. So with that said, Commissioner Shaikh, this application is in the Occoquan District, and you are the Planning Commissioner of the Occoquan District, and the floor is yours, sir.

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

The public hearing is now closed.

I recommend the Planning Commission approve the rezoning of REZ 2025-00002, Tin Landing, With the recommendation that between now and VOCS the applicant continue to work with Toll Brothers for an inter parcel connection and also at the site approval applicant look for local pallets courtesy review for the architecture and monument signage.

Second.

It has been moved by Commissioner Shaikh and seconded by Commissioner Justice that the Planning Commission recommend Approval for REZ 2025-00002, Chin Landing. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair McPhail?

Yes.

Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Justice? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Mosesnett? Yes. Commissioner Shape?

Yes.

Commissioner Scheifler?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much. We're going to move to item 10G, RUZ 2024-00037, North Carter Grove. Commissioner Carroll, is there anyone signed up to speak for item 10G?

We have one person signed up, Stephanie Riggins.

Ms. Riggins, are you in the chamber? Here she comes. Ms. Riggins, are you pro or con? All righty. Hold on, Ms. Riggins. Gentlemen, I've got to get you to take a seat because these beautiful signs tell us that the fire marshal doesn't allow standing in the chamber. Let's let these gentlemen sit down, Ms. Riggins, and you can go for it. All righty, thank you. Ms. Riggins, the floor is yours.

Good evening.

Stephanie Riggins from the- Pull the mic a little closer to you, ma'am, or step close. There you go.

Stephanie Riggins from Coles District. I have concerns about the new development in North Carters Grove. I currently reside in Carters Grove, which is directly adjacent to where this is planned. We're a community of 33 houses, and we have two main issues that I want to bring up. I'm also on the board, and the board president is here as well. So our neighborhood was developed in 2000. Shortly after the houses were built, we were having issues with our water, mainly smells and issues with red rings around our drains and things in our showers. We've gone back and forth with the water company They have since band-aided issues. I've also reached out to third parties who have come and tested our water and they've independently come with the same results as far as minimal chlorine in our water and that then, if you don't know a lot about water, which I did not before, Basically, you're not getting cleaned water. And so they've band-aided the issue with a few things. They have a continuous pump coming through our neighborhood into a creek that's trying to flush the water. They also have to come through what they say they do once every couple months and then drain the hydrants. Whenever they test the water, they drain the hydrants, flush the water, and then they test it, and then they're like, our levels are great, but that wasn't the water I was using five minutes ago, so it's an issue. What else? Yes, the creek that goes through our development, when the bond was turned over from the builder to the county, or vice versa, THE BUILDER DID NOT, I GUESS, LANDSCAPE AROUND THE CREEK, SO WE'RE HAVING AN EROSION ISSUE ONTO SOME OF THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTIES. I MEAN, WE'VE ONLY BEEN THERE FOR NOW FOUR YEARS, SOME OF US ONLY THREE YEARS, AND WE'RE ALREADY HAVING EROSION ISSUES THAT ARE GOING BACKING UP INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. SO WE FEEL THAT... the county needs to further investigate strain on the water lines if they're going to have another development, especially on ours, and then also how we're caring for the creek beds. And this is part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed as well. Bull, if you need to talk, you can come up here. Did I miss anything? No? Good. Okay. That's it.

Thank you very much, ma'am. Thank you. Is there anyone else signed up to speak? Commissioner Carroll.

There's no one else, and there's no one online. Is anyone here wishing to speak on this application?

Sir, are you pro or con?

Right now, it's being legal.

All righty.

So good evening. My name is course Bullock. I'm the actual H. O. A. President for Carters Grove. So just to reiterate some of the things that Stephanie had mentioned, Miss Riggins, one of the biggest main concerns that we have is as she's talked about the flow of the creek, we've been over here to the county on numerous occasions. The county has came out and there's quite a few observations. And basically what we were told is this is really the H. O. H. Problem. And we like, well, if the county had did their due diligence in ensuring that the creek was dredged the correct way, it wouldn't be such a I would say a backup of flow of water that's really not moving at all. So the pump that Stephanie is referring to is to potentially keep the water flowing from our neighborhood through the rest of the county. So the stream that runs through the back of our neighborhood, it's not just in our neighborhood. It kind of goes all through Prince William County. We just happen to be a part of that. Uh, so to, to reiterate Stephanie's concern of just ensuring if, if the will is for the board to approve the extra additional 12 homes, I think it is a 13 is that the county does a better job of oversight on the developer because once the developer leaves and now it becomes the problem of the association, And the county is not willing to come in and do the heavy lifting of saying putting a budget towards cleaning up their problem. I just believe that before we approve anything or before you let the developer disappear and it becomes a problem of the homeowner, that the county actually holds the developer accountable for the things that they need to be doing instead of just, you know, I would say hand-waving it. Because again, we've had the county come over probably four or five times to look at this particular area. And all they keep telling us is, well, you all are going to have to figure it out. Well, if you wouldn't have approved or gave them the bond before they took off, this wouldn't be our problem. So we just don't want to see that be emulated later. So that would be my biggest thing. And then also about the water. Our water pressure is horrible. It smells like eggs, rotten or whatever. You got guys come over there every two or three days or two times a week trying to flush the water. And we didn't have that problem or talking to neighbors or neighborhoods behind us. I think the other one is Holly Springs. They didn't have this issue until. Dan Ryan came in. So our biggest thing is which developer is coming in. We would definitely like to be a part of that process of just giving some of the pros and cons of what we had from the association or from the neighborhood dealing with that developer. I don't think one's been identified. I looked online, couldn't find anything. So that would be one of the things. If you ask the question, are you a pro or a con? The con would be if the developer is the one that built our Dan Ryan builders, it definitely would be a con. and then also if the accountability from the county is not going to provide that correct oversight, it's definitely a con. So I'll leave the last 15 seconds. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Do we have anyone else? Okay, seeing none. For REZ 2024-00037, North Carter Grove is in Nicole's Magistorial District. Commissioner Justice, you are our commissioner for the Coles District, and ma'am, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair. I just want to ask a few questions of the applicant for clarification before. So the question that the HOA had as far as you guys having a meeting or working with them, have you guys had meetings with the HOA?

We've not. That's something we can do. We've met with the community. We did a community meeting on site. We invited folks who live in the area to come and attend. I'm not sure if anyone from the HOA came by, but they were certainly welcome to come. But we can do the outreach to converse with them and find out if there's something we can do to help and also address their concerns they may have.

Okay. Maybe exchange information this evening?

Yes, ma'am.

All right. Thank you. And then my other question would be for the county. The comments about the drinking water, where would these residents, who would they reach out to?

Is this city or well? Well, it sounds like they're getting it through a distribution system, which is most likely either Prince William Water, or I'm not sure if American Water handles that particular area because it's right near the borderline. But we can reach out to both. We'll find out which service area it's in. and then we'll reach out to the appropriate authorities A lot of times when you have a small development, there might be a dead-end line, and that sounds like something that they're doing, that they're flushing it, one of the hydrants to keep the water moving because there's not enough water in that line. But when you have more users on that line, that clears up the problem. So we'll reach out to Prince William Water if they're the service providers or Virginia American.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

I moved that the planning commission recommend approval of rezoning our easy two zero two four zero zero zero three seven North Carter's Grove subject to the proffers dated November 4th, 2025 with the following recommendation that the applicant will continue to work with staff to address minimum setbacks where feasible and improve the language involving the 52-foot ingress-egress easement between the Planning Commission and Board of County Supervisors? Second.

It has been moved. Do you have anything else, ma'am? That's it. It has been moved by Commissioner Justice and seconded by Commissioner Moses-Nedd that the Planning Commission recommend approval for REZ 2024-2020 Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? Sure, Mr. Chair. Just as it has been said for another application, Commissioner Ross gave a outstanding statement to the citizens. I would recommend that the citizens also contact your supervisor, and I don't mean to steal Commissioner Justice's thunder, but I would highly recommend that you contact Supervisor Vega's office and have her also advocate for you and your community in dealing with these and any other issues. that the county could improve on your behalf. I vote yes.

Commissioner Carroll?

Yes, just echo that. Thank you to the HOA president and the speaker for coming out. And also to echo that, it seems like the applicant is willing to and staff is willing to, but let's definitely work to get those last concerns addressed before this goes to the board. But I'm also a yes.

Commissioner Justice? Yes. Commissioner Ross?

No.

Commissioner Mosesnet?

Yes.

Commissioner Shaik?

Yes.

Commissioner Scheifler? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. We're going to move to public comment time. Public comment time is for any item or any issue that a citizen would like to speak on that is not on the agenda. Any planning item, development item that is not on the agenda. Commissioner Carroll, and if you're leaving the chamber, I ask you to do so quietly as county business is still underway. Commissioner Carroll, do we have anybody signed up for public comment time?

There is no one signed up in person. If anyone would like to speak on any item not on the agenda tonight, now is the time. Seeing none, there is one person signed up online. I'm not sure if they are online.

No. All right.

No.

All right. Thank you. Mr. Venegas, we're on item eight on our agenda, deferrals and continuations. Do we have any items listed for deferrals or continuations this evening? Oh, Mr. Venegas is out of the room. I'm sorry.

Mr. Chair. I believe that was Reuters.

Oh, I'm sorry. Here we go. Mr. McGettigan is going to take over.

Yes. Item eight D or 10 D. I'm sorry.

10D. Planning Commissioners, we would like to entertain a motion to defer item 10D to a date uncertain, and that is SUP 2025-00013. Motion to defer to a date uncertain. Is there a second? Second. It has been moved by Commissioner Justice and seconded by Commissioner Ross that the Planning Commission recommend deferral for SUP 2025-00013. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair McPhail?

Yes, to defer.

Commissioner Carroll?

Yes.

Commissioner Justice? Yes. Commissioner Ross?

Yes.

Commissioner Mosesnett?

She stepped away, ma'am.

Commissioner Shaik.

Yes.

Commissioner Scheifler.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much. We're on Item 9 on our agenda, Planning Director's Time. In the absence of our Planning Director, Director Washington, Mr. McGettigan, do you have anything for us this evening? No, I do not. Thank you very much, sir. We're going to move back to our regular agenda on Item 10... A and B. There is an adjustment to the agenda. We will hear item 10B first and then hear item 10A. But before the applicant starts her presentation, for our audience, this is going to be the flow, as it were, for the public hearing. This is for edification for some, review for others. So what we'll have first is the applicant will give a presentation. The staff will follow that presentation on behalf of the county. We will then have public comment time. Again, public comment time is made up. If you are a citizen, you will have three minutes to speak. If you represent an organization, you will have five minutes to speak. After the end of public comment time, we will ask the applicant to come back and address any comments that they may have heard in public comment time for clarity. After that, we will have Q&A from the planning commission from the dais here. We will go up and down the dais, and our custom is to ask three questions, and we move along until all questions are presented to both the applicant and the staff. At that time, we will entertain a motion. We will call for a second. Then I will, as the chair or the facilitator of the public hearing, will ask the question, is there any further discussion? If there is a point of order that needs to be addressed, either at that time or during the public hearing, we will address points of order. And then we will call for the vote. And a planning commissioner has the opportunity to make a statement before they actually submit their vote. And that is how we conduct the public hearing and the presentations. So now, I would like the applicant to come forward and give the presentation for Proffer Amendment REZ 2024-00041, Belmont Bay.

Good evening, Chair McPhail and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Jonelle Cameron with Walsh, Colucci, Lubeli, and Walsh. And with your permission, I would like to give the presentation for both A and B at the same time for the proper amendment and special use permit.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Feel free.

Thank you. With me tonight are representatives from the applicant, civil engineering team, traffic consultant team, and environmental consultant. We are here tonight seeking a proffer amendment and a special use permit amendment for parcels within Belmont Bay. The property subject to the proffer amendment is approximately 159 acres. As part of the special use permit amendment, the applicant is seeking a special use permit amendment on approximately 16 acres and to remove approximately 13 acres from the existing town center special use permit to orient you. Here is route one. Here is Dawson's beach. Here is express drive and the VRE station is here. To break down this request, the areas that you see on the screen in both red and orange are the areas that are subject to the proffer amendment. The proffers were originally approved in 1999 and it's owned PMD Planned Bigs District. The SUP acreage is approximately 16 acres and 13 acres to be removed. And that's the areas that you see in orange. So this area here and here is part of the special use permit amendment to stay and the areas here. There are small areas in here, here and here are part of the special use permit amendment to be removed. Belmont Bay is owned PMD planned mixed district and comprehensively planned mixed use four, RN two and three, which is residential neighborhood and parks and open space. This slide shows the original approved master zoning plan. The original approved 1999 rezoning allowed for a maximum of 1,873 residential units, of which no more than 1,723 could be market rate units. It also allowed for a maximum of 2.2 million square feet of non-residential, of which a maximum of 300,000 square feet could be retail. Until access from this road here directly onto Route 1 was constructed, the non-residential was limited to 550,000 square feet. This is the previously approved special use permit plan from 1999. After the comprehensive plan was approved, there was a previous proposal that was submitted to the county to allow for 1,600 residential units and 85,000 square feet of non-residential. Based on feedback and strong opposition from the community, that application was withdrawn. Miller & Smith has been working for over two years with the community on the application that you see in front of you tonight. The proposal is for 348 homes, of which no more than 74 can be market rate units. The rest will be age-restricted units. The proposed residential is still within the maximum residential cap of the original approved 1999 rezoning. The non-residential proposed is 20,500 square feet with this proper amendment. The applicant is providing a little less than 122 acres of open space, which is a little over 76% of the entire proposal. Of this open space, a little less than 100 acres are being dedicated to the county, and a little less than 7 acres are being dedicated to the HOA. which is 6.84 acres. There's also significant reforestation in several of the land bays that exceed the requirements for reforestation. As a roadmap, I'm going to go through with you each proposal by land bay by land bay. So in each land bay, we'll talk about the proposal, the number of units, architecture, amenities, open space, and reforestation areas. We'll then talk about open space holistically and amenities that are being provided outside of some of the land bays that we discussed. There have been a lot of conversations that we've heard pertaining to the buffer adjacent to the wildlife refuge, so we'll walk through that with you as well. And we'll also talk about pedestrian and transportation vehicular networks. This slide shows Marina Overlook. This is approximately 16 acres, and this is the 74 market rate units. Open space for this site is about 15.74%. The non-residential here will be 20,500 square feet. Here is the existing Harbormaster building. The existing Harbormaster building, the office, and the retail will be relocated to this mixed-use amenity building, and that building can be used for both retail and or a restaurant. The mixed-use amenity building is 13,600 square feet. The uses within this amenity building will include the Harbormaster building, their retail. It will also be a clubhouse for the HOA. This clubhouse can be for both the Belmont Bay HOA and Conservancy. The applicant has been working diligently with the Belmont Bay HOA to merge the two HOAs and are in the process of doing a memorandum of understanding in order to be able to do that. In the event the HOAs are not merged, this amenity space would still be available to both HOAs. In addition, within this mixed use building, there will be a space for a police field office. The mixed use amenity building is proffered to be completed prior to the issuance of the 75th residential building within the proffer amendment area. This slide shows the Marina Overlook architecture. This slide shows the existing Harbormaster building that will again be changed to a restaurant or retail use. And this slide shows the mixed use amenity building. The design and color match the brick of the Harbormaster building. And this slide shows the mixed-use amenity building floor plan, the basement, and the first floor. The applicant has worked diligently with the HOA and actually expanded the square footage in order to allow additional areas for meeting spaces, HOA office, and exercise. Prince William County Police asked for a 1,360 square foot field office within this building, and that has been proffered. In the next few slides, I will review with you all of the amenity areas for the Marina District. We'll start with the mixed-use amenity area here. This is the mixed-use public space. This will allow for two pop-up retail outdoor seating and then a lawn area. The next one is this area here. This is the existing pavilion and lawn area. Moving over to the middle of the site, this is a proposed amphitheater. This here is a linear park. This will be the only private amenity within Marina Overlook. The other amenities will be open to the public. And this slide here is the GMU garden. The applicant worked with George Mason university specifically on this garden. So it could be used as a teaching opportunity for its students. So within the planting areas, there will be QR codes. So the students are able to learn about different species. You all should have received a letter of support from George Mason university. Within Marina Overlook, there's a half an acre of revegetation adjacent to the water. The design guidelines require different materials, colors, and bump-outs. I'm sorry. In this area here, the design guidelines we specifically proffered to plant species, we are actually over-planting what's required for revegetation within this area. The next area we will review is Taylor Point. Taylor Point is 15.23 acres in size. It allows for 96 active adult units and a little over 49% of open space. This slide shows the Taylor Point architecture. These will be a maximum height of 50 feet. The Belmont Bay HOA has a Covenant and Architectural Review Committee. They have reviewed all of the architecture that is being proposed as part of this application. Within Taylor Point, the amenities include a central riverfront park, both with sidewalks, a bench, and landscaping. The amenities will be constructed in connection with the construction of the homes within Taylor Point. Taylor Point is providing 1.3 acres of revegetation and will be providing plant units over the requirement with this revegetation. The final residential land bay is Belmont Landing. Belmont Landing is 21.69 acres and allows for a maximum of 178 age-restricted units. The proposal includes a 50-foot buffer adjacent to the wildlife refuge, which I will review with you in further detail a little later in this presentation. A little over 27% of the site is open space within Belmont Landing. This slide shows the Belmont Landing elevations. It requires the same height modification of 50 feet. The Belmont Landing amenities include outdoor seating benches, trail lawn areas, and a bocce court. There are 2.64 acres of reforestation adjacent to Belmont Landing. And as previously mentioned a little less than a 122 acres are open space this greatly exceeds the requirement of 20% open space open space areas one 3 and 4 are being dedicated to the county these areas total a little less than a 100 acres open space 3. A portion of open space three in the comprehensive plan was designated as residential, so the applicant is actually proposing more open space than was anticipated in the comprehensive plan. That density was shifted to Belmont Landing. Open spaces two, five, and six are being dedicated to the HOA. Within open space area three here, There is an existing park. The park has a basketball court and a playground. This park is used by more than just the Belmont Bay residents themselves. The applicant has proffered to upgrade this existing park. Those include providing a basketball court, a playground area, and an outdoor volleyball court. Although not proffered, we thought it was important to mention that the applicant has been working diligently with the Belmont Bay HOA. In the discussions that they've had with the Belmont Bay HOA, they are working on an agreement for the applicant to upgrade the pool areas within Belmont Bay. That agreement includes in this area here, creating a new pool, updating the filler house, updating the bathhouse in this area here to meet today's code, and then relocating the playground to open space area five. We've heard a lot of discussions about the existing buffer adjacent to the refuge. We thought it would be helpful to really dive down into this buffer and explain what the applicant is doing here and what exists today. The applicant proffered to provide a 50-foot buffer along the property line and remove invasive species. The applicant has also proffered to remove invasive species on the wildlife refuge property adjacent to the buffer and replant in those areas. This area has between 20 and 30 percent of invasive species along this property line. The applicant held several meetings with the wildlife refuge and county staff to review the proposed buffer. In addition to replantings adjacent to the wildlife refuge, the applicant has proffered that all external exterior lighting fixtures shall be dark sky or an equivalent standard on the property along the refuge boundary. This slide is a great exhibit that shows the buffer and what is actually adjacent to the wildlife refuge. This is the property line. So everything from here over is the Belmont Bay side, and everything from here over is the refuge side. So from a distance perspective, we would have the townhome and deck. So from the back of the townhome, it would be 30 feet. From the back of a deck of a townhome, it's 22 feet to the buffer line. From the back of the lot line of a townhome, it's 10 feet. There is then the 50-foot buffer, and this area here is not vegetated today. There is actually a golf cart travel way or golf maintenance road within this area, as well as golf cart paths. And then on the other side of the refuge line, depending on where you are on the refuge, there are either trees or grass on that side. You then have the Taylor Point Road, within the wildlife refuge, a swale system, a walkway, which is the National Scenic Trail, and then you get to the wildlife refuge. So between the wildlife refuge fence that they have to the back of the lot line, it's 110 feet. From the back of a deck to that fence line, it's 122 feet. This slide is a visual exhibit and picture that shows what exactly is there. So what you see is this is on the refuge line. This white here is the property line that shows where the refuge property is. So this is essentially that refuge side. Here is the fence. This is the Taylor Point Road. This is that walkway that I showed you. This is a little bit further up. So in this area here, there's a little bit more vegetation between that property line, but essentially this is the refuge side and this is the Belmont Bay side. This is that same exhibit from Belmont Bay. This is the golf course maintenance road here. This stick here represents the property line. So this is the refuge side. Behind this is that Taylor Point road that I showed you. And then this is the side that's on Belmont Bay. These trees here and these trees here will remain as the 50-foot buffer. This road is going to be ripped up and plantings will be planted within that 50-foot buffer area. And this slide is a little bit further up where there's additional trees on the wildlife refuge side. In this area, again, there will be removal of invasive species and plantings within this side, both on the Belmont Bay side as well as on the wildlife refuge side. The applicant has had significant community outreach. This slide summarizes that. There were community-wide town hall meetings. There were community meetings with Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge, meetings with George Mason, meetings with the Belmont Bay Home Owners Associations, meetings with the Belmont Bay Sub-Associations, meetings with WPCCA, and then the applicant had separate small one-on-one meetings with the residents as well. This slide is the vehicular connectivity slide. We had a lot of questions regarding parking. The applicant will be providing more parking than what is required. In addition, this proposal is a reduction in trips over the proposal. It's 811 less AM trips, 1,446 less PM trips, and 17,433 less daily trips than what is approved by right on the site. And this slide shows the pedestrian connectivity. The one thing that I failed to mention is within all of these open space areas, the applicant has proffered that they would place a deed restriction for a conservation easement over them so they will all be conserved. And that concludes my presentation. When it's my time, I'll be ready to answer any questions that you all may have.

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

Good evening, Chair McPhail, Commissioners. My name is Alex Venegas from the Planning Office. And this evening I have with me Vanessa Watson, who's the Principal Planner, who is the Case Manager for this application, as well as Keisha Hall, our Assistant Director for Community Planning and Revitalization. I also have staff members from some of our review agencies to help answer any questions that you may have. So this is a request for both a proffer amendment to amend the rezoning from 1999-99-0022, as well as a special use permit amendment to amend areas that are no longer part of the town center. And this map shows you the two distinct areas. The proffer amendment is outlined in the dark blue, and the SUP areas are primarily these areas and the area up front on the waterfront. Staff is recommending approval for this application. It does consist of mixed use for residential neighborhood two and three as part of this application, as well as some park and open space. So, The comprehensive plan, which was adopted in 2022, has the SUP areas primarily MU4, and then the area being removed is RN3, and then the rest of the proffer amendment covers all the remainder of the property. In the zoning districts, that we're dealing with. We primarily have the planned mix district as the primary district for the application. So we also have a small area plan that's actually part of the comprehensive plan that looked at this area in a little more detail. Primarily the portions that we're dealing with are along the waterfront and then some area that was suburban residential low. So this area was primarily urban neighborhood, which is transect five, which is one of our higher transects. So that was recommending a density of 12 to 50 dwelling units per acre and an intensity of going up to 2.3 for the floor area ratio. What was envisioned in this area was primarily a hotel conference center, office buildings, 6 to 12 stories, multifamily residential, high-density townhouses on the marina waterfront area. Approximately 790 units could be put in that specific SUP area. Another issue from the small area plan is that It recommended maintaining a variable 75 to 100 foot buffer along the southern boundary adjacent to the Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge. So based on the small area plan, there were some inconsistencies because it was envisioned to be much higher density. We also had some more commercial use, as you can see, with the the office building, retail, and hotel conference center. What they're proposing is reducing that commercial down to 20,000 square feet. And they're also reducing the high density residential in this particular area from 790 down to 74 dwelling units. The variable width buffer that's recommended in the small area plan of 75 to 100 feet is being presented at 50 feet buffer along the area, which the applicant went through, which is consistent with the zoning ordinance.

Okay.

So an overview of the project, it's approximately 159.76 acres. It is a zoned planned mixed district. Um, the application is proposing 348 residential units. 274 will be age restricted, single family, attached units and 74 single family attached as market rate. They are also providing a contribution to the housing trust fund of up to $2,500 per unit to be paid an occupancy permit and that could generate up to $870,000 towards that trust fund. Also with Parks and Recreation, the application is dedicating, as the applicant mentioned, significant amounts of open space, primarily identified in open space one and three with the existing maintenance building and open space four. The open space that's being provided is approximately 99.78 acres, which is a significant contribution. This shows the area that's associated with the SUP amendment, and this is the area that's being removed. I think the applicant went through that pretty extensively, but I just wanted to show this is the way the county sees this portion of the application. So this is an overview of the Marina overlook. It's approximately 74 units, which equates to 9.59 dwelling units per acre. This is much less than what was envisioned in the North Woodbridge Small Area Plan, Belmont Bay area. It's also at the lower end of the mixed-use 4, which has a range of 8 to 24 dwelling units. At 9.59, it's at the lower end of that. The commercial being presented is 2,500 square feet. It includes the existing Harbormaster building as well as a mixed-use amenity building. There is a commitment that they made to a police field officer in the mixed-use amenity building here, and they are also providing two electrical charging stations with this application. The community mixed-use building, they did provide elevations. The applicant went through those. I just wanted to show that it does have consistency in that area. And the three-story rear-loaded townhouses, they did provide us elevations for that as well. Taylor Point, this is the layout that's provided with the application. This is one of the areas that the the previous rezoning had as a hotel and conference center and office as well as retail These are the elevations associated with that portion of the application and then the last area is the Belmont Belmont landing which The applicant went through this area was residential neighborhood 2 and 3 so and then there's a small portion that was parks and open space over here. I'm sorry. And this is the elevations associated with that portion of the application. So a lot of the concern that we've been hearing from the community, we've heard people that are in support of this application because of the lower density, but there's still some concern with the buffer along the wildlife refuge. The total length of the property line that abuts the Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge is 4,750 feet. The length of the 50-foot buffer that is not part of the open space is approximately 2,780 feet, where you will have residential behind the 50-foot buffer. The rest of it's open space so that it won't be a visual impact to the wildlife refuge. This is an aerial view of the access road and walking path. that's adjacent to Belmont Bay. The distance between the fence and the property line is approximately 50 feet. It's variable. I went and took multiple points. Sometimes it goes down to like 40 feet, and then other times it might be a little more than 51 feet. But that does not include the 50-foot buffer that's being provided by the applicant. The applicant has committed to working with the refuge staff on evasive species removal, as well as a dark sky lighting, which was mentioned by the applicant. Again, the buffer required in the zoning ordinance, section 32405.04.4, for the planned mix developed district is 50-foot perimeter buffer, and that's why the applicant had provided that buffer. And I'm not going to go through these sections, but primarily this is a cross-section. This is the 50-foot buffer that the applicant's providing. And then you have the little road as well as the walking path and then the fence over here. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission... Recommend approval for the special use permit subject to the conditions dated October 31st, 2025, as well as the SUP plan dated October 31st, as well as the proffer amendment rezoning 2024-00040 Belmont Bay subject to the proffers dated October 31st. For the following reasons, the surrounding use and land use designations are compatible with the requested proffer amendment and special use permit. Both applications provide consistency with the zoning district that's being recommended and is existing. Both applications provide consistency with the previous rezoning and proffer amendments regarding the property with retail and retail services uses. And while these applications do not achieve the small area plan guidance, calling for items such as the hotel conference center as well as retail, For the Belmont Bay waterfront area, the applications achieve other elements of the North Woodbridge small area plan, such as the townhouses that are being provided as a primary use with active adult retirement community and entertainment and commercial as a secondary use. So staff is recommending approval for those following reasons. And we will gladly take any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Venegas. We'll definitely be calling you back.

Thank you.

So now we're going to move to public comment time. I made a statement earlier that if you're a citizen, you will have three minutes to speak. If you represent an organization, we'll have five minutes to speak. But because we combined these two applications, the citizens will have a total of six minutes to speak. And if you represent an organization, of course, you will then have five. If at all possible, if you could separate your comments into the two applications, that would be great, but that's not a requirement. We will be able to determine what you're speaking on to the greatest degree possible here from the dais. So, Commissioner Carroll.

Point of order.

Oh, yes, ma'am.

If it's an organization, they would get ten minutes instead of five.

Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, ma'am. Ten minutes for organizations. Thank you, Commissioner Justice. So with that said, uh, commissioner Carol, uh, you may begin citizens times, please.

Yes. Thank you. I will, um, call the first five speakers and they can queue in the back. Wendy joy, gender, Daniela horsemen, Robert Hartwell, Dr. Jack and Clancy McQuig. And just as a reminder, Before you speak, name, magisterial district, or generally where you live, and like it was mentioned, since we're combining, you will have a max of six minutes to speak on both applications, or if you're representing an organization, you will have 10. Thanks.

Thank you. My name is Wendy Joy Majumdar, and I'm from the Woodbridge Magisterial District, and I'm speaking on behalf of an organization, the Belmont, the Beacon Park Towns at Belmont Bay HOA. So as the president of the Beacon Park Towns at Belmont Bay HOA, we are a 55-plus active adult community, so thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I am here to respectfully request reconsideration of key elements within the Special Use 2024-36 and the Proffer Res 2024-40, because Belmont Bay is not just another development site. It is one of Woodbridge's crown jewel blue-green spaces, and the decisions made now will shape its environmental health and public value for generations. Belmont Bay is a unique ecological microclimate bordered by the Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge and supported by wetlands, waterways, and migratory bird habitat. With roughly 100 acres expected to be conveyed to the county, we believe this area presents a once in a generation opportunity to create a model 21st century public asset. one that integrates meaningful green and blue spaces, wellness, recreation features, universal accessibility, sustainable infrastructure, and community-centered design. Because of this sensitivity, we strongly request a full in-person site visit by both this Commission and the Board before any vote occurs. The environmental and community impacts of these proposals simply cannot be understood through documents alone. And at this stage, there is no independent environmental impact study, no neutral third-party evaluation of what increased density will mean for the refuge, stormwater, wildlife, or the peninsula's long-term ecological balance. So turning specifically to the Proffer Res 2024-40, We are deeply concerned about the reduction to the environmental buffer from the long standing 300 foot best practices to just 50 feet. 50 feet represents less than 17% of what peer review standards recommend and places high density development directly against a critically important 644 acre national wildlife refuge. It eliminates and severely compresses habitat along a major bird migration corridor and permanently reduces the blue-green space that makes Belmont Bay so unique. 50 feet is less than the length of a home planned for Belmont Landing. We respectfully request that the county reevaluate the 50-foot setback and consider restoring a more protective buffer to a minimum of 100 feet from the property line. Also, we ask for full dark skies compliance across the entire proffer acreage, not just within the open space and along the border. Shielded downward facing lighting is essential to prevent bird disorientation and preserve night sky quality. A viable alternative we believe deserves serious consideration is incorporating the approximately 29 acres identified for Belmont Landing into the larger conservation open space. This will create almost 130 acres of continuous land that would be protected and aligned with the intent of the original 1999 proper plan and the county's new 2040 sustainability and resilience goals. Public safety is another great concern. A proposed approximately 2,000 foot straight roadway within Belmont Landing will create a predictable high speed corridor. The adjacent Belmont Bay HOA has spent considerable resources mitigating the fast and the furious driving on a far shorter stretch of road that is not in front of 50 plus folks. We urge the county to require upfront traffic calming designs rather than relying on speed bumps later, especially in a community of senior residents. In addition, we request that stem access roads be used by so designed that puts roads both in front and behind the homes on Angel Fishway. Regarding the SUP 2024-36, we believe the proposed mixed-use building does not meet the needs of the Belmont Bay community. The Belmont Bay community as a whole is approximately 4,700 residents with a rapidly growing senior population. We need a purpose-built community building designed for modern wellness, recreation, and social connections, not an amalgamation of various third parties saying what they want. This means universal accessibility with interior steriles and elevators, which are not in what they propose today. A year-round pool, a functional gym, flexible use spaces, and modern environmental features. The current harbor master building is not suited for restaurant conversion and should remain dedicated to the marine operations. There's no sight lines from that building out to the river. Also, we request dark skies compliance throughout all special use areas, especially those bordering the river and the refuge. Thank you for your time and for your commitment to responsible, future-focused planning. Our community, our HOA, stands ready to collaborate to ensure Belmont Bay remains a thriving, sustainable, and treasured assets as the crown jewel of Prince William County and the Commonwealth. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, listen, we don't applaud here. This is a business meeting. Please control yourselves. We don't applaud. We don't cheer. We don't heckle. Okay? It only disrupts the proceedings. I know these are emotional comments, and you live in this community. We recognize that, but please control yourselves. We don't clap. We don't cheer. We don't heckle. Next, please.

Mr. Chairman and honorable planning commissioners, my name is Daniela Horseman and I'm speaking on behalf of the Riverbend Estate Citizens Association, the original Belmont. Representing approximately 250 homes and 900 people on the Belmont Bay Peninsula. I've lived here since 1969. I've been a nurse for 43 years concerned about issues of health and environment. I actually spoke at the 1999 hearing against the Belmont Bay development. And I stand before you today to address the proposed rezoning of land that borders the Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge, a region of profound ecological importance. What many may not know is that this land has a complex and troubling history, rooted in its past as the Harry Diamond Airy Army Research Lab. It was established in September 1971. The Harry Diamond Lab was center of communication for the East Coast and performed electromagnetic pulse research to test the vulnerability of tactical systems. However, this legacy includes a hidden danger, the burial of transformers in the wetlands which have leached hundreds of tons of polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, in our soil and groundwater and air. The base closed in 1992. coinciding with a disturbing rise in rare cancers among former employees. Many in our community have suffered or are suffering from health issues that may very well be linked to the toxic legacy left behind by this facility. As we consider the future of this sensitive land, I urge you to prioritize the safety and transparency before any construction can be permitted. We must conduct comprehensive water and soil testing by independent firm to assess the presence of PCBs and ensure that our community is protected from further harm. The decision to rezone this land is not just about development, it's about the health and safety of our residents, homes, and preservation of our environment. The wildlife refuge was established precisely because this land could not be safely developed. Let us not jeopardize the future of our community and our natural resources. When the Carruthers' families met with us to ask for our support in 1999 zoning, they promised us use of the Belmont Bay Community Pool. Of course, that never happened, and they never provided any other amenities to Belmont Bay residents other than the now closed golf course. The current developer, Miller and Smith, never asked to meet with us or even those most impacted next to the Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge from Beacon Park. where no amenities were provided for that development either. Our neighborhoods have to live with all the traffic, including only one entry and exit point into the community and its impact on public safety and services, and we get nothing. All the while, the green space and magnificent nature that brought many into the community to begin with Also of extreme importance is the impact of the wildlife refuge of only providing a 50-foot buffer and wiping out the existing stand of trees between Belmont Bay and the refuge and the Potomac Heritage Trail. Unlike a national park, A wildlife refuge is just that, an area not to be disturbed for our precious three bald eagle's nest, wild turkeys, bobcats, possibly endangered bats, foxes, and 257 species of birds. To think that the land next to the refuge, the most sensitive area next door, was changed over our opposition and Belmont Bays in the comprehensive plan by Supervisor Franklin to wipe out open space for townhouses is an outrage. The refuge has a buffer overhead for planes or helicopters of 2,000 feet, and it should have the same next door to it. Our association adamantly opposes the rezoning, and we urge the commission to defer or deny this proposal until a better plan is offered by the developer for a more substantial buffer and protections against the runoff and siltation into the refuge wetlands once the land is deemed safe to build on after an independent soil and water testing for PCBs. townhouses should never have been a consideration for the land adjacent to the wildlife refuge that will impede the natural flow into the wildlife refuge also but thank you very much for your attention to this critical matter together we can advocate for a safe and sustainable future for all my name is rob hartwell and i'm speaking on behalf of the concerned citizens united for

Belmont Bay, which is a nonprofit organization designed to protect the interest of all the communities on Belmont Bay. You just heard from one that wasn't represented or talked to by Miller and Smith. And I'm honored to be here. Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I was once in your position, but as an out large Fairfax County Planning Commissioner, where I chaired the Environment Subcommittee. I was also honored to be a Virginia Commissioner on the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. My environmental legacy comes from my mother, Elizabeth Hartwell, for which the Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge is named. She was instrumental in the establishment of Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge, where she stopped the District of Columbia from dumping its garbage there, and worked very closely with Jim Wagner, who's here tonight, Senator John Warner, Congresswoman Leslie Byrne, and Congressman Tom Davis on establishing the Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge. If she were alive today, she would be here testifying and offering her knowledge and opposition to you. She never lost a battle in nearly 35 years of activism on environmental issues, and there were over 20 battles involving Mason Neck and Featherstone and the Potomac River Refuge Complex, some garnering national attention. However, I'm here today to speak in opposition to the rezoning proposal that comes close to an abomination. The zoning of permanent open space to allow the construction of hundreds of townhouses within 50 feet of the Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge The land in question was now a closed golf course in Belmont Bay. Others tonight who were part of the original development debate have or will testify that they only supported it because the golf course was viewed as a buffer between the refuge and the Belmont Bay development. In my action alert that was sent to you earlier, Prior to this hearing, I also mentioned the Belmont Bay Homeowners Association and Riverbend Estates Citizens Association, representing over 90% of the population of Belmont Bay, vehemently opposed the changes in the comprehensive plan that was rammed through with only two days notice to us on a five to three vote before the full board. We had no time to rally opposition, but we did communicate, and that letter is in your packet from Belmont Bay Homeowners Association and from Riverbend Estates, Ms. Horsman's communication. We did have time to completely oppose the comprehensive plan change to Supervisor Franklin. I believe the developers frankly snookered on this effort and should have known the community would oppose it and that there are better places to build, although with only one access and egress point into the entire community, we're burdened. I'm not here to condemn the builder, as they have offered permanent conservation easements for other wetlands and sensitive open space areas, and they're finally offering some amenities to the community, but amenities that were promised by the previous developer and never delivered. But building townhouses next to the refuge is the Rubicon River, or the point of no return we cannot cross. There are three bald eagle's nests, great horned owls, and Occoquan Bay has 269 species of birds. I was just informed it was larger than the 257 in my testimony. And it's perhaps the most important migratory flyway on the east coast. There are deer, bobcats, foxes, beavers, river otters, and also possibly endangered bats, which are mammals, by the way. Importantly, no matter what protections are offered, significant runoff and siltation will occur in the refuge wetlands immediately adjacent to the development. Now in the first proffers, in the first plan from the staff, they required, in order to approve the buffer that was suggested by the developer, a letter of support from the Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge. That letter never came and will not be coming. A national wildlife refuge is just that, a refuge for the wildlife to avoid the pressures of humans and development. And in this case, we are magnifying the damage in a harmful way with only a 50-foot buffer. Currently, there is a significant buffer in treeline between the refuge and golf course. With a 50-foot buffer, a lot of the existing treeline and extensive vegetation will be cut down and removed only to plant new buffering. A 100-foot buffer would allow the natural treeline for the most part to stay in place. And let me mention that also in your packet and the information previously delivered to you was an email to me from the National Wildlife Refuge manager, Amanda Daisy. And Amanda outlined the fact that the National Wildlife Refuge has a best practices buffer of 300 feet, not the 100 feet that the conservation organizations and our organizations compromised with the developer for, only to be met with a 50-foot buffer. I believe another outstanding issue is that the developer is insisting on controlling another association in Belmont Bay. And in fact, I am very pleased that there was an agreement with Belmont Bay, a homeowner's association, working with KP and Lau. They have agreed now to unify the associations. They have a memorandum of understanding. So we were going to help our colleagues in Belmont Bay by mentioning that was a criteria that had to be met too. I think that one has been met. We have a beautiful community, and the most people that moved into Belmont Bay moved here for the golf course. It's no longer here. The environment, which is now seriously threatened, and the marina on the banks of the Occoquan River. The rezoning before us is just wrong for our community, wrong for Prince William County, wrong for the wildlife and wetlands, and wrong for the Occoquan River and the Potomac River estuaries. The runoff will be significant. In closing, our organization of over 300 Belmont Bay Peninsula residents urges denial of this application or at the very least a deferral to give the developer a chance to come back with a 100-foot buffer and some reduced density next to the refuge. I do want to mention that on the back of my testimony is another close-in map of Taylor Point and Belmont Bay. This is the developer's own rendering with a 50-foot buffer along the refuge. There's one other thing that troubles me about the staff report and the open space that they were indicating was... more than what was required. All that open space, almost all of it that they're rededicating has already been dedicated as open space. They're basically double counting of what the previous developer had offered. You know, you can't have your cake and eat it too. They're basically saying all the existing golf course that's left, that hasn't been built on, and all the existing open space there, we're offering a new development and we get to count all of that open space as part of our development. Their development doesn't encompass all of Belmont Bay. They're buying the property upon approval from the Carruthers family, but they can't count that as open space that's new open space that's being developed. Commissioners, I really appreciate your time. Thank you very much, and we hope that you have thoughtful consideration on this, and especially on that 50-foot buffer. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission, Jack Creumjian, president of LOCA. I would like to have the five minutes per. Thank you. Just bringing back in time, we were at the, we were working with, we were invited, LOCAPELT was invited by WELT, the predecessor organization, to WPCCA. the Woodbridge Environment, Land Use, and Transportation Committee, chaired by Linda Silverstrand back in the 90s. And she invited us to participate because this area along Route 1 is a significant area for Prince William County. It has regional significance. So we're not talking a local development when we talk about the refuge and developing near the refuge. We're talking about an impact on a major flyway along the eastern corridor here. And so we all banded together and I have to say Preston Carruthers was very open to engaging And so we had really good dialogue. And by the way, they had Walsh, Colucci, and Lubali, and none other than Mike Lubali himself attending every one of those meetings. And we had really good dialogue. At the time, too, we had, I worked at EPA 40 years, and the administrator was pushing a no net loss of wetlands theme right about that time in 96, 97 through 99 when we did the rezoning. And so we sat down and looked at that as a system and we said, let us do the best job we can with the golf course to protect the chest bay from nutrients and sediments and to protect what will become the refuge because we were working to move, I would say, Jim Wagner, who was in the room, who will speak shortly, was on the Pell Committee with his wife, Joan. really engaged in the Pelt Committee, and we had some tremendous engagement on how to be environmental stewards for that development. And Preston Carruthers agreed with us that the golf course needed to have BMPs for stormwater. And that means that you don't scour the water down to the shoreline, but you let it sit in swales and percolate and recharge the groundwater and reduce the nutrients on land so you don't end up with all that stuff in the bay. So he agreed to BMPs for stormwater. Another thing he agreed with was integrated pest management. That is to use... less insecticides, herbicides, pesticides to use best management practices for integrated pest management. And to lock the deal in, we took the latest conference that was held in the 90s between the Golf Course Managers Association and the EPA, and we cited that in the proffers. the BMPs of stormwater, and the integrated pest management. So what happened was that got all incorporated in there and Belmont Bay became a showpiece for how to have environmental stewardship near sensitive lands like the wildlife refuge and to protect the Chess Bay. And wouldn't you know it, Robert Trent Jones came along with a world-class golf course in Manassas, and that was adopted. The BMPs of stormwater and integrated pest management were picked up. I believe the county staff took that template from Belmont Bay and transferred it over to Robert Trent Jones. So I want you to understand we were working on with the best of our abilities to do the best job we could to protect the refuge. Why do I say all that? Because we have 63 national parks in the United States. We have 588 national refuges. in the U.S. And in Virginia, we have 22 national parks, 16 wildlife refuges, and 46 wildlife management areas. The difference between the national park and the wildlife refuge is the national park, you encourage camping, and human activity and such, but in a refuge, you're protecting the creatures that are there. You need to isolate people away from the animals and have limited experience and exposure. So we need to have the dark lighting, We need to have the buffers and the buffers need to be functional. We can't, the 50 foot buffer is laughable. So if we were to have this application coming in to a local help meeting like we did in the 90s, I would say the 50-foot buffer is a non-starter. We'd say, we don't want to talk to you. Come back with a decent buffer, and then we'll talk. Now, another thing about Taylor Point, we would look at the woods, and we would see that the oldest mature tree line is in Taylor Point. Taylor Point has some mature forested woodlands that need to be preserved. The current footprint wipes it out. So you need to look at that and say, hey, where is our county arborist? Where are other people that are knowledgeable about mature hardwoods? And let's leave those alone. Get the dam homes out of them. And that's a non-starter. i just wanted to say that so but the northwood bridge area is a vital link in a 800 mile trail network known as the potomac heritage national scenic trail network hey this is national and we're affecting the national trail also it includes the 680-mile Washington-Rochambeau revolutionary route with the Allied armies of George Washington and then General Rochambeau. So we've got national history here as well that we're dealing with. The Potomac River area is a scenic corridor on the Atlantic Flyway. It's a major migratory route for numerous birds and species, including raptors, hawks, eagles, the great blue heron, wood ducks, red-winged blackbirds, and numerous psalm birds. In this area network of Mason Neck, the Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Neabsco Creek Boardwalk, and Wetlands Area Veterans Park, Featherstone Park, Leesvania Park, and Quantico. They all align with the Potomac River waterfront flyway for migratory patterns of numerous bird species. This is birders' paradise. And you don't muck it up with a 50-foot buffer. Excuse me, but that is not the way you do business on a nationally significant site. And there's a lot more that can be said. You're trying to block light with the buffer, as well as sound and movement. It should be wide enough to resist intrusion of invasive species of plants. But I do want to ask if the applicant can also walk us through what they're doing on the relocation of dredge spoils. And a little more on the GMU Marine Sciences Center because we don't want to limit them. I'm glad to see there's a letter of support from GMU in the packet as was referenced. And then we did historically limit the boat slips to 152. And there are two for, one for fire rescue and one for police. Thank you very much. There's more that can be said, but I hope that helps you to realize the significance of what we're doing on a very, very important site. Thank you.

Thank you. And before the next speaker, I'm going to call the next five names. Jim Wagoner, Tom Blackhorn, Wayne Michaels, Kathy Jeffers, and Iris Santiago. Thank you, and you can go.

Ready? Good evening. I'm Clancy McQuig from Lake Ridge Occoquan Civic Association, and I have personally been involved in the Belmont Bay development since it first started with Walsh Kublai, Lubali. And with Linda Silverstrand and Jack, we've all worked on this thing. We have a heritage problem here. We have... a responsibility to God. The reason we put that park and open space next to the Belmont Bay is so we could have the 300 foot buffer that they wanted. And it was not called a buffer, it was called park and open space. And unfortunately, you know, I don't want to set a precedent of the citizens giving away their park and open space for a developer or any development, period. townhouses in that buffer zone, in that park and open space zone, is an obscene gesture of we don't care about anything other than profit. Well, we do. The people here care about something besides profit. We care about preserving our heritage, and the Heritage Trail is properly named because we're trying to preserve the heritage. what was park and open space is a major wildlife corridor. There are birds up and down that thing all the time and they hook the different areas between Canada and Florida for the birds that migrate north and south and there are a lot of them. So to say a 50 foot buffer is anything other than a stick in your eye doesn't strike me as being very wise management of the land. You have an opportunity here to say we want to retain no buildings past what you've already built in the park and open space area, protect the wildlife refuge, protect the community, protect the wildlife up and down the coast, and protect our heritage that we worked hard to build. And we don't want to see it given away without a thought. And that's what I see here. We're giving it away without a thought. A 50-foot buffer is really an insult to the community, especially considering how many years that we have put into trying to protect it since the very beginning, since its inception. And if they had told us at the beginning that they wanted to build townhouses right up against the refuge, like Jack said, we would have told them to go back to Texas and get out of our town. Thank you very much.

I'm Jim Wagner, and I now live in Alexandria. Could you bring the mic up a little bit closer? Sir? Oh, you can't hear?

Yeah, thank you.

You can actually pull it up a little bit. Now? Better? Okay. Although I now reside in Alexandria, Virginia, I was for a long time a resident of Woodbridge. as Jack mentioned, a time when I spoke frequently to this commission and to the supervisors on often, most often probably, on matters pertaining to the then new Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge. I've been involved continuously since 1989 studying and documenting this site along with a host of citizen scientists. I helped muster a broad coalition to advocate public protection for it, which I can say has been most successful. We speculated then that because of its water borders because of its inland wetlands, because of its mosaic from mature woods to a whole range of successive vegetation over open fields, that it held promise of being a really special place that would, in fact, hold flora and fauna that were no longer extant in Prince William County. due to suburban development and others. We can say now that the expectations that we had then have been more than validated. Variety and number of birds is often the measure in these discussions of the ecological health of an area. At a time when there were 270 or so species documented for Prince William County's 355 square mile area. Contemporary surveys documented 233 species on the new refuge's one square mile, which is 0.3%. of the area. An unbroken series of consistent series of wildlife surveys since then has brought the refuge's total nowadays to 269, as has been mentioned by other speakers. making it a most important bird area, a nationally designated important bird area. Prince William's first records of rarities like white pelican, vermilion flycatcher, lark sparrow, Mississippi kite, as many as has been mentioned, three bald eagle and four osprey nests active on site, not off water shores, on site in a single year. Adequate, adjacent to the buffer area, I would note, in the Taylor Point area particularly, osprey, barred owl, great horned owl, cooper's hawks, red-shouldered hawks, wood ducks, prothonotary warblers, and a string of other birds. I mention those because they are recognized as being particularly important and many of them vulnerable. And they're here. During migration, the days set aside for those migratory counts yield over 100 species on average. And that's over 27 years, I believe, of continuous counts. Beyond Occoquan Bay's well-publicized bird life, 10,000 survey hours. a field have been devoted to documenting hundreds of other vertebrates and invertebrates, 79 species of butterflies, 78 species of dragonflies, rarities from the bronze copper butterfly to the fine-lined emerald, the spotted turtle, even the American bumblebee, which is vulnerable globally, not to mention 800 mostly native plants to which we're adding numbers every year. A listing of the refuge's virtues unfortunately must be tempered by clear recognition that it is a very small place. We're talking about one square mile. It is, in effect, an island vulnerable to constant natural and manmade disruptions and pressures, polluted and rising waters, noise, light, consider the bat, intrusion of alien plants and animals, and not to mention vandalism. I have a long experience with the property and I see it as a living laboratory of natural sciences, a singular educational resource for academics and the general public both. It should also be seen, I think you must see it, as a priceless ornament advertising this county's pride in and protection of a natural asset of unique importance. Years ago, Kathleen Seafeld characterized me as a fierce defender of this refuge, but I see a lot of fierce defenders here tonight and elsewhere, and they range across the nation. We all hope. mindful of the many benefits that Prince William accrues from this refuge, that you'll defend it by seeing it gain a proper 100 to 300 foot natural buffer from harmful encroachment. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I had more time.

Were you representing an organization?

I'm representing the Occoquan Bay Meadowood Natural Resources Survey.

Okay, thank you. You have four more minutes.

Yes, thank you. I would use that extra time to emphasize the sensitivity of the refuge to a density, in particular, a density of residential dwellings with all of the activities associated with that night and day. and keep that in mind when considering projects like this in future from the ground up. The Taylor Point density and the fact that it eliminates the mature woodland that is one of a kind on that supposed buffer is something that I think needs to be addressed straight away. Thank you very much for your help.

Great, thank you.

Good evening. I'm Tom Blackburn. I'm the Advocacy Committee Chair for the Northern Virginia Bird Alliance, and we are a 5,000-member chapter of the National Audubon Society, and our service area includes all of Prince William County. We are concerned about two aspects of the proposed development at Belmont Bay, and we are urging the Commission to either deny or defer consideration based on these two issues. We are of course most concerned about the negative impact of a 50 foot buffer between the development and the Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge. 50 feet is entirely inadequate to protect the refuge's wildlife. And as Jim Wagner mentioned before, in addition, The proposal is going to result in cutting down mature woodlands on the Belmont Bay side of the refuge, which are already providing some benefit to the refuge. Many of the species in the refuge are sensitive to human activity. Nearby development can cause them to change their behavior. For instance, we will not see horned owls anywhere close to the refuge boundary with only a 50-foot border. It won't happen. Prince William County has an obligation to both encourage development and prosperity in the county and to protect its natural resources. At the moment, refuge officials cannot speak clearly about what is best for the refuge. It's up to the county to step up and ensure that the natural resources of the county including those in the refuge are protected by providing an adequate buffer. Ideally, the buffer should be 300 feet, which is what science would require. Since that appears to be impossible, a 100-foot buffer would at least mitigate some of the harm to the refuge caused by this development. Our second concern has to do with the language in the proffer on lighting. The proffer states that exterior lighting fixtures shall be, quote, dark sky or equivalent standard on the property along the refuge boundary, close quote. The reference to just dark sky or equivalent is too vague to ensure that the lighting will be actually consistent with the principles that Dark Sky International and the Illuminating Engineering Society have developed. Among other problems, Dominion Energy, which supplies streetlights, lists lighting fixtures in its catalog as dark sky friendly that are not compliant with Dark Sky International standards. We would recommend that the developer be required to use the words, quote, dark sky approved luminaires. Those words will eliminate any ambiguity as to what is required. Dark Sky International has an extensive catalog of luminaires that meet its standards. Also, dark sky lighting should be used throughout the entire development and not just along the property boundary. Lights anywhere in the development that are either too bright, not properly shielded, or have too high a color temperature, that is blue-white lights instead of more amber, can shine into the refuge. They also scatter light into the atmosphere contributing to light pollution over a large area. Dark sky compliant lights have been shown to improve visibility actually as compared to other lights because they reduce glare and are focused on what needs to be lit. They also use less electricity because they don't waste light by sending it off into the atmosphere. Requiring dark sky approved luminaires throughout the development will benefit both the development and the refuge. Thank you very much.

Good evening. My name is Wayne Michaels and I live in Belmont Bay in Woodbridge. I'm speaking today concerning the future development of homes on the former Osprey Golf Course fairways, which border the Occoquan National Wildlife Refuge. It is my belief that future development will have consequences not only for the Belmont Bay community, where I live, but also the wildlife refuge. These former fairways are not just open space. They serve as a protective buffer for wildlife. By removing that buffer, the increased noise, lighting, and human disturbance would have the potential to harm the various species that the refuge is meant to protect. Because this proposed project borders federally protected land, it may trigger violations of the 1973 Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Act of 1918. This should be a concern for the Planning Commission, for the Board of County Supervisors, and Prince William County. I have many questions concerning this development. Will there be increased pesticide, fertilizer, and stormwater runoff from the former golf course that migrates towards the refuge wetlands? If so, does the Army Corps of Engineers need to give approval and offer permits? Does the EPA and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, not a manager at the refuge, but the service, offer guidelines or give approval What about all the no digging signs that I see every time I go over to the refuge? Are there dangerous chemicals buried on that property? Someone spoke about that already. The proposal to build homes on the former golf course fairways is inconsistent with the original golf course zoning which homeowners relied on when purchasing property in this community. Allowing future residential development sets a precedent that puts the rest of the golf course green space at risk. In addition, replacing open spaces with housing will increase traffic and permanently alter the character and peacefulness of the Belmont Bay community. Mr. Carruthers, who originally developed Belmont Bay, he created a gem. And I believe he had a dream to create a beautiful piece of property into a community of peacefulness and tranquility, which we have. So much so that he and his wife... are buried at the Carruthers Cemetery in Belmont Bay. And my wife personally called the Historical Society and told them about this cemetery, and they didn't know about it, but it's now on the historical list. There is much value in preserving a lifestyle. In a recent December 2025 note from Chair at Large DeSondra Jefferson, that I just received regarding the growing of the Vent Hill corridor. She stated, and I quote, we need to manage that growth to preserve what makes it a desirable place to live, to work, and to play, even as we welcome new neighbors into the fold, end of quote. I am for development, but not on previously zoned open spaces. Remember this, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Thank you.

I'm Kathy Jeffers. I live at the Acclaim Senior Community in Belmont Bay and We make great use of the former Ospreys golf course. People can't walk their dogs in a wildlife refuge. It disturbs the wildlife. And so we walk our dogs and our children on the old golf course. And it has a lot of evidence of wildlife. There are chewed up stakes along the catamount creek that show that there are beaver around there i wouldn't have thought there were beaver in our neighborhood but there are because i've seen the chewed on logs my principal concern is the 50 foot margin it's indecent I read how originally the National Science Foundation recommended 300 feet. So I think it's just unconscionable to cut that buffer to 50 feet and to take out mature trees to put in planted trees in place. It doesn't substitute. We have bald eagles sitting in my apartment. I have seen bald eagles land on the building across from me. That flyway is very significant and 50 feet doesn't protect the National Wildlife Refuge. It just isn't. It's not sensical. It's bound to result in a lot of habitat destruction for other animals that don't live in the wildlife refuge that are out on the golf course. And I noticed... by reading the zoning overlays that some of the townhouses have already been placed on top of what were, I think, water hazards at the golf course or something. They've already filled in some of the water places that the animals had access to. But I'm not... a bird person. I love birds, but I'm a turtle person and I have to drive on course view way to come in and out of a claim. And I'm, really sad to see the crushed turtles. I, at my own expense, bought metal signs that said turtle crossing, and I used a bolt and a wing nut to screw them onto the public signs just saying turtle crossing. Someone has removed them. I expect it was Miller and Smith. But there are snapping turtles to be considered as well. And on the golf course property, there are several bodies of water and they're full of little spotted turtles. They also have snapping turtles. The most recent one I saw was dead, but that shows that they live there, they come there, they've bred and produced snapping turtle in the past, and 50 feet is insignificant when you look at the wildlife out there. I know we can't do anything to take back the golf course, but I would like you to think about the number of people who have moved to this area because it is full of natural wonders and convenient to shopping. That's what you hear to sell this area and I feel like it's been chewed away. the beautiful water features and everything that are promoted are slowly being eaten up by these zoning variances and we'd just like you to protect that wildlife refuge. It's too high density to have that just 50 feet. Thank you.

Thank you. And the next few speakers, Kevin Parker, Paul Boots, Ellen Donnelly, and Pat Donnelly.

Hello, Kevin Parker, Neabsco District. I found out about the refuge when I was going to Nova Community College and we had an environmental club and Jim Wagner came to speak at our environmental club in 1992 to try and help turn this military facility into a refuge. I went on to serve as a board member on the Friends of the Potomac River Refuges group. I also installed some prothonotary warbler oxes on the property, and I did three years of environmental education under Kim Hosen, alongside Alonzo Abagados, the capital naturalist, Cindy Smith, and James Klakowitz, teaching seventh graders from our county schools about birds. So I'm here to ask to please say no to this zoning change. It's not good for the people or wildlife to allow town homes with only a 50 foot buffer to a national wildlife refuge. Refuge manager and others say we need 100 to 300 feet. Woodbridge can be a place where we can show that a diversity of wildlife and a diversity of people can live together and thrive. The wildlife refuge system represents a choice we made as a country to deliberately live alongside wildlife so they can exist. That has been in doubt. In 1903, President Roosevelt protected Pelican Ivan, the first refuge, because hundreds of thousands of birds were killed for hats. Herons and egrets brought to the edge of extinction. Today, we can see herons and egrets around Prince William County. We kept these birds around. Not all were so lucky. The passenger pigeons recorded to be here in the county, they're gone forever. The Carolina parakeet, they're also gone forever. In the 1960s, Congress formalized the refuge system. Also in the 60s, another dramatic loss brought attention to wildlife. DDT caused eagles and ospreys to nearly vanish, but now we can regularly see eagles and ospreys here in the county. We chose to keep these birds around, getting rid of DDT. In each of these cases, we chose to live with wildlife. We could have lost the herons and the eagles. It's totally possible. One example now, the King Rail categorized as near threatened. In the last 10 years, every single King Rail reported in this county has been at this refuge, according to Ebert. Not mostly, all. This is their home in the summer where they raise their young. In the winter, they are off to Honduras and El Salvador and Central America. Now, this isn't about housing supply. There's planned high density development within a half mile of the VRE. There are many other proposals for housing. Homes today are larger than older ones. Look in Woodbridge, you have small homes. We could house more with the same land with efficient design. In multiple ways, the issue is not lack of space. With this decision, we will choose if we can live with wildlife. Can we have room for the natural world? Can we spare an adequate buffer around this valuable natural area? This was, after all, the plant, housing, permanent golf course buffer, and refuge. Please value Occoquam Bay National Wildlife Refuge and protect it for everyone. Vote no, thank you.

Good evening, my name is Paul Boots. I live in Belmont Bay and I just wanted to say one thing. I grew up here in Woodbridge, 1969. I used to work at the abomination of cross route one called Colts Ford. My concern that I have is Dawson Beach can't handle the traffic. Try to get out in the morning to go to work when you're backed up. And I want to know what the builder's gonna do about Dawson Beach. I don't know if you've ever been out there where we live. I don't know if you've been in the traffic. There's only one way in and one way out. But Dawson Beach can't handle it. And with the warehouse or data center that's coming in and the other stuff, it's going to create more problems than I think anything else. But I've owned seven houses in this county, gone to almost every school in here that they had from elementary up. And I've seen it, unfortunately. Where the Applebee's is on Route 1, I mean, at Prince William Parkway in Minnieville, I played Little League baseball. So it's grown. But Dawson Beach can't handle it. I don't know what you're gonna do about it. But there's a lot of big pictures here that we have to look at. But thank you.

Thank you. And the next few speakers, Megan Wheeler, John Wheeler, Rick Popp, and KP Lau. Sorry, wheelers don't have anything. Thanks.

Mr. Chairman, a member of the commission. I'm KP Lau, President of Bamam Bay Homeowner Association. I'm here representing 1123 homes and over 2000 residents. On behalf of the board, I'm here to endorse the rezoning 2024-00040. I appeared before this commission in 2022 in opposition to the rezoning 2022 number one. That's when the previous applicant plan to build 1,400 homes in Belmont Bay under a new HOA. The Planning Department issued a position at the time mandating that in order to go forward, the two HOAs must be combined into one, as originally approved in 1999. Subsequently, the rezoning request was withdrawn. Miller Smith filed a new rezoning request in 2024 to build 348 homes. And Miller Smith has worked with all the stakeholders, including Belmont Bay Homeowners Association. In May 2025, I think we sent a resolution to each one of the members of the commission and board of supervisors, Essentially, we adopted a resolution regarding rezoning 2024-00040, we're considering today. That states the board will oppose the rezoning unless the two HOAs have merged into one. And additional amenities and green space are provided for the residents of Belmont Bay. After numerous consultation and vigorous negotiation, the Board and M&S have signed an MOU that will bind both parties to the understanding for BBHOA to support the rezoning request. Including in this MOU will have Miller-Smiths already submitted in this Third Amendment to the Application and then also the parties agreed to the following after the rezoning is approved that Miller Smith has purchased the land from the current owner. Number one, merge the two HOAs, Belmont Bay Homeowner Association and the Conservancy into one master association. that would govern both residential and commercial entities in Belmont Bay. Number two, this is the most important one to me, is to enter into a conservation easement agreement with Northern Virginia Conservation Trust to protect the remainder of the old golf course perpetually as a green space that will cover almost 100 acres. And of course, all those lands will have the trails to be protected. Number three, convey a land bay for a community farm. We would like to have a community farm that only serve the residents, but also serve the elementary school and the nonprofit organizations in Woodbridge. Number four, convey a newly built community center to homeowner association. Number five, convey the pavilion in front of the marina to the homeowner association. Number six, construct a new pool for the additional new residents that will come into Belmont Bay. I just realized that that's another thing Miller-Smith has agreed to do is they will convey the land, the current Belmont Bay Paddler Club is located fee simple to the nonprofit organization that operates the Belmont Bay Club. Belmont Bay Club, my wife and I established the club, even though we're not involved in the management anymore. but we're responsible for cleaning up the Occoquan River from the bridge to the wildlife refuge. We have cleaned up at least 65 tires so far. I appreciate the opportunity to present the Board's position tonight, and I thank you for your attention but i'd like to make two additional comments once about the dawson beaches traffic you know with the industrial park on the other side of the dawson beach road i would request the county look at on the other side of industrial park right now there's an underpass it could easily convert into another point for Belmont Bay. In that way, it will separate the commercial traffic and the residential traffic, and each row will serve as a backup to the others. And the last point is, in order to limit traffic, This is my personal view. The builders should consider building a grocery, especially with most of 55 and over residents coming to Belmont Bay will reduce a tremendous amount of traffic. That's all I do is driving out to grocery stores. Thank you.

Thank you. And just to reread a couple names, make sure Iris Santiago, Rick Popp, Jenny Meyer, Jose Santiago, and Dennis Slater.

How's this? It's good, okay. Hi, my name is Jenny Meyer. I live in Woodbridge. I am not from Belmont Bay, but I have lived in Dale City and Woodbridge for more than three decades.

Ma'am, could you pull that mic up just a little closer to you? Oh, sure. How's that?

Is that better? Perfect. Okay. And I first visited Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge the year it opened, pushing my then-toddler in a jogging stroller, which I checked with the people at the office if it was okay and wasn't considered a bicycle. I've been visiting regularly since then and I know the place very well and I've seen it change over the years and most of the changes have not been good ones. The refuge is clearly struggling and the habitat is under constant pressure. Birds that used to live there you won't see anymore. You won't hear meadowlarks sing, and the bluebirds no longer make nests to raise their young there. This refuge, as other people have said, is the crown jewel of natural areas in eastern Prince William County, and it is literally irreplaceable. It's been left as a natural area for a long time, thanks to the unwitting stewardship of the US Army. And there is no way for humans now or probably ever to replicate the communities, the natural communities that have formed there. And so this rezoning is asking you to gamble with one of the very few remaining wild places in eastern Prince William County. And you shouldn't gamble if you can't afford to lose. It's irreplaceable. So I hope you will reject this rezoning or at least go back to the drawing board and do a better job. Thank you.

Hello? Hear me? My name is Iris Santiago. My husband and I moved here from New York in 2022 to the Beacon Park townhomes. Since then, all we have heard is about this massive new build, now that we are in the throes of it, We are appalled and very disappointed with the density of this proposed build and the lack of consideration for our natural environment. As you have heard from so many professionals who have spoken and have made a lifelong commitment to protect our wildlife, water, flora, fauna, and near extinct species, To which I am but a novice, even though we have always been environmentally conscious. I can only speak to my experience since we have moved into this community. We back the space in Beacon Park towns that would become Belmont Landing. That is the most impacted by the 50-foot buffer simply to allow for more stacking and packing because, as we have been told, anything more would not be profitable. I also want to say, with all respect to Mr. KP, the Belmont Bay HOA does not represent the Beacon Park towns. HOA. We have not been part of any of the conversations they have had with Miller and Smith and all the concessions they have made. We have not made those concessions. If you speak to all of the residents of the 80 homes that comprise our HOA you will get a different story about what was told to them when they bought. Not one expected that there would be a packing and stacking of homes, leaving little to no green space for them. Not one was told that the nature view they were promised was going to be taken away. In fact, in many cases, the refuge and the surrounding wildlife was part of the selling point. Right now, there are 77 ghost homes in the process of being built right now on Criswind. that were allowed so many variances that they seem to be right on top of the Beacon Park townhomes and some Belmont Bay HOA townhomes directly across from them. They are oppressive and imposing. Those 77 homes are never included in the total build in our community because they were not part of the comprehensive plan or the small area plan, hence why we call them ghost homes. Now I bring up these, I bring these up because when the trees were cut down for that build, despite assurances that there were no nests on the trees, I have pictures to prove otherwise. There were, did you see it? There were eagles flying all around looking for their nests. looking for their habitat. We keep getting promises that never come through. We have 270 new homes built and being built surrounding our community. That includes 17 town homes in our own HOA. More than half of the entire proposed build in Belmont Bay, besides the wildlife, we are the most affected by this massive build. Every time they build, they clear trees, thereby destroying the habitat of different bird species affecting hydrology and the natural migration of different species of bats, birds, butterflies. If the 77 homes, our travesty. Imagine what 178 homes right up against the refuge with only a 50 foot buffer would be. That would be a forever impact that there will be no coming back from. We are the invasive species. The wildlife has a refuge and we want to encroach upon their refuge and disrupt and destroy their natural environment. We must as stewards of the land and for the wildlife maintain a healthy ecosystem. The original build was supposed to be 358 homes. It was reduced to 348, which is now. Of those 348, 10 less, but only two less behind our homes, the ones that are most impacted, the ones that are right behind the refuge. So I ask you, please, to adhere to the county 100 foot buffer. and not the 50-foot buffer, and do not allow special permits and variances to allow otherwise not acceptable building practices. For example, ingress and egress through a parking lot of a senior residence and two-way streets both in front and in back of the age-restricted 55-plus townhouses on Angel Fish Way. In most states, that is illegal. In those states where it is legal, most planning boards do not allow it. Thank you for your time.

I am Jose Santiago. That's my wife. We've been here three and a half years, and I would like to start addressing the planning board first.

Mr. Santiago, pull the mic closer to you so we can hear you, sir.

Okay, fine. I would like to start my opening with the actual... Occoquan Bay Natural Wildlife Refuge website. The first paragraph that you see states their mission. And it is quote, 20 miles south of Washington, D.C., where the Potomac River meets the Occoquambe Natural Wildlife Refuge, an oasis for migratory birds and busy city residents seeking a quiet escape from development have their place. Now, to me, this whole... plan is the opposite of their mission and for the planning board to agree to it would be your agency over the agency of the Federal Fish and Wildlife and the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act. So a federal refuge is created to protect tidal marsh, grasslands, and migratory bird habitats, and is in one of the last open spaces in northern Virginia. We met with the acting manager of the refuge two months ago, and he stated to us exactly this. He cannot agree... nor deny, approve, nor disapprove any development outside of their lands, any private lands. So the fact that everybody seems to say that the refuge itself is okay with a 50-foot buffer is misspoken. That is not true. That is a falsehood. The rezoning and special use care will place dense development and a new road immediately adjacent to a federally protected refuge, raising local, state, and federal environmental concerns. The legal baseline buffer is 100 feet and encroachment requires strict, strict findings. Prince William County is the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Program, the resource protection area, and that includes a 100-foot vegetated buffer around the tidal wetlands, shorelines, and perennial streams. That buffer is a minimal legal floor, 100 feet. The refuge requested stronger protection. beforehand, before they were gagged by the current political climate that we're in. And they requested that stronger protection from shrinking buffers that contradict the refugees' purpose that is a habitat protection for migratory birds and sensitive species. Approving a dramatically smaller setback here would set a precedent of refuge edge encroachment inconsistent with why this federal land exists. I was planning to read all this, but now I'm just going to speak right-minded to my neighbors that are here. and the people that are concerned with this and all the old guard that have been in this battle for 30, 40 years and I respect them and I'm really, really proud to hear them speak because it tells me that somebody cares and they've been caring for this long and that we should not stop caring. The Dark Sky Protocol, which is a national protection, does not require dimmer streetlights facing down. That's not what it is. If you saw on the Belmont Landing diagram that they showed, there will be four streets that would lead the traffic of the people that live there, the 178 homes, to drive directly into facing the wildlife refuge. Now, if you go outside and you look up into the sky, you will see stars that are hundreds and billions of light years away. Now you're seeing vehicular headlights going into the refuge from just 50 feet away. Any nocturnal animal, be it what it may be, will lose its circadian rhythm because of these lights. It will be the first domino to fall, and then after that, the diurnal animals, those that are awake during the day, will also be in distress. We face, our backyard faces the pond that's there, the irrigation pond, which is that whole green space is a migratory path, for the hummingbirds, for the monarch butterflies, for the bats, for the Canadian geese. There were 40 Canadian geese there today, yesterday also. And they rotate according to whatever migratory species is migrating from Canada down to Mexico. They stop here and they need to rest and they need to feed. And this is what they get out of stopping here in Occoquan Bay Wildlife Refuge. We as in citizens of Woodbridge.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Can I have a little more time?

We'll have to move on. We appreciate it.

Okay, fine.

Good evening, I'm Dennis Slater. I'm the president of Harbor Point East Condo Association, which is the property adjacent to what we're speaking about tonight, Taylor Point. I represent a community of 67 owners and their adult family members. I serve as the president of the association currently. Along with Belmont Bay HOA, we endorsed the Miller and Smith rezoning proposals because it dramatically reduces the density and traffic concerns that your predecessors approved in 1999. While some of our individual members may have specific and valid concerns, our association appreciates the attentive collaboration we've experienced with the applicant, Miller and Smith. The applicant has accommodated our request fairly and our members truly appreciate the increased green space and trees remaining that will be provided adjacent to our building. After your decision, we invite the PWC functional staff members to also listen and support our ongoing concerns for traffic safety, community safety, and proactive maintenance of our shoreline. Thank you for this opportunity to endorse the application while also counting on your support in the future. Thank you.

Thank you, and just want to read a last few names one last time. Vincent Cam, Rick Pop, and Maude Holt. And then if there were any other speakers, if you would like to head to the back, just please kind of hold in groups of three or four in the back, please.

Good evening, my name is Maud Holt and I reside at 13839 Estuary Place. I'm here not to speak as an expert, but as a resident of here. Each of you to, forgive me for not addressing, first to the chair of the commission, Juan McFall, and to the other commissioners, thank you all for this opportunity to be able to speak tonight about this proposed change. Experts have spoken providing detailed information for your honest consideration of delaying, approving, or denying this. The testimonies that you have heard have not failed to provide you with detailed information to assist you hopefully with reconsidering what the builder is proposing. They state that the national standard is 300 buffers, but it could go at 100. What I can speak to that if you do not leave your home around 5.30, 5.40 in the morning, it is extremely difficult to come out onto Route 1 from Dawson Creek. When they talked about this with us, I talked about the way of egress. the density that we have and the safety. And that, to me, has not been satisfied with the presentation from the developer. And I think that you owe it to all of us to take an honest look at what the experts, unbought experts, have provided to you so that we that live there, that's over 75, I'm 76, that we can live in peace. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Jeannie LaCroix and I live on Angelfish, which is right down from the Santiago's and we're in the Beacon Park Association that did not have the opportunity to lend a voice to what's going on here today. I do have to say I bought one of the 55-plus Miller and Smith houses, and they do a great job, and I love my house. But I don't love the proposed extended building, and here's why. So my house and all the ones on Angelfish, we have a good view of the pond in the back. That's between our houses and the nature preserve, the wildlife preserve. And what we see is we see people walking their dogs. We see people fishing, believe it or not. I don't see them catching anything, but they're always fishing there. There's neighbors that knock on my door because I have turtles that are this big on my driveway and they don't want me to come home and run over it. They're always on my porch, whether it be frogs or birds or fox or coyotes. They're running by. There's deer. There's, like I said, so many birds. Constantly the birds are out there, and my grandkids love to chase the birds. But what I'm hearing about the setback is so true, and I'm trying to paint a picture for you because a lot of you haven't seen what we're talking about. The Acclaim folks come out there and walk with their walkers because they need to have a little bit of exercise. They come out if they have their dogs, and they appreciate the green space. There are a lot of eagles that come and land in the trees, and there are ospreys all the time. So we're very blessed that we have this opportunity. to actually see the wildlife. The buffer that we have right now, we have a self-sustaining pond. I know it used to be the watering system for the golf course, but now it's self-sustaining. Lots of animals are there all the time. and they come into my yard and they feel comfortable back and forth. And like I said, at night I'm hearing howling and there's coyotes and you name it. And so I just feel as though I'm trying to give you the picture that it's not just an area that should be paved over all the way up to the reserve because the preserve has some dense area. So we're kind of the space in between. If you walk the Belmont Bay Path, you're going to see a lot of slippers and flip-flops and sneakers. Because if you leave your shoe outside, it might be gone in the morning and they drop them somewhere else. And we usually collect them up and put them on a wall. So if you're missing a shoe, it's probably on one of the path's walls. But that's the coolness of Belmont Bay is the animals coming in and the fact that we have that wildlife preserved right by us. And so I really encourage you before you make such a drastic, drastic vote that would change everything for us, that you do come out and take a look at it. I will host any one of you and see what we're trying to talk about. Thank you for your time.

Good evening. My name is Justin Engle. I live in the Coles District. I am here as an avid boater. I do not live in Belmont Bay. It's interesting to hear everything that everybody has to say, the people that do live in Belmont Bay. But as an avid boater in this area, and by the way, boating is not just for the rich. I am blue collar and definitely enjoy boating on a budget in this area. And I live in this area strictly because boating is available to people in this area and it's one of the only reasons I still reside in this county and in this area is the Potomac River, the Occoquan. I grew up on tributary. I grew up in the same neighborhood I live in now. Tributary to the Occoquan River and big thing for me is protection of our watershed, protection of our wildlife and protection of The waterways that we have with the availability of boating and fishing, still it not turning into a swamp. A big thing in that, and I'm going to kind of jump all over the place, sorry, that's my ADD brain. One big thing in that is overdevelopment, and we see silting in a constant problem. We talk about protection of watershed, protection of watershed. When a construction project starts and they knock down all the trees and everything, mud just flows into these rivers, flows into these waterways, and we constantly see, the problem that comes about because of that with the silting in. We had the disaster at Neabsco Creek with the dredging and they couldn't even make it a channel anymore. Potomac Shores, you look at Potomac Shores, now it's nothing at all what it used to be and the same thing. Developers, what they're supposed to do and what is in place that they are supposed to do for protection of silting in, is not being upheld, and there needs to be accountability for that. The buffer zones that people talk about, I keep hearing buffer zone, buffer zone, buffer zone, protection of the wildlife, all the buffer zones have been removed from the actual water's edge, which is the most important place for a buffer zone to be, honestly. That's your last resort. So encroaching on these buffer zones in the first place and not protecting the water's edge in the first place is a big issue. Of course, people want to be able to live on the waterfront and see the waterfront and see everything. Well, when you look at these certain areas, let's talk about, all right, we're in Belmont Bay right now. When you're in Belmont Bay, you look across what's pretty, Fairfax. Shores, mowed down, everything to build Potomac Shores in the first place. What do you look at that's pretty? The water and Maryland. What's Maryland do? Protect the watershed, keep those buffer zones, keep heavy wooded areas against the shorelines. That is a concentration that needs to happen moving forward in these projects. This project, the damage is already done. There's a few things that I want to speak about in this specific project, but I hope in the future there is accountability, one, to builders, holding builders accountable for what they propose in a project these people by these houses in the first place with the expectation that certain things are going to be upheld by the builders this builder bankrupts another one comes in the promises on uphold upheld i don't know what needs to be done by you guys to make sure that change of hands no matter what accountability accountability accountability please make sure that these things that are promised in the first place continue throughout a project. It's unfair for the people that buy a house halfway through the project, it's not at all what they thought they were gonna get in the first place. I talked about the silting in. So avid boater on the Occoquan, on a marina upstream of Belmont Bay. The no-wake zone used to be about 10 minutes for us. It went up to 20 minutes, and then it got extended twice with more and more docks put in. That makes boating difficult. I don't know what's going to happen with extension of, are they going to be allowed to build more docks? Is there going to be extension of the no-wake zone? Those are some questions I have. I looked at this proposed project and I see all these additional buildings they're putting in, additional residences, mixed use, retail, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I saw a lot of taking away from the parking that existed and I ask a huge question with this proposed project because I am in and out of Belmont Bay like once a week. There seems to not be adequate parking at all for the proposal of mixed use in this. And what's going to be done about that? What's going to be done to preserve future decisions being made when you're removing When there were restrictions put on it before, now we're removing those restrictions. Where are we going to end up from that? So accountability is a big thing in this. Guys, please do your job to hold these builders accountable, even when it changes hands to another builder, even in further development of the project. Please represent the citizens of this county in doing so for what the promises they were given in the first place for these developments. Thank you.

Dear Commissioners, my name is Vincent Kam. I'm a resident of Belmont Bay. I know we all listened to many addresses here tonight, and many of them spoke against the approval of the proffers in rezoning 2024-00040. But I'm here to speak in support of this resuming request, and I urge the Commission to consider it favorably. And here are some of the reasons why. I know many of you have heard about arguments that, well, we're missing this or the most serious deal breaker as the 50 feet buffer. But let me point out also that from Mr. Carrova's vision back in 1999, I was actually then, I signed up for his contract I have my house built, so I moved in the year 2000. I've been a resident ever since and I'm still here. And this is serious because what you see an offer and versus alternatives I know you're here only to decide whether to say yes or no but there may be other alternatives which is not on the table and which you might also have to think about now why do we want to consider giving more than 50 percent of what's actually on the map to the county So we're looking at not just the buffers here, we're looking at land that is going to stay protected. We're talking about green space. We are talking about the open space and parks. You see like the largest area which is named number one there on the map. That is serious because I live at the northern edge of that part of that map. And every day I see wildlife Every day I see the effects of what urban encroachment brings, and I see there is a balance. You got to address that. So why did we lose the golf course? It's economics. So what would you think the current owner of those land would do if you were giving a denial of this request? Think of the alternatives. You may see worse cases as opposed to the best case, which is what you see now, having open green space given back to the county so that we can actually have both environmental conservation and wildlife refuge in addition to business development that also can support everybody that's in the community. Yes, we are concerned. Yes, there are many other factors, but I just want to bring that out. So please vote yes for that proffer in rezoning 2024-00040. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. Are there any other speakers in person who'd like to speak tonight? Thank you. Is there anyone online? OK.

Yes. Janice White. My name is Janice White, and I reside on Ferry Landing Lane in Woodbridge District, that is in Belmont Bay. When I purchased my home in Belmont Bay 28 years ago, it was an act of faith in both the Belmont Bay developer and Prince William County master plan. And I'm pleased to say my trust was not misplaced. Today, Belmont Bay is a vibrant community that is improved with each stage of development. But let's be realistic. It's been a long slog to complete the community. The county and two different developers have provided extraordinary community outreach for the past four years. Our community's commitment to improving the plan is evident in our active participation. In response to our concerns, Miller and Smith significantly modified the plans that you were reviewing. I'm here tonight to support the amendments proposed by the applicant. I do have two matters for your consideration. First, the future financial stability of the homeowners associations depends on the number of residential units proposed by the applicant. This density is the break even point to support the additional amenities. Reducing the number of units to achieve a greater setback from the refuge could result in drastic increases of homeowner assessments that exceed the limits set by our covenants and the fixed incomes of our over 55 residents. Second, the Planning Commission should reinstate the requirement for Prince William County to provide security for the Potomac National Heritage Trail in Open Space One. I'm a neighbor of Vincent's, and I'd like to point out that Section 26C of the approved May 1999 proppers require that the county establish a security program for the Potomac Heritage Trail at the time it links to the northwest properties where I live. This requirement should be preserved. In recent years, residents have reported several instances of trespassing and unauthorized encampments in the area. That underscores the need for a formal security program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners for the opportunity to provide comments.

Our next speaker will be Ms. Ashley Studmore.

Good evening, Chair McPhail and Planning Commissioners. My name is Ashley Studholm, Occoquan District, and representing the Prince William Conservation Alliance. And I request 10 minutes, I hope.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Oh.

Why? Why? Hello, hello. Yes, now I can hear you. Okay, let's try that again. Good evening, Chair McPhail and Planning Commissioners. My name is Ashley Studholm with the Occoquan District in representing the Prince William Conservation Alliance. So I request 10 minutes, please. We heard a lot of really great comments tonight and I'm hoping not to belabor the point. I do agree with the request to increase the setback more than 50 feet. I think the 100 foot requirement or 100 foot buffer is more than reasonable and I think that you know, that looking at the design, you might be able to accommodate that density elsewhere and also protect the refuge. The original golf course design was intentionally created to be a broad open space buffer of more than, you know, 300 feet between the refuge and nearby homes. And as Dr. Jack pointed out, that was reviewed and affirmed by the predecessor of the WPCCA, the Woodbridge Civic Association, and the local Pelt community. And that was to specifically prevent encroachment and help maintain that habitat integrity. And when the course closed, the community members envisioned converting that land to a public park. And that option would have, of course, strengthened the habitat, especially in a time when natural areas are rapidly shrinking. And PWCA has been long in support of restoring this area to high-quality habitat and protecting and protecting it with an easement to ensure a meaningful buffer in perpetuity. And a 50 foot just doesn't seem to, it's minimal at best. And this is a national wildlife refuge. And I think that Prince William County should really be wanting to set a standard for how local governments Stewart land next to federal conservation areas. I was sick today and so I'm trying to get through this and not feeling particularly well and I know everybody else is tired. But this is really important. So I just wanted to stay up and and voice these concerns because the refuge is too important to not speak tonight. So what everyone is talking about in terms of asking for an increased buffer, that is in alignment with the national best practices. And I think increasing and with supplemental plantings, would be, we should be wanting to do the best thing for the refuge. Our members are also, so beyond the buffer, our members are also concerned about the portions of the RPA and having them not meet the reforestation standards. And the RPAs are really essential to meeting the Chesapeake Bay Act requirements and maintaining the TMDL compliance. So protecting the bay really starts with protecting riparian corridors and preventing further degradation. So we should really be holding them to that standard. And I guess lastly, just to say that Yeah, there seems to be a lot of, there was a lot of meetings with the developer. Janelle had a list of all the different meetings. But I think what we can take away from tonight with all of the feedback is that we've been requesting for a larger buffer for throughout this entire period. And so while there has been meetings, there has been some of these issues have not yet been resolved. And so I would say that for the benefit of of the refuge and the longevity of the community this proposal should be deferred until they bring back an adequate plan for the buffer. And you know they I'm sure you know they're going above and beyond what is required but I In this situation, what is required is irrelevant. And I think it is more important that we do what is right for our federal lands that mean a lot, not just to us, but we are the stewards for everyone in the country. So thank you so much. And that is all of my comments.

Good evening, we have no more speakers for tonight.

Thank you. Will the applicant does the applicant want to come up and provide additional information in response to the public comments? This Cameron.

Good evening, thank you. A lot of the comments that we heard tonight pertain to, I would put them in sort of two big categories, traffic and buffers. And then there were some other comments we heard, so I tried to summarize them. I'm sure if I missed them, the planning commissioners will ask questions during their comment time. But the first thing that we heard pertained to the dark sky lighting. And it was one of the first comments, and they talked about lighting in general and making sure that the lights have to be downward facing and shielding, that is a county zoning requirement anyways. So all of the lights on the site will have to be shielded downward. The next comment I heard a little later on pertained to stormwater management and how that will be maintained as part of the project. Currently today within the Belmont Bay development, they actually have a waiver of stormwater management requirements in which the water right now all runs off into the water, the Occoquan. The applicant has removed that waiver, so they will be doing stormwater detention on the site as part of this proposal. In addition, the applicant is upgrading the existing stormwater management facilities that are on the site today. The stormwater management facilities are more stringent today than they were in 1999, so that is also an improvement to stormwater management. As far as traffic, this is significantly, as I mentioned earlier, less trips than what would be permitted on the rest of the land base today. The applicant was required to do a traffic study, which was a memorandum that looked at what are their impacts specifically to Dawson's Beach and Express Drive, and how can those impacts be mitigated. Really what needs to happen is a signal timing change at that intersection, and the applicant has provided those signal time adjustments to VDOT. As far as Route 1 in Dawson's Beach, The main line Route 1 gets the preference in timing. So Dawson's Beach right now, that access point to Route 1 is failing. The county had a funded STARS study that was looked at and completed. The county has some money towards an alternative for that STARS study, and they are looking at what those options are. Buffers and Alex, I'm going to try to go back. Oh, sorry, thank you, I got it. Sorry. So for the refuge buffer, I heard a lot of conversations about the applicant removing trees along Belmont Landing, and that is not the case. So within Belmont Landing, the applicant is removing invasive species, replanting on their side, tearing up this road, and adding additional plantings. So along the Belmont Landing portion of the property, the applicant isn't taking down mature trees, yet they're supplementing them and adding additional trees. In addition, the original proffer for the buffer along this land bay was a 25-foot buffer adjacent to the refuge. Nice. I think I hit all of them. There was one more that I did want to mention. There was a discussion from the Beacon Park residents about being unaware of the development. When the property was sold, there was a disclosure packet, and within that disclosure packet, it did mention that there would be additional development on the property that was owned by the declarant, which included that golf course property. So that was provided to the Beacon Park residents at the time of the sale as part of their disclosure package. And I'm sure if I missed some, you guys will let me know for sure. Thank you. Thank you so much. Oh, I'm sorry. I did miss one. I wanted to hit one of the last comments from Janice White regarding the security plan. So the... National trail that's already constructed, that has been done and that proffer has been satisfied. We cannot obligate the county to do anything in our proffers. But what we do know, and I know Parks and Rec is here and they can probably attest or respond, but it's my understanding that all property that is owned by Parks and Recreation is managed and patrolled by the Parks and Recreation Rangers. So there would be security there. that portion of the property is going to, so it's open space one, that is going to the county, so it would be maintained by the county. Thank you.

Thank you. Staff, do you have any response, anything you'd like to add in response to the public comment?

Not at this time. We don't have anything to add.

Okay. We'll now move up and down the dais for question and answers. So starting with Commissioner Ross.

Thank you, and sorry for jumping ahead of you. All right. Applicant. Yes, sir. At one point in your presentation, you emphasized that two charging stations would be near where the county police on the water would be able to charge electric vehicles. Yes. Surely that's not all the charging stations throughout the new development, though, is it?

So the owners are provided the option to purchase an EV. It's like the plug 240K vaulter. in the future, whatever the newest one is that charges your vehicle, that's provided as an option within each home.

So individual homes, but not very many public ones. Correct. Okay.

Commissioner Ross, that's three. That's three. Moving down the dais, Commissioner Moses-Nag. Thank you very much, Madam Acting Chair.

Thank you very much. Ms. Cameron. Don't sit down yet. So with regard to the dark skies, you mentioned that the county zoning provides for lighting that shields downward in order to facilitate the dark skies. And I think that's already being used in the community right now in some levels. And that's not my question. My question is, We heard a lot about specific language around dark sky approved eliminators in accordance with, and I'm not sure why, international standards. Are you aware of this, and does the county's requirements meet that standard?

So the county's requirements for shielding downward are not necessarily meeting the dark sky lighting standards, which is why we specifically had a proffer towards dark sky lighting in addition to what is already required.

Okay.

Thank you. And with regard to the traffic pattern, I know we have some history. There was a road diet that was vehemently opposed by the community in order to try to manage. I've been on the planning commission just that long. One of my first cases was Belmont Bay. And so can you, is there someone from transportation? Yes, transportation is here. Transportation that can talk about, You know, the timing of this light, how it works in order to help the community with this traffic issue.

Sure. George Phillips with Prince William County DOT. In terms of the traffic light, are you talking about Route 1 and Dawson Beach or what?

That's correct, because the challenge is with getting out of the community.

Yeah, the... Because it's owned and maintained by VDOT, they have final say as to the signal timing, not only at that intersection, but when you're talking about a corridor like Route 1, you really need to look at the stream of signals north and south of that. And I will say this, VDOT wants to give priority of movement to the major traffic flow, which is Route 1 north and south. So it would take, at a minimum, it would take a study for them to look at that and then make the decision. That would be their traffic engineering crew that would do that. So there's not really a lot, without VDOT review and approval, there's not really a lot that can be done to improve side street green time without VDOT review and approval.

And I'm going to use my third question as much as I hate to, to ask a follow-up question. How is that initiated? Is that through your office, working with the planning office? Yes.

Yeah, it could be initiated, I think, through us, through our traffic safety crew. So that's something that we could, in fact, we meet with VDOT on a weekly basis. It's something we could raise with them.

Thank you.

I think there is a formal process. I don't have the details of that, but we could find out.

Okay, thank you.

Moving down the dais to...

He just turned his on.

Oh, okay. No, no, no. Go ahead. Never mind. Commissioner Carroll, go ahead.

Thanks. So this might be a question for staff. It might be a question for the applicants. So in the long-range land use for these parcels, the buffer, the 50-foot buffer, when we look at the long-range land use, There is kind of that sliver of parks and open space designated as the long-range land use. To kind of separate that out, I guess the PM or whatever is beyond. Is this the current?

How big is that?

It's 100 feet. Because I think the staff report is showing a map with a sliver of parks and open space.

Is this the map you're talking about?

Are you talking about the sliver above it?

Yeah, so that sliver of parks and open space right between the refuge and the RN2. Do we know how wide that is?

To be honest with you, I don't know exactly how wide that is. But is it 50?

So the county's comprehensive plan, as you know, is the recommendation. For this, the recommendation in that area was a 75-foot to 100-foot buffer at the time the comp plan was established. But I don't think at that time we realized what was being buffered to. So it's not that it's the forest part of the development within the wildlife refuge. That is further back. It's buffering to the road and the street. But, yes, the recommendation was 75 feet to 100. I don't know when they scaled it on the map. That's probably a David or Alex question, what it was scaled to to show on the map.

Point of information.

Excuse me. Please keep your comments to a minimum while we're having discussion on the dais, please. Thank you. Go ahead, Commissioner Roth.

Thank you, Chair. County Mapper says from the property line of the wildlife refuge to the northern edge of that sliver is 100 feet.

Okay. Thank you for that. Mr. McGettigan, were you going to answer that?

We understand when we develop the long range land use map that we can't make the lines as fat as we want to because we're using a GIS system and it's going to be very precise. So measuring on the long range land use map is not practical from a comprehensive plan standpoint to use that, it's better to go to the text, which said the 75 to 100 feet in those areas.

Okay, so I guess we're kind of at the same place if County Mapper says 100 and the text says 75 to 100. So I guess my follow-up question is, so if we have in the long-range land use that we are calling for 75 feet hundred feet of parks and open space why why do we not have an associated CPA change with this because we're right now we're proposing to put our end to on what we just said is parks and open space land and I know we have several applications right now for that exact thing, changing parks and open space and a CPA request to change that to RN two RN four. Um, I know there's a couple of current cases in the Potomac district, so I'm not sure why. I mean, I know it's a sliver, but it's still a sliver of parks and open space that I think that's what the long range land use calls for.

I would only say that the plan is a guide and there has to be some threshold of when we think something is deserving of a comprehensive plan amendment. A 25 feet would probably not be it for whether we would want a comprehensive plan amendment. for that is it's a policy document and not a precise document like a zoning map would be.

And just one follow-up and then, and the board agreed to that determination that no CPA is needed here?

No, there's no request from the board. When the board reviews it, if they feel like it needs to go back and get a CPA, then they would direct that at the time of the rezoning. And we even, if an applicant submits something that's inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, we can't require a comprehensive plan amendment. We have to accept the rezoning. and process the rezoning and evaluate it for consistency with the policies of the comprehensive plan. We can't stop an application because we feel like we need a comprehensive plan amendment.

And in this case, we added an area of parks and open space that's designated as residential. So this area here is RN2, and we made that parks and open space based on feedback from the community.

Thank you. Moving on down the dais, Commissioner Justice. Thank you.

Going into this buffer issue, I'm a huge fan of making sure that we keep the buffers that we've got set in place. I do know this area very well, and I remember many years ago, if you drove down that road, to exit the park where Belmont Bay is on your right, there it is, the park's on your left, there was a fence on both sides of that road. And I don't know if that was in the 90s or early 2000s. When was the Heritage Trail specifically put in?

Based on what we've looked at previously, sometime I think between 2019 and 2021. 2021. I can do it. Sorry. So here is 2019 and then this slide shows 2021. So it looks like it was put into place in 2021.

So the road obviously stayed in its original place, but the heritage trail was added down river to the left of the road.

Yes. Can you move?

Opposite of what you're doing?

Yeah. I can, maybe. You're going to have to do it, Alex.

It won't work for me. Yeah, if you... Nope.

Go back.

Stop right there. So can you move that map up now?

Yeah, absolutely.

So I share the view of protecting and not taking down trees and making sure that, I mean, that goes a long way to protecting the watershed. My issue with this right now is that the actual wildlife refuge took down all those trees on the left side of the road, bulldozed that, and put a trail in, which effectively... decimated the purpose of the a hundred foot buffer to not disturb the wildlife refuge. And, and that's, I wrestle with that with this project. When was the comp plan amendment done?

The comp plan update was in 2022.

Yes. And when was the trail built? That was just repeating my second question.

It looks, I mean, it's sometime between 2019 and 2021. Okay. Because it's there in 2021, but it was not there in 2019. Okay.

Yeah, I just struggle with this. I remember all the trees that were on the other side of that road, and until recently, I had no idea that all that got taken out. This dark sky is for all of the... Oh, I have other questions, but I'll wait.

Just along the edge. Okay, Mr. Rodriguez, I'm sorry, Venegas, can you go back up there? I'm sorry. Can you explain for the public the comment that Commissioner Justice just made and what you were doing here? Because they may not understand exactly what's going on with that map.

So she asked us when this trail was put in. And what we did is we went on to County Mapper to look at the aerial imagery in 2019, one that did not show that it existed. and in 2021 where it was built i guess she's referencing all these trees that were in this area that had to be removed to accommodate that trail is that what you're okay yeah i just wanted to make sure that um for the the people in the

in the chamber as well as the people who are online understood what was going on there. That you're using the county mapper to show what was there before the trail was put in and then what was there after, correct?

Yes, I was using the county mapper for that.

Okay. Okay, thank you. Moving further down the die. Commissioner Scheifler.

I had a question for staff. Again, you guys, when you guys looked at the long range land use analysis, you said it was you know, consistent with it, but you provide weaknesses like inconsistent with intended intensity, insufficient commercial activation, loss of planned waterfront placemaking elements. I'm just, I guess I'm a little bit frustrated. I mean, I'm just concerned that, you know, we're trying to make, you know, North Woodbridge kind of a destination. And we have, I think in 2030, we're gonna have 11 Amtrak train, round trip Amtrak trains come to Woodbridge in 2030 and probably 15 more VRE stations. And it seems like we're, we're, you know, instead of creating a destination on the waterfront, we're basically downzoning everything. I'm confused why we're trying to downzone the area next high capacity transit, what the board's approving a thousand houses in the middle of nowhere, Brentsville, I'm just confused by what the strategy is here with why this would be, uh, consistent. I feel like it's inconsistent.

So there's several good question, commissioner cycling. Um, there's several issues here. Um, the. Comprehensive plan shows the area as being MU4, correct, which has a density of 8 to 24 dwelling units per acre in this particular area, then we'll get to the other two. The applicant is providing 9.8, which is on the lower end but within the range, so therefore the density is consistent with the comprehensive plan. We also have the other element to consider, which was previously Approved prior to the comprehensive plan update was the North Woodbridge small area plan. We try to look at each one of the small area plans because they go into more detail with respect to what we envision in that area. And in this case, again, it was similar. It was actually a little more intense. We were looking at up to 50 dwelling units per acre as opposed to the 8 and 24. And we were looking at up to 12 stories, including a hotel conference center, retail. That was envisioned in the small area plan. So from our standpoint, we believe that although the density is much less, that it's in line with the comprehensive plan MU4 as well as the RN2 and 3, but it's not consistent with the small area plan that's requiring much higher density. So that's our point. And this waterfront area was supposed to be more activated. So from that standpoint, the small area plan, it has a lot of... inconsistencies with what we envision in that area. The other element is we don't control the applications that come in. They come in to us and we evaluate them. We had a previous application where they were requesting much higher density, big restaurant. The community was definitely against that. And because of that, the application got withdrawn. And now another applicant, a different applicant, came in with something less dense, working with the community, hearing what the community had said. But still, from staff's position, there's still a few outstanding issues that need to be addressed. But from the comprehensive plan, there were elements that were consistent with the comprehensive plan, and there were elements that were inconsistent. So that's how we got here.

So again, getting back to the comp plan site, RN2, that space of RN2, that's not in compliance. It's zero. So I'm just trying to figure out why wasn't a comp plan amendment put in for the RN2, which is now going to be parks and open space. That's clearly inconsistent. The one area up closer, that one right there.

Oh, up here, the RN2?

So I mean, why was there no comp plan submitted? Or I'm trying to... similar to the buffer. I mean, to me that's inconsistent with what we wanted.

Yeah. Well, so just trying to try to balance it out and trying to figure out, you know, again, so like I said, there, there are elements that are consistent with it and elements that aren't fully consistent with it. And on balance, we felt like it was, uh, consistent enough to recommend moving it forward. Um, you know, I, I know, Dealing with the previous application, the residents that lived here, they didn't want major development behind them. And that's why that previous application got pulled. But from the context of them developing these specific areas as part of the proffer amendment, we felt like that was consistent enough. I agree with you that the parks and open space.

I'm most concerned with MU4. I mean, there should be some commercial, should be potential for a grocery store, like some sort of development. We had more intensity there than you could put less intensity near the wild rail factories. That's why I'm just a little bit frustrated that we're making these investments, and it seems like we're downzoning next to high-capacity transit. It's the only place we have high-capacity transit in the whole county, and we're downzoning basically our waterfront access point. I just don't know from a... from a holistic point of view, looking at it from the County at large, like this is an important area we need to get right. And I just feel like we're, we're, we're becoming, we're still focusing on being in a bedroom community instead of a destination. I won't order. I like what it would be destination. I just don't know if that's going to happen. So yeah, my next question I guess is for transportation. Okay. So with this change, Does that warrant the elimination of the interchange? I mean, I don't think spending $150 million on interchange when you've taken, because it's usually called, what, 2.2 million square feet of commercial? That seems like it warrants an interchange. I don't know. It seems like we're basically saying take the interchange out of the comp plan because there's no reason to put, have that big of an investment in now at this point.

Well, I think the interchange you're talking about is at Route 95 and 123? No, it's at Route 1 and 123.

It's the second connector point that could happen, but again, it seems like the density is not going to be large enough now to warrant that. So should that be taken out of the comp plan associated with this? I'm just trying to, it doesn't seem like it's necessary at this point now. We're down zoning and getting rid of all commercial.

Commissioner Scheifler? Yeah. How many questions do you have?

I was just explaining my question. Oh, okay. I wasn't sure if that, does that warrant the need to take that out of the comp plan?

something we would certainly look at. Right now, that whole interchange project, and it is connected. At 95 and 123, that's the interchange project. No, the one at Route 1 and 123. I know, but that's the extension of 123 over Route 1 into this. Right now, it's not a project that has a timing. We have, I think, $10 million for that whole interchange project, and there's no set timing for when that's going to happen or if it's going to happen.

Yeah, that's what we're saying. Does it need to happen now? I mean, that's the question. That's what we're trying to understand from this project. We're getting rid of 2 million square feet of commercial, basically, that's currently zoning now.

It's something we would need.

In exchange, you get to 20,000. So I'm just saying, does that warrant doing this concurrently with this project?

It's certainly something that would need to be evaluated and determined.

One of my recommendations is that that's looked at. If we're going to move this forward, that interchange is probably gone. That's just how I understand it.

Okay, Commissioner Scheifler, thank you. Commissioner Ross, you're up.

Alex or Janelle, or applicant, please. Thank you, Chair. I've seen comments in print and in citizens' comments that describe the golf course as something that was made into permanent parks and open space. Is there anything written down that commits the county or the property owner to keep that as permanent parks and open space?

As it exists now, the answer would be no, but with the application itself, you guys did commit to conservation, right? There's a proffer.

Some areas will become permanent, and some parts of the golf course are going to get turned into townhomes.

That's correct.

All right, so.

And right now it belongs to, it's privately owned, so that gives them a little more flexibility. A golf course is not, you know, protected open space. It's an activity, other sports activity, recreational activity. But if it gets turned over to the county, that gives us more control over that.

Okay, and the reason I'm asking is I would dearly love for there to be a reason to keep a border around the refuge, but if it wasn't made into a binding contract or ordinance, I don't know that I can. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Moving down, Commissioner Moses-Ned.

Yes. So couple of things I'd like to say. I know there's a lot of assumption that we're not aware of the property. I happen to be the Woodbridge District Commissioner. So I spend a lot of time at Belmont Bay. It's my walking spot. You've probably passed me in a hat walking on the trails that are there. So a couple of my questions now will go with the trails. We talked a little bit about with the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail that goes along the waterfront and currently if it were to continue should this project be approved it goes through the through the development that's bordering at Taylor Point and would it be possible so that if someone is walking that trail along the waterfront I know there's some issues with going through the gate and actually continuing along the trail that's in the refuge, possibly continuing at least along the border, the backside of those Taylor Point homes. Not within the border, within the buffer, because we need to keep that whole as much as possible, but somehow along the backside of those homes rather than going through someone's front yard.

I think what you're asking is if we could look at adding a trail between the back of the lot line in Taylor point here, um, in between the buffer and the back of the lot line. And we can look into doing that. It would be likely a natural surface trail versus an asphalt trail, but that's something we can look into. Okay.

And then in that way, um, because there is an opening there that connects to the trail within the refuge, would that be able to go all the way down to make that connection?

So, Just so I understand, what you're asking for is can it go essentially in this area here, but not in the buffer to make that connection? Keep going all the way down, yes.

And then keep coming down to Belmont Landing, and can we do it here too? All the way down to the opening back to the connection of the refuge? Because right now we can't get through the gate.

Yes, we can look into that.

All right, thank you very much. You've got one more. Is there a way... That was only question two. It was a comment. Thank you for advocating for me, Ms. Cameron. Someone talked about the risk to the wetlands in the refuge because of runoff. What are some of the ways that you might be able to look at mitigating that risk Should this project be approved? Is there a way to mitigate the risk of runoff and how it impacts the refuge?

Yeah, we're actually making it better because, as I mentioned, there is a stormwater management facility today that has a waiver. So the runoff goes away. out and it's supposed to go to the water. Some of it does go to the refuge. So as part of the proposal, we're proposing two level two stormwater management ponds and one level one stormwater management pond in an underground facility. Half of Belmont Landing goes to the north and half goes to the south. But for the south, it goes to a level two facility. It gets treated and improved. Then it will go to the refuge. But it's an improved situation today in quality and it retains the required quantity. And this is the only runoff that's proposed to go to Belmont Landing. But that's what goes there today as well. And it goes through the refuge like natural drainage. And that's something that we need in order to feed the water that's on the refuge side.

Thank you. You're welcome. And this is my last one, Chair. Is that the best management practice and the action that needs to be taken in order to mitigate any harm to the refuge?

My civil engineer in the back is waving and shaking his head yes.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Moving on down the dais, Commissioner Carroll.

Yes, thank you. This will be for the applicant. One, can you speak to... In this 274, I think that number is right, age-restricted units, but then I think those were 55 plus, but then 20% of those in the proffers we have as 45 or over age-restricted. Could you kind of speak to that and what went into that? I don't think I've ever seen that before.

I feel you have for every age restricted. You may have not paid attention to it in this way. It's just because it's worded differently because when we introduced it, it is 55 and older. This follows the fair housing act. So this is actually what's outlined in the fair housing act for 55 and older projects.

Okay, so like the 20% comes from the fair. Correct. Yes, sir. Okay. And then my second question, and this goes back to what one of the speakers referenced, just in terms of the parking situation, and I guess specifically the Marina overlook. Can you kind of speak to what... how that area is parked, you know, especially looking into knowing we're expanding kind of the clubhouse area, the marinas there, we're adding homes. You know, looking at it, I can see a concern that the parking does seem limited, but just want to kind of take an understanding of the numbers.

Yeah, absolutely. So there is parking... So we are over parked in this area. And then this parking here for the clubhouse, there's garage parking, driveway parking. Visitor parking spaces are what you see in black. This is additional parking spaces. The parking across the street is used for the harbor and marina area. And then there's also public parking on Harborside Street here on both sides.

Okay.

And is there going to be like, and we're not allowed to, sorry, I need to interrupt you. We're not allowed to count public street parking as part of your parking requirement. So that is in addition to, okay, perfect.

And just my followup, is there going to be any signage that either kind of restricts it for the residences and or restricts it for say the clubhouse or Marina?

Typically, there's no overnight parking. So, like for the clubhouse and marina area.

Okay, but it won't, but there won't be, like during the daytime, like it won't. I guess that's more what I'm thinking. If someone is, like if the gentleman's coming to vote, is there going to be a specified marina spot versus?

So, the marina lot will be signed.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

All right, moving down the dais, Commissioner Justice.

I was going to ask about parking, but did you just say there's no overnight parking for the marina?

For the amenity area.

OK. Just making sure I understood that. All right. The construction for this site and the other site that's along the water, Along the Occoquan River and the Potomac, we've seen a lot of projects that you can just watch the mud just go right into the river. Is there anything extra that you guys can do during construction? I mean, I know that you're doing upgrades along the water that's going to help long term, but during construction, extra steps that are taken on this site that you wouldn't do on other sites because of... it's proximity.

We can look into that and work with, um, watershed management as to what they would recommend near the water before the board. Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Um,

There was another question that was asked, but it's not your question, so I'm just going to answer it when we started talking about boating. Somebody had mentioned the wake zone, and the applicant would be willing to do a proffer that there can be, based on the grade difference, Taylor Point is higher than the water, but we would be willing to do a proffer between the Planning Commission and Board to make it very clear that there could not be any additional docks at Taylor Point, which is the which is this area here, to address the comment about the no-wake zone. And it was a comment that a gentleman mentioned, but since you said Marina, I forgot to address that earlier.

So, thank you. Back on this one right here. That gets to my, so I know that there's a small area for kayak and paddleboard, and there's another group that runs it or something, but because the community's getting expanded as a whole, and that is a great launch point for those, is that going to be expanded in any way for all of the homeowners in that area, or are there any?

Can I get that answer and get it back to you? I'll get the answer. I promise. Okay.

Okay, great, thank you. Moving on down the dais, we are now going back to Commissioner Scheifler. Did you want to check on Commissioner Shaik?

I just wanted to throw it out there before I went down.

You're right. Is Commissioner Shaik on the line?

Yes, ma'am.

Hi, Commissioner Shaik. I'm so sorry. Did you have any questions for either the applicant or staff? Okay, thank you and thank you Commissioner Scheifele for reminding me back to you Can you provide is there any information how much these these townhomes are gonna cost?

Is there a range? That's being proposed Because I noticed there's no affordable housing I

They're not starter homes.

The price of the homes are market driven. I'll have them think of, I can tell you what they are now, but we're also two to seven years out from construction. I can get that answer.

Okay.

Can I answer Commissioner Justice's question?

Sure.

Thank you. We can look to see what can be done to expand it, but that is located within the RPA. But we can look between the planning commission and board to see what can be done to expand it. But that's also a private paddle club, so we can research that as well.

Okay. Thank you.

Question for staff. As far as the overall rezoning, so this application pretty much takes us to the max of what residential units were allowed as part of the rezoning? I thought the process was that this took us up to some sort of limit, that they didn't need to do a rezoning because it... Does this take us up to the limit of what, how many houses are allowed within Belmont Bay?

No, it's not taking us to the limit.

Okay. I thought it was like 1800. It would be, we picked 348 or something like that because that was kind of the limit of what was allowed. Is that correct? I know the comp plan allows for more, but again, within the rezoning rezoning, this is a previous rezoning.

Um,

I thought initially it said like, well, we only, we only can have 1800 residential units as part of the original rezoning allowed for 1873 maximum residential units.

This proposal is less than, so this proposal will take the total of units. So what's existing in Belmont Bay subject to the proffers and our proffer amendment area, it will take that, um, units to less than 1873. There's still 150 age-restricted units that could be built that would be left over from that 1873, but there's no place to build them.

Okay, so they'd have to be built next to the VRE station? That's the only place left?

Yes, and it's age-restricted.

Okay. Don't do that.

Thank you, Commissioner Scheifler. Moving down to Commissioner Ross.

Will. I appreciate and understood Ms. Cameron's description of what they're doing to protect the watershed and to protect the quality of the water that will leave this site and go into the refuge. Is there anything you want to add, pro or con, when you evaluate their plan?

So when you look at the southern buffer, the zoning ordinance requires 50-foot PMD. If you look on the refuge side, they also have a BMP swale. So they have something in place already to divert water. Before you even get to the refuge is vegetation. So from the refuge vegetation to the back side, I guess, of those first units, it's over 100 feet. In my mind, that would be more than enough for water to infiltrate the ground and pass through property lines and be sufficient.

Okay. This might be an environmental question also. Light pollution entering the refuge directly from the units and cars that are right there on the border is a concern. Is there, without breaking the national budget, is there some sort of barrier that could be put up that would stop that light pollution?

concrete wall. Vegetation, no matter how dense, no matter how thick, even if you're using evergreen versus hardwood trees, still will allow some light to penetrate. Even at 200, 300, 400 feet, you're still going to have some light penetration. Now the intensity obviously diminishes over, but to completely block out light, you would have to have some physical barrier other than vegetation.

In your experience, have you known another similar project that came up with a cost-effective, I hate that phrase, but a cost-effective way to accomplish that?

No.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Moving on down, Commissioner Moses-Nagg.

Okay. Just one question. We had a comment about the lack of an environmental analysis for this area before this development commences. And I don't know if your environmental engineer, I don't know if that's his title, but is there a standard for performing that or a need to perform that in this case? It was just one of the comments as I jotted down some of the comments that we heard from the residents.

There are different types of environmental analyses, but for the rezoning standpoint, as part of the project, you have to do an environmental constraints analysis. That environmental constraints analysis is reviewed by county watershed staff, and they would provide comments to that. In addition, because of the water, you would have to do a perennial flow determination and a PASA, which is a preservation area site assessment. I think I got it right. And both of those are submitted and approved to the county for review and approval as well. So from that standpoint, there have already been environmental studies that have been done. They have been submitted. They are part of the file and application with the county. and have been reviewed by watershed staff and approved.

And since we didn't see any alarm bells from watershed in the staff report, does that mean they've reviewed them and at least up until now? And approved them. Everything is approved.

So if there are issues generally with our environmental constraints analysis, you receive comments back and forth before the public hearing and then it's addressed. And so they have reviewed it, and it has been addressed from the environmental constraints analysis that was submitted to the county.

And if I heard you correctly, there are ongoing analyses and assessments all the way up to site plan, is that correct?

I'm going to have Avi Serene come up with TNT Environmental.

I've been trying all night to have him come up.

You've been trying to talk to somebody that's not her? Is that what you said? My name is Avi Serene, principal and president of TNT Environmental. We've done a lot of work out here over a lot of years. In addition to the studies that Janelle mentioned that have been submitted to, reviewed, and approved by Prince William County, we've also done a comprehensive wetland delineation of the site, which was reviewed. by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Environmental Quality. They approved it. We have those letters from the Army Corps of Engineers. At this point, they may be close to expiring. So we'll see about renewing those when the time is appropriate. But as far as future studies go, when and if this project goes to site plan, we're gonna need to get some permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State Department of Environmental Quality in order to perform the project. And as part of those reviews, We're going to end up dealing with the State Department of Wildlife Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Historic Resources, et cetera, for their coordination as part of those permit actions and permit review processes. And we will be required to comply with anything and everything that they throw at us at that point in time.

Thank you. Madam Chair, if you will indulge me for one follow-up, given there's only one light on.

One, two.

Oh. Thank you so much. And she's still going to go.

Go ahead, I'm sorry. Thank you.

Just for continuity, and because we heard a lot about some of the environmental concerns out there, I just would like the expert that's on site here tonight, if the Corps of Engineers, if all of those entities that you just mentioned determined There are issues here that need to be addressed. What happens with this project?

So the way the process works is if they establish that there are some issues that need to be addressed, they provide them in formal formats, comments, written comments. We have to address those comments to their satisfaction. If the comments are not addressed to their satisfaction, they by law cannot issue a Clean Water Act permit.

So when you say...

Thank you. That means you can't build it. Thank you. Is that where you're headed?

Yes. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you. We'll get back to you if we need to. I have a question for the county arborist. This may be outside of your purview, but I'm going to ask a question anyway because it deals with the Occoquan Wildlife Reserve. Okay. Do you know what effect, if any, a 50-foot buffer would have on the reserve as opposed to a 100-feet buffer?

So I'm not a bird expert or a wildlife expert, but being that the 50-foot buffer is being provided on Belmont Bayside, on the reserves or the preserve side, they've apparently cleared for roads and trails 50 to 60 foot. I don't know how much that effect it will have on wildlife being that that road and trail system has been there for at least since 2021. Um, but I know with different wildlife species, especially with birds, you have some species that are interior and edge species, meaning that some species have to be interior to the forest or to the area. Whereas some need to be on the edge with corridors, open corridors to migrate, fly around the area. So, Is another 50 foot on the Belmont side gonna make or break wildlife? Probably not. But not knowing what species are currently existing on the preserve right now, I can't say that with 100%.

Okay, so as a follow-up to what you just said, if we take about the 50-foot amount that they cleared out for the trail and then plus the 50-foot buffer, that really would equal about 100.

Yes, actually over 100 because I think the applicant showed a diagram from the back of the unit to where the preserved vegetation starts. It was like 120 feet or something like that.

Okay, so what we're really talking about is like 100, like you just said, 120 feet, and not really 50 feet. Right. Okay.

There's a picture in there somewhere.

Do we have a picture? There it is. Okay. Okay, that's a great illustrative.

So yeah, 50, 50, and 22, 122 feet.

Okay, so I just wanted to clarify for those either listening virtually or in the chambers with us here that this is not really a 50-foot buffer we're talking about. Altogether, altogether, what is the depth there? It's about 120 feet?

It's showing 122 feet. Okay. Now, obviously, the preserve side has the road and the trail that is an open corridor. Okay. The applicant can't control that side of the property. Right.

Okay, thank you. That's all I want to know. Moving down. Yes. Commissioner Justice.

My question's for the county staff. So I just want to clarify, because if you bring up the one chart that shows the open space and the new open space that's going to be put in one of them somewhere first,

Sorry, let me go.

That one? Yep. So I heard two different things. One, I heard that it's going to be given to Prince William County, and then I heard something else about that it's going to go under a conservation easement. Like in my mind, if it goes to Prince William County, years down the road, somebody could decide this is a great place to put some zip lines in. But if it goes into a conservation easement, you're more locked in. as to what you can and can't do. So which my question is, which one are we doing?

So, uh, for the conservation easement, we have open space one, which is this area right here. Um, open space three, which is this area right here. as well as open space four shall be placed in a conservation easement. And that's found under, um, parks and rec, um, proffered number 15.

So are there any, so they're all in a conservation easement, all the open spaces. Is that that's right?

Um, no, that's one, three and four. What happened to two? That's going to the HOA. Two is going to the HOA. That's correct. And five, right? Yeah, and five and six are going to the HOA.

Okay. My other question is for the applicant. I understand that Beacon Park had some things. Hopefully I'm saying, is that the right Beacon Park? Is that the name of it?

Yes. Yes.

So I know that they had information when they made purchase that this could all be possible. Would you guys be willing to have a meeting with that community just to do a review?

Yes, absolutely. Okay. That's all I got.

Moving on. I have a quick question. And it just left my mind. Moving down the... I'll go on to Commissioner Carroll.

Thank you. A quick follow-up to the buffer screen. Could we go back to that screen that had just been up? So just, just to make sure I'm completely understanding everything in between the red is the buffer.

That's the actual buffer that's being provided.

Everything to the right of the right red line is the refuge, which is not part of this application.

That is correct.

So that is staying open as it is.

This area. Yes. So that, that'll remain open because that, That we don't, the applicant does not control or the county does not control. So it's up to the refuge if they want.

Sorry. We have a proffer. So... What they do with it ultimately, but what we have done is we proffered that we will remove the invasive species on the wildlife refuge side to the fence and we will do replanting. There's a specific proffer that outlines that. We've had meetings with the wildlife refuge. I'm happy to read, if you would like, the email that came back from the wildlife refuge to staff. that acknowledge the coordination and cooperation. There is a special permit that you get when you're doing work on the wildlife refuge side that we would have to do. During that time, they could decide that they do not want us to do the work and they'd rather do the work themselves. There is a proffer that gives a monetary donation for them to do the work themselves. All of the discussions that we've had so far to date is that the wildlife refuge would like for us to do the work. Um, I will say we're now on superintendent three. Um, so that might change, but we have coordinated and proffered. So while we can't control the wildlife refuge side, we have been coordinating with them for that revegetation. So I just wanted to answer it with it. Yes, the trail, the road, they control that, but the trees as is no, um, because they're significant invasive species on their side. of the property line as well. And it doesn't make sense to clear only one side with invasive species and not the other because there's not a fence there. It's all one.

And then so we will, we're proposing to remove the invasive species replant. Now are those replantings to the buffer standard?

On the wildlife refuge side, we would be replanting to the standard that they would like on their side. The replanting on the Belmont Bay side is to the buffer standard. And then we also committed on the wildlife refuge side that the replantings would be all native trees to Virginia.

Okay. And have they... Sorry.

Commissioner Carroll, I was just going to say it's proffer number 23... A, B, and C. Okay. Where it talks about that.

Okay, moving down to Commissioner, well, actually, let me ask Commissioner Shaik. Do you have any questions, Commissioner Shaik?

No, ma'am. Thank you for checking.

Okay. Moving down to Commissioner Moses-Nag. Thank you.

Back to that train of thought. How do you clear invasives without taking out trees?

I'm going to have the expert answer, but really they are hand-removed for the invasive species. So you do them by hand and not by a machine to not impact the existing vegetation that's there today.

Sir? It's multiple ways. Some by hand, some chemical. A lot of hand work and a lot of repeated work over time. over the full establishment of the buffer. It's not just going to do it one time. It'll be throughout the process of development, continually doing it to get it under control during the time that we're developing the property. And then turning it over to the HOA with a process for them to continue it. Can you introduce yourself, please? I'm Don Zmar. I'm project arborist with Miller and Smith. I work for my own company.

And Don, I'd like... You friends? Okay, sorry. I was with you until you said chemicals. So could you talk a little bit about that and where do those chemicals go?

In order to get control, we use chemicals applied directly to the plant, to the leaf, targeted, after hand removal. to control regrowth. It'll be, sometimes it's Roundup, sometimes it's, it is, well that's what we use. If we're gonna control them, you cannot just do it by hand. It can't be done.

Can we, can we have something in place that looks at not using those chemicals that we know are harmful to the environment?

Yes, we can look between the Planning Commission and Board at providing a summary of what the removal of invasive species would look like and coordinate that with county watershed. And we can keep you apprised of what we're doing as we're going through that process.

Thank you. And does that get us to not using Roundup?

Whatever we do, we're going to have to coordinate with the county and provide a plan with them and develop it from there. So if it is a non-chemical approach, we can do that. It will be more labor intensive, probably less effective in the long run, but it can be done.

To supplement what Don was saying, both of us share lots of certifications. There are certain treatment options that are usable in environmentally sensitive areas, particularly aquatic habitats as well. Those are the flavors of the palette that we're going to use in this application or potentially use. All of it has to be done and applied by a licensed applicator. They're licensed through the state, so it's not just anybody off the street that can go and apply this. They need to have their proper credentials in order to do any sort of application for this stuff.

And it's also supervised by the county with reports. A lot of it. Repeat.

I can repeat that just in the mic for people that might be listening online. He said that the invasive species removal is also supervised by the county, and you're required to provide reports as you're going through that process.

Yeah.

But Commissioner Moses-Nett, I heard you loud and clear that we need to come up with a plan that looks at not providing or using harmful chemicals and coordinate that and have that plan before the board.

Thank you. I just didn't know anyone was still using Roundup since, what, the 70s? but thank you very much for that. I appreciate it. That was my last question.

Thank you. I have roundup in my garage. Sorry. Sorry. Okay. Uh, going to, okay. It looks like no one else has any questions on the diets. Commissioner shake. Do you have anything? No, ma'am. And I do not use roundup either. Okay. Well, we're going to turn this over to Commissioner Moses Ned. This is in your district, isn't it?

Yes, it is, Madam Chair. I proudly say that it's in my district because this place is special. What you've heard here tonight from each and every person indicates how special it is not only to you as residents, but every time I come there. In fact, when I bring my friends that I walk with sometimes, when I bring them there, and I'm able to point out the wildlife and recognize that right in the middle of what is a very urban and ex-urban place, we have this jewel. I've also been on the board, on the commission long enough, as I mentioned before, to see what this project was and what it has become. We worked with the Homeowners Association, Mr. Lau, and a number of residents there representing other homeowners associations in order to make sure that as we do as a commission, that this project, that we try to shape it into something that is the right place right project in the right place at the right time. And this has been five years in the making to attempt to get it to that place. It's not perfect, but it has come a long way. And if it wasn't, I would not recommend it for approval as I am going to do. I also have a number of recommendations. I've heard you loud and clear. And I thank you for taking the time to stay here until after 11 o'clock on a Wednesday night to provide that input. I know it may not be the outcome that you were looking for, but I'm hoping with these recommendations you will see we are trying to shape it into a project between now and the Board of County Supervisors that is something that we can continue to be proud of and that continues to represent the community. So with that, Madam Chair, I'd like to close the public hearing. The public hearing is now closed. I will make two motions, and these proffers, these recommendations will apply to both motions. And if I've missed anything, please correct me and add them as you see fit. I recommend approval of proffer amendment REZ2024, zero zero zero four zero Belmont Bay subject to profit proffer amendment proffer statement and MZP amendments dated 10 31 2025 and recommend with recommendations as follows, uh, that the applicant will work with county transportation and VDOT to address signal timing and road conditions in order to improve traffic flow ingress and egress from the community. To expand parks dark sky lighting throughout the development beyond the borders of the refuge. To work to provide continuity of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail adjacent to the buffer and connecting to the Refuge Trail to continue to work to assess the large scale transportation projects that are tied to this development between the Planning Commission and the Board of County Supervisors to engage in ongoing coordination with the residents and the community present here tonight in order to make sure there's education and understanding around the project, to ensure no new docks or structures are built that would result in extension of the wake zone, and to ensure there is extensive coordination with the county for non-chemical methods to remove invasives within the buffer. Did I miss anything?

I have something to add. Thank you. I don't know exactly how to word it, but take measures to reduce siltation or construction debris from getting into there. I'm sure you have a better way of wording that.

No, it's not.

She's asking about the safeguard construction site.

We'll get best management practices regarding...

Yes. Okay.

Use best management practices.

No, extra. Not just the regular.

Okay. Enhanced measures during construction.

I like enhanced better. Thank you.

That's good. Utilize enhanced measures during construction to mitigate siltation and erosion.

Thank you. Did I miss yours? Ollie, did you get that?

Yeah, I would just say. Oh, I'll get these to you. Okay.

Call out large transportation projects if you could center in on the Route 1, Route 23 interchange. because I feel like that project has a large girth to it, and a large footprint, and it's really impacting, if we're downzoning to 20,000 square feet.

I'm sorry, is this an amendment? Are you adding something else?

He's explaining his. I just wanted to add more clarity to that, because I think that's going to be important. I will add. Because there's just a lot of, are we going to do this or not? I mean, it's a lot of back and forth, and based on this, is that change anything?

Okay, so Commissioner Moses Ned, did you get what he said? Yeah, continue to work to assess large-scale transportation projects that are tied to this development, especially the 123 interchange project that is proposed. With Route 1. 123 Route 1. Sorry. 123, that's okay. Sorry, there's a 123 and 95. I aim to please Route 1.

Okay, so we got that?

All right. Is that correct? Mr. Venegas, we captured these. Is there anything inappropriate in these measures?

No, I think those are good measures, and we'll make sure that we include them in the recommendations associated with the resolution.

Thank you. Okay. With those recommendations, that is my motion.

Second. Thank you. The motion has been properly made by Commissioner Moses-Nedd and properly seconded by Commissioner Justice. Madam Clerk, can you please call the vote?

Vice Chair Brown.

Yes.

Commissioner Carroll.

So I appreciate a lot of the work that that pin has done here. It definitely seems like it's been a long process and a good process. You know, I think the Marina Overlook, the Taylor Point, I think there's a lot of good here. But I think in looking at this, I do think we could have potentially redesigned it a different way to provide more of that buffer to perfect the wildlife refuge. So I'm unfortunately going to be a no commissioner justice.

Yes. Um, I had a huge issue with this buffer until I saw what has been done on the other side of the road. Um, I think that we've got some things to improve on the project and I agree that everybody's worked hard to get it to this point. So with that motion and the amendments on the yes.

Commissioner Ross?

To everyone in the audience, you've seen us chuckle a little bit in the last hour or two. It's not because we don't take this seriously. And I am conflicted. I feel like our normal process has failed us because this is such an exceptional location. If we were putting this project next to a skateboard park, I'd be a yes immediately, but we're not. On the other hand, the 300 feet of open golf course and trees that are beside the refuge right now, they do not belong to the refuge. The refuge is 580 acres inside of its property line. On the other hand, Any development that is put as closely as these are proposed, the effects of that development is going to extend across the property line. I was really tempted to chicken out and abstain, but at the moment, if the board asked me, I cannot recommend the project because I don't know enough about something this complex to recommend it. That brings me to a no.

Commissioner Moses next.

I've given a statement regarding this project, what it means to the community and what it means to Prince William County and the mitigating factors that have taken us nearly five years to get to in order to develop the project and have it as something we can present tonight. So with that, my vote is yes.

Commissioner Shaik?

Yes.

Commissioner Scheifler.

In general, I feel the proper amendment and the SUP create a missed opportunity to create a destination waterfront area at the Marina District, so I'm a no.

Please refrain from clapping. Thank you.

I just have a question. Just give me a moment. Motion carries.

Thank you. Thank you. We will now move on.

Sorry, you still have to make the second motion.

I am. Oh, that's right. Thank you. Okay.

For anyone who wants to leave, you can quietly leave now if you like. We do have another motion on the floor.

Second motion.

Second motion. We'll give you a couple minutes to leave. Please leave quietly. We are in session. We are still in session. Okay. Commissioner Moses Ned, it's back to you. Ladies and gentlemen, we need you to leave quietly. We are still conducting county business. Thank you for attending. Commissioner Moses Ned.

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed. I move to approve special use permit amendment SUP 2024-00036, Belmont Bay, subject to the conditions dated October 31st, 2025. and with the same recommendations as indicated on the proffer amendment for Belmont Bay, our EZ202400040.

Second. Thank you. The motion has been made by Commissioner Moses Ned for prop to approve special use permit sup 2024-00036 and it has been properly seconded by Commissioner Justice. Madam Clerk, will you please call the vote?

By Chair Brown?