Flaw in Wegmans wetlands permit: citizens say wetlands acreage undercalculated

Wegmans Site Wetlands…
Stormwater Permit Hearing held July 20
Because there are wetlands on the site Wegmans has chosen for its distribution center, the grocery giant must submit a plan under DEQ’s Virginia Water Protection (VWP) permit program in order to demonstrate how it will mitigate wetlands impacts.
From the DEQ website: “VWP compliance strives to protect wet- lands, streams, and other state waters from being filled, excavated, drained, or dredged without a VWP permit. Compliance monitoring ensures that VWP permit conditions are followed, and serves as an essential link to DEQ’s enforcement program when serious violations occur.”

The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) held a virtual public hearing the evening of July 20 for the Wegmans draft Virginia Water Protection (VWP) permit. For solid reasons, the permit should be denied.

If the format alone were not sufficiently exasperating, the stubborn adherence of Wegmans to its faulty wetlands data pushed citizens’ ire to the stratosphere.

Speakers advocated for environmental and racial justice for the Brown Grove community; residents spoke to existing stormwater flooding in heavy rains; and wetlands and soils professionals pointed to errors in the wetlands determination that resulted in under calculation of the wetlands acreage. All solid points, credibly made.

Residents have asked for an independent wetlands determination to be performed. Will it happen? For the sake of an honest process, it should.

Removing vegetation, moving soil around and installing stormwater detention structures contribute to environmental degradation. Wetlands are ecosystems that support wildlife, water quality improvement and flood control, among other benefits.

The State Water Control Board and DEQ should not be pestered and bullied with a flawed argument by Wegmans. A decision based on solid data must be made for the good of the public and the environment.

A decision will be rendered in August by the State Water Control Board.

Hickory Grove: schlocky suburban design slammed into rural land

Simply, Categorically…
the wrong site for this type of zoning
The public hearing for the rezoning request from Hickory Hill II, LLC was deferred in June and July upon request by applicant until the August meeting of the Planning Commission. The 51-acre parcel, located at the intersection of Rte 54 and Providence Church Road, is categorically the wrong site for an MX/B-2 zoning.
The developer plans 42.33 acres of commercial and 100 townhome units and 9.17 acres for mixed commercial that may include a convenience store and fast-food restaurant with drive-through.
The application presents numerous problems, one of the most troublesome being added traffic on the under-capacity Rte 54. The Hickory Grove applicant did not consider the approved East Ashland average daily traffic numbers (ADTs) in the Traffic Impact Analysis. This is a major oversight. However, when it came to computing the road cash proffer, East Ashland was considered, which reduced the cash proffer of the applicant.
This inconsistent factoring for East Ashland benefits the applicant but shortchanges the citizens who will suffer the traffic congestion caused by inadequate road infrastructure.
In addition to the funny math of the traffic count, other problems abound:
  • the development would abut agricultural land and create a “hard edge” with no transition between suburban and rural;
  • site prep = scraping, timbering, slashing that add more impervious surface and create water quality issues;
  • 79,417 sq.ft. of commercial and retail space is incompatible with adjacent land uses;
  • a proposed realignment of historic Providence Church Road to “improve” traffic safety on an already stressed Rte 54 would strangulate that thoroughfare should East Ashland (approved 2010) be built;
  • the commercial/retail component encourages urban crawl to the east side of I-95 and in Ashland vacated, blighted properties result;
  • this leapfrogging development to the east of I-95 will bloat the interchange like many in Northern Virginia;
  • a gas station/convenience store and fast-food drive-through would compound traffic, light pollution, trash, noise . . .
  • there are already 10 places to get gas and snacks on Rte 54 from the Ashland town center to east of I-95;
  • Rte 54 is a gateway corridor linking historic Ashland and Hanover Courthouse districts through rural countryside.
We implore citizens to speak out in the strongest possible terms to County officials and the developer. Hanover County does not need another poorly planned and sited development foisted off on its citizens.

Hickory Grove Mixed Use community: wrong site, same old schlocky design

     Do you suppose the County is depending on your inattention during this unusual time? While you’re attending to your own and your families’ wellbeing, be assured others are working to have the PC and BOS push through the planning process for their particular, varied requests. Yes, during a time when citizen participation is so limited. And attention diverted. A planning process that was overheard to be described by various others, at present, like “slicing through butter.”

Citizens Are Kept at Arm’s Length…
as County Speedily Conducts the People’s Business!
In this COVID-19 pandemic, the Coalition for Hanover’s Future vigorously objects to the format and light speed with which the County sees fit to conduct the business of the people.
The burdensome proscriptions and protocols imposed upon citizens really crimp their engagement with their School Board, Planning Commissioners and Supervisors. On some very important issues.
Weeks ago, with Wegmans calling the hurry-up offense, Hanover County government proceeded with reckless disregard for the Governor’s executive orders. The County’s action was ill-considered then and remains so now.

So What’s Especially of Note… 
…as We Work on Hanover’s LQ (Liveability Quotient)? 
There is a particularly odious rezoning request on the
Planning Commission’s docket 
for Thursday, June 18, 7:00 p.m.
Hickory Hill II, LLC is requesting MX and B-2(c) rezoning for its proposed Hickory Grove mixed-use community, a 51.5-acre parcel east of I-95 at the intersection of Rte 54 and Providence Church Road. In short, the application looks like this:
  • 42.33 acres targeted for an MX zoning to allow for a mix of commercial uses (59,017 sq. ft. of retail, office, restaurant) and residential uses (100 age-qualified townhomes) and
  • 9.17 acres zoned B-2(c) for a commercial mix (20,400 sq. ft.) that may include a convenience store and a fast food restaurant with drive-through.
The commercial element promises the same, tired “Anywhere, USA” businesses marring the viewshed. To read complete details of the application, click here.
Mixed use zoning of this parcel is problematic and inappropriate for so many reasons:
  • the development would abut agricultural land and create a “hard edge” with no transition between suburban and rural;
  • site prep = scraping, timbering, slashing that add more impervious surface and create water quality issues;
  • 79,417 sq.ft. of commercial and retail space is incompatible with adjacent land uses;
  • a proposed realignment of historic Providence Church Road to “improve” traffic safety on an already stressed Rte 54 would strangulate that thoroughfare should East Ashland (approved 2010) be built;
  • the commercial/retail component encourages urban crawl to the east side of I-95 and in Ashland vacated, blighted properties result;
  • this leapfrogging development to the east of I-95 will bloat the  interchange like many in Northern Virginia;
  • a gas station/convenience store and fast-food drive-through would compound traffic, light pollution, trash, noise . . .
  • there are already 10 places to get gas and snacks on Rte 54 from the Ashland town center to east of I-95;
  • the traffic study for the already heavily traveled Rte 54 does not take into account the approved East Ashland development’s traffic numbers; and
  • Rte 54 is a gateway corridor linking historic Ashland and Hanover Courthouse districts through rural countryside.

Proposed Restrictions on Truck Traffic… 

…Welcome, But Not a Remedy for Poor Planning

On the Supervisors’ docket for Wednesday, June 24, 7:00 p.m.
Public hearings are slated for proposed through truck restrictions on four heavily traveled, under-capacity Hanover County roads. The roads and proposed restricted portions include:
  • New Ashcake Road between Sliding Hill Road and Rte 301
  • Atlee Station Road between Sliding Hill Road and Rte 301
  • Ashcake Road between Sliding Hill Road and Lewistown Road
  • Peaks Road between Sliding Hill Road and Rte 301
With dense residential development patterns of the past 10-20 years, these Hanover County roads have now become cut-throughs for an unbearable traffic volume, including many trucks.
These restrictions are welcomed and will surely help, but they will not remedy the shortsighted planning and roads funding that got us here.

Good planning is intrinsic to quality of life.
Well planned growth is essential to having livable communities and viable economic development opportunities. Trophy homes and distribution centers are just window dressing if quality of life is eroded in the process.
Land use planning is about the long view. Shortsighted planning will chip away that good quality of life Hanover residents want.
Let your concerns be heard. 
The citizen voice matters.

How to Submit Comments 
During COVID Restrictions
(from County Website: Planning)

“Notice on Comments for Planning Commission’s June 18 Meeting; Citizens Strongly Encouraged to Participate via Email or Phone

The Planning Commission will meet at 7 p.m. on Thursday, June 18. A Citizens’ Time of up to 20 minutes will be offered before the public hearings begin. Given the current health crisis, the county strongly encourages those who wish to make their opinions known during Citizens’ Time or during the public hearings to provide their comments online or by phone. You can leave your comments by calling 365-3384. Each caller may have up to three minutes, consistent with the Commission’s meeting rules. You may also email your citizens time comments or your public hearing comments.”
Citizens Time comments:
Public Hearing Comments:

Don’t Understand the “Language”?
…Check Out the Comprehensive Plan 
Familiarity with the Comprehensive Plan will help the reader to gain understanding of development language such as land use, zoning designations, proffers, roads planning, rural conservation, and so forth. Visit the County website to begin exploring the “Comp Plan”.
 Questions? Let us hear from you!  

Stay in the Loop!
     Hanover County Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and Economic Development information can be accessed at


     Town of Ashland Town Council, Planning Commission and Economic Development information can be accessed at http://www.town.ashland.va.us.

Where Are Regular Meetings Held?  
      Hanover County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings are held in the Board Room at 7516 County Complex Rd., Hanover.
      Ashland Town Council and Planning Commission meetings are held in the Council Chambers, Ashland Town Hall, 101 Thompson St., Ashland.
Our Advocacy Depends on You…
…And Your Support
The Coalition (CHF) is dedicated to protecting and preserving the land, history and environment of Hanover County. Our advocacy comes to you through these e-mail alerts and website. Your generosity makes these possible. Common sense growth helps ensure a sustainable, energy efficient and competitive future. CHF is one of the most efficient and effective non-profits in the Richmond area. You can be confident your dollars are used wisely.
Please donate today. Select the “Make a Donation” button in the left column, or mail to
Coalition for Hanover’s Future
P.O. Box 12 – Hanover, VA 23069
 CHF is a 501(c)(3) organization.
Your contribution is fully deductible for federal income tax purposes.

The Board of Directors
Coalition for Hanover’s Future

Coalition for Hanover’s Future, P.O. Box 12, Hanover, VA 23069

Wegmans Distribution Center: Turkey not Trophy

Beginning with the non-public pre-negotiations among Wegmans, the County and the Commonwealth, the Wegmans application for its distribution center has produced an unholy mess: a fast-tracked planning timeline, misinformation, reality checks regarding the County’s poor roads infrastructure and insufficient cost-benefit analysis.
The citizens, who are always saddled with the effects of poor planning, were severely marginalized in what should have been a balanced conversation among County, citizens and Wegmans. Citizen trust is eroded again.
The Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on the Wegmans application Wednesday, May 6 at 7:00 p.m. in the Boardroom of the County Admin Building.
[Ed. note: Bob Nelson, a CHF Board member, submitted the following analysis to the Board of Supervisors. Bracketed numerals in text correspond to end notes.]


Executive Summary and Conclusions

This position paper analyzes several major issues in Air Park Associates, L.P., REZ2019-00037 and SE2020-00005.

The Wegmans Distribution Center (DC) should be compared to the SuperValu DC. There were no residential subdivisions near SuperValu when it was constructed, and its access roads have no residential traffic today. SuperValu is close to I-295 and bordered by the Chickahominy River, industrial companies in a business district, and the CSX railroad. SuperValu’s affiliate owns 437 acres, twice the acreage of Air Park. Both DC’s are Pentagon-sized. The similarities end there; and unlike SuperValu, Wegmans DC would radically change the established communities and residences which surround it.

This position paper also discusses issues related to the Wegmans DC at the Air Park site based on the Performance Agreement (PA) and the county’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR’s). The PA does not mention the Air Park site. Wegmans need not provide a single job to obtain $2.92 million in county tax subsidies and receives $2.35 million of it three years before it receives an identical state grant. The Wegmans tax abatement package is also unprecedented and draws no support from the CAFR’s. Larger investment commitments have been made without county tax abatements or incentives. These are additional reasons to reject the Wegmans application.


1. Wegmans DC Compared to the SuperValu DC. Under the revised conceptual plan, Wegmans proposes 1,096,501 square feet (sf) in buildings. The largest building will be the Wegmans DC at 1,034,616 sf with an additional 205,650 sf shown at both ends of the building for expansion. [1] 400,000 sf is shown for potential future development elsewhere on the site.

The only existing Hanover DC comparable to Wegmans in size is the SuperValu facility at 1,249,000 sf. [2] There are, however, major differences between the two DC’s.

> SuperValu’s affiliate owns 437 acres of land, twice Wegmans’ 217 acres.

> Unlike SuperValu, Wegmans is receiving a generous package of corporate subsidies consisting of county tax rebates and reductions and infrastructure improvements.

> The closest residential subdivision to the SuperValu DC is Summer Walk. Summer Walk was developed well after the SuperValu DC began operations under a corporate predecessor. [3] By contrast, Fox Head and Somerset, the closest residential subdivisions to the proposed Wegmans DC, have been in existence for many years. Established neighborhoods, like these and the 150 year old Brown Grove community, should not be sacrificed to a Pentagon-sized DC.

> The SuperValu DC has easy access from I-295 (Exit 42) – 0.4 miles to Richfood Road, and that access road is not used by any residents. By contrast, Wegmans is 2.3 miles from the nearest interchange on I-95 (Exit 86) and, of greater significance, would add traffic to multiple roads used by residents of many neighborhoods.

> The SuperValu DC is bordered by the Chickahominy River, CSX railroad tracks, and industrial development along its entrance road. Wegmans, on the other hand, is surrounding by homes and residential subdivisions on all sides.

The SuperValu DC is not comparable to the Wegmans DC and provides no basis for the latter’s approval. If the Board were to approve the Wegmans DC at this location, it would open up the entire county to Pentagon-size and smaller DC’s in all magisterial districts without regard to existing residential communities, road use, traffic, or parcel size. Future DC developers would likely also seek Wegmans-type tax rebates, reductions, and infrastructure improvements from the county.

2. No Reference to Air Park Site in the Performance Agreement. Air Park Associates, L.P. is not a party to the PA. The PA makes no reference to any specific parcels in Hanover County.

There is no discussion of county applications for any site in the PA. The PA contains no discussion of approval, denial, or any other action by the county or any department on Wegmans or Air Park Associates applications. The PA contains no contingencies related to county, state, or federal approvals for Wegmans. Nothing in the PA constrains the Board from denying the Wegmans application and determining that this is the wrong site for a Pentagon-sized DC.

3. County Tax Subsidies Not Tied to Jobs. The county claims that the Wegmans DC will provide 700 jobs for Hanover. Wegmans will receive $2.35 million in county tax rebates if it meets certain performance obligations.

Wegmans is, however, not obligated to provide any jobs in order to receive county tax rebates and reductions. Under the PA, Wegmans does not have to hire a single worker at its DC in order to receive $2.92 million in county tax rebates and reductions. PA, Section 4 (b)(i) ($2.35 million in tax rebates tied only to Wegmans’ capital investment of $142 million), PA, Section 4 (b)(iii) (50% reduction in merchants’ capital taxes for Wegmans not tied to capital investment or jobs). [4] Jobs play no role in determining Wegmans’ eligibility for $2.92 million in county tax rebates and reductions, and the county pays Wegmans $2.35 million three years before Wegmans receives the state money. Compared to the state, the county is giving money away to Wegmans, an insult to Hanover businesses and citizens paying full county taxes.

4. Tax Abatements. The $2.35 million in tax rebates and $0.57 million in tax reductions for Wegmans are tax abatements.

In the county’s 2017 CAFR, financial note 10, new accounting pronouncements, discusses the requirement to disclose tax abatements to comply with GASB Statement 77. A tax abatement is defined as an agreement between a government and an individual or entity in which the government “promises to forgo tax revenues” and the individual or entity promises to take a specific action that contributes to economic development or otherwise benefits the government or the citizens. FY2017 CAFR, p. 50. The 2017 CAFR then states that the GASB statement “is not applicable to the County as there are no agreements of this type.” Id. Similarly, note J – tax abatements, in the most recent 2019 CAFR, only discusses the county’s speculative building program but states there were no FY2019 tax payments related to this program. FY2019 CAFR, p. 122. [5] No tax abatements are reported under a note with the broadly inclusive title “Tax abatements.”

Tax abatements have not been reported in the county’s CAFR’s. The $2.92 million in county tax subsidies for Wegmans are unprecedented and a major departure from prior county practice.[6]

5. Capital Investments – Wegmans and Cascades. Under the PA, the Wegmans DC will entail an investment of $175 million, consisting of $128 million in the construction of new buildings, $22 million in tangible personal property, $20 million in site improvements, and $5 million in land purchases. PA, p. 1 (whereas clause). Eligibility for county tax rebates is, however, tied to lower capital investments. If Wegmans makes a capital investment of at least $120 million in the construction of new buildings and $22 million in tangible personal property by January 1, 2023, it will receive $2.35 million in county tax rebates. PA, Section 4(b)(i).

Cascades, a Canadian company, is the successor in interest to Bear Island Paper Company and took over its facility. The county’s most recent 2019 CAFR states:

“Cascades, a major international cardboard and tissue company, announced a $275 million investment in Hanover County that will create 140 well-paying jobs. This project alone was one of the top five announcements in Virginia over the past 12 months and one of the largest industrial projects in the Commonwealth during the same period. The company will take over the idle Bear Island Paper facility, and after full build out, will once again be one of county’s largest taxpayers.” FY2019 CAFR, p. 6.

Cascades received a $1.95 million grant from the state but no county tax rebates or reductions. The investment decision and the state grant were announced on July 26, 2018. 

Cascades is making a capital investment which exceeds Wegmans required investment for tax rebates by $133 million. Unlike Wegmans, however, Cascades will receive no tax rebates or reductions from the county.

The situation with Cascades raises an obvious question. Why did Hanover County provide a generous incentive package to Wegmans for $142 million in investment when no county incentive package or matching of a state grant was needed to induce Cascades to make an investment commitment of $275 million at the Bear Island facility?

Cascades’ commitment demonstrates that county tax rebates and reductions are not needed to attract industrial and commercial development to Hanover County. As the CAFR’s show, save for Wegmans, this is true for investments up to $275 million. The county tax rebates and reductions for Wegmans are unnecessary, excessive and unprecedented corporate welfare.

Dated: April 20, 2020

Bob Nelson, Chickahominy District


1 The Pentagon building gives some idea of the size of the Wegmans DC. The Pentagon building sits on 28.7 acres or 1,250,172 sf, almost the same sf as the Wegmans DC expanded. Wegmans SE application requests a DC maximum height of 62 feet above ground. The Wegmans DC is the equivalent of the Pentagon with the top floor removed. 

2 Other large Hanover DC’s include Amazon – 321,000 sf, Vitamin Shoppe – 312,000 sf, Republic National Distribution Company – 300,000 sf (expandable to 500,000 sf), and Supply Room Companies – 280,000 sf. None of these DC’s are located near residential subdivisions.

3 The SuperValu DC was built in the 1960’s. May 14, 1997 Board minutes (Richfood resolution).

4 Wegmans has to meet jobs and investment performance obligations in order to receive the state grant of $2.35 million. PA, Section 3(a).

5 Notwithstanding these statements in the 2017 and 2019 CAFR’s, it is possible that tax abatements are buried in the CAFR’s with a number of “netting” adjustments. Non-disclosure of tax abatements and agreements to provide them does not comply with GASB Statement 77. Compare, FY2019 CAFR, p. 175, Table 8, n. 2 (total fiscal year property tax levies are net of undisclosed amounts for supplemental levies, abatements, land use deferrals, and tax relief).

6 Note K in the county CAFR’s references two special assessment Community Development Authorities (CDA’s), Bell Creek and Lewistown Commerce Center. CDA’s issue bonds to acquire land and/or construct infrastructure improvements, and special assessments are imposed on taxable real property to pay interest and principle on the bonds. FY2019 CAFR, pp. 122-124. The county’s $1.5 million in infrastructure improvements for Wegmans is the polar opposite of principles governing CDA’s and a major disincentive to their formation in the future.

Lake District Mixed Use proposal a mixed mess

The proposed rezoning of 323 acres for a Mixed Use development on U.S. 33 at the Henrico County line has been churning through the planning process for 18 months. At the June 20 Planning Commission public hearing, Commissioners voted to defer action on the case for 30 days. Bob Nelson, Chickahominy District resident, hit dead center with analysis submitted to the Hanover Planning Office:


  1. The Lake District Will Not Preserve Rural Character

Claim – The Lake District will preserve rural character by allowing growth in one large development.

Discussion — Approval of the 520 unit mixed use Rutland development in 2004 occurred before  Giles Farm – 442 units, Cool Spring West – 276 units, and the mixed use Caldwell Park or “New Rutland” project – 532 units, 200,000 square feet (sf) commercial. A total of 1,250 additional units, all within about a mile of Rutland. (Additional residential developments of less than 200 units within a mile of Rutland were approved before and after Caldwell Park.)

The most comparable project, Caldwell Park, was approved 11 years after Rutland and before completion of Rutland’s residential development. It is more intensely developed than Rutland.

Almost 700 additional acres of land can be developed along the SSA Route 33 corridor if the Lake District is approved. See attached. The Lake District and the 36” inch sewer line extension through the property is a dagger pointed up Route 33 to the rural heart of Hanover, creating a new problem corridor.

Conclusion — The claimed preservation of rural character by limiting development to one mixed use project is false. Hanover’s history with mixed use developments does not support it, nor does the development of Short Pump. The Lake District cannot be viewed as a one-time development, will not preserve Hanover’s rural character, and will spawn mixed use and other development along Route 33.

  1. The Density Is Not 5.5 Units/Acre

Claim – The applicant and the staff’s report state that the proposed density for the project is 5.5 units/acre.

Discussion — The 5.5 unit/acre calculation is simply the total number of residential units (1,787) divided by the gross acreage (323.3). Neither the staff report nor the applicant discuss Comp Plan or mixed use and multi-use provisions related to density or population growth issues.

Residential land bays 3, 4, and 6 contain 1,055 units. Using reasonable acreage estimates, the density in these areas is between 16.3 and 20.3 units/acre. See attached. The highest one, 20.3 units/acre, is based on the applicant’s submission. See pdf page 180 of the staff report.

Conclusion — The density of the residential only sections of the Lake District is unacceptably urban and substantially exceeds Hanover’s 15 unit/acre maximum. While it may be appropriate for Short Pump or Richmond, it is patently excessive for the Route 33 corridor and Hanover County generally.

  1. The Scale and Scope of Housing Development Is Unacceptable

Claim – The Lake District will provide attractive housing for its residents.

Discussion — 970 apartments will be located in 17 buildings, with first floor commercial in 12 of them and parking lots throughout land bays 4 and 9. 817 townhouses, stacked or unstacked, will be built row upon row, along streets and narrow alleys, in land bays 3 and 6. The urban size, scale, and scope of the housing projects is incompatible with existing development in Hanover County, particularly along Route 33.

Conclusion — The Lake District provides ultra-dense, urban housing incompatible with the Route 33 corridor and Hanover County.

  1. The Economic Development Is Unknown and Speculative

Claim – The designation of land bays 1, 2, 7, and 8 for economic development is acceptable.

Discussion — The applicant has proffered M-1 uses for these land bays. These include manufacturing; transportation and warehousing; professional, scientific, and technical services; hotels and motels (conditional use permit); and professional offices.

650,000 sf of general and corporate office space in these land bays, plus 42,000 sf programmed for land bay 5, is assumed to be developed for 59 businesses and requires the construction of an assumed 16 buildings.  While not so limited by the M-1 use proffer, only office space uses are projected by the applicant; and the assumed development appears not to be reflected in its proffered phasing plan. Otherwise the proffer for these land bays merely states that construction will be in accordance with general conditions and architectural standards in the master plan.

The applicant has not provided concrete plans for developing these areas, only an assumed one. The applicant will apparently rely on the county to attract prospects and does not indicate that it will be taking an active role in marketing the land bays.

Without knowing specific M-1 uses for any acreage within the land bays, it is impossible to assess the economic benefits which would be received by the county or the economic burdens which would be imposed on the county. Examples of uses which may be less desirable would be Commonwealth of Virginia (or similar) entities not subject to Hanover taxes, such as the recent ABC warehouse at issue in Riverstone, or a Fed Ex facility with major traffic impacts.

The future economic development of land bays 1, 2, 7, and 8 is speculative and immature. This A-1 land should not be approved for M-1 uses. An assumed plan for economic development does not provide a basis to approve the Lake District’s proposal. If and when the county or the applicant identifies businesses and uses for these land bays, applications can be filed and considered for approval by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

Conclusion — Unknown and speculative future economic development of land bays 1, 2, 7, and 8 does not provide a basis to approve the project. It provides a reason to deny it.

  1. Open Space and Undevelopable Land, Environmental Impacts

Claim – The applicant is providing almost 100 acres of open space.

Discussion — Staff calculates that 85.85 acres of open space would be provided and notes that some is double counted. That is less than the 97.14 acres of undevelopable land, including the lake, dam inundation area, streams, wetlands, and steep slopes calculated by the applicant.

Conclusion –The applicant is developing every acre it can and maybe some undevelopable land as well. The environmental consequences of Lake District development have not been assessed, are likely to be unacceptable, and should not be deferred to construction plan reviews.

Dated: June 18, 2019

Bob Nelson, Chickahominy District