The Essex County Planning Commission has postponed an advisory vote until August as to whether a 13.186 acre site should be rezoned from Business to Planned United Development to allow for the creation of a mixed-use project at Bray’s Fork.
The Planning Commission reached its decision hearing two hours of testimony and one hour of its own discussion during a June 6 public hearing.
The Commission asked that the developer and her consultants continue to work with county staff to resolve issues that were discussed during the hearing.
The project is proposed by 7 and M Development, LLC whose president and founder is Shiree Monterio.
She is the granddaughter of the late Thomas Harris, whose property is being utilized for the project that has been dubbed “Bray’s Fork Redevelopment Project.”
Monterio’s family owns approximately 40 acres in Bray’s Fork with 13.186 acres —between the LaGrange Industrial Park and the VCU Tappahannock Hospital property — being the initial phase that is described as “Essex Point at Mt. Clement.”
The initial phase will include a planned community with independent, affordable senior housing, centralized wellness and community services, workforce housing, retail, and a medical/education office.
7 and M Development has requested several exceptions to the county’s existing PUD ordinance including a single entrance to the property, building heights (35-feet is the maximum allowable while the variance seeks heights up to 60-feet), and acreage (the PUD zone requires a minimum of 15 acres).
The Essex County Zoning Department Staff has recommended denial of the project.
Darla Orr of The Berkeley Group, which has been assisting the county on a variety of zoning matters, told the commissioners the denial recommendation is based on lack of clarity regarding the following factors:
• Fails to comply with the comprehensive plan;
• Proximity to incompatible uses;
• Standard exceptions proposed would accommodate a smaller project size vs. quality/innovative design, safety for access.
Kedrick N. Whitmore, attorney representing 7 and M Development, told the commissioners that the proposal being considered at the hearing is the first of “many, many more site reviews… This is not the only bite of the apple the county will have before we start moving earth out there.”
Whitmore said project consultants have not received any clarity about issues the zoning department has with the project.
“We have not heard what we can do to make this acceptable under the PUD standards,” he said. “You didn’t hear that tonight and we haven’t heard it for the last several months though we’ve asked for it. We’ve heard a lot of these issues for the first time today.”
Whitmore also said consultants are willing to work with county staff to make the proposal compliant.
Later, Orr told the commissioners that Whitmore’s claims about staff not working with the consultants was false.
“We’ve been working with the applicants… since November to get an application that would be ready to bring before you,” she said. “There was a change in the site development plan after VDOT reviewed the traffic analysis. That created a new plan that had one entrance instead of two. Some things still need clarification so we can, with assurance, let you know what the county will be getting.”
Planning Commission chairman David Jones noted the projects of this type typically do not advance as fast as the applicant desires.
“In the rezoning and development world, that’s how it is,” Jones remarked.
Eric Hoffman, an affordable housing lawyer, told the commissioners that the project’s 135-unit housing component does not include any subsidized housing. He also said the senior housing will not allow children to reside there.
During the public hearing, the bulk of the 18 speakers supported the proposal, noting the need for senior and workforce housing here.
“This should be about how we can make this happen,” Madeline Lawson told the commissioners. “This is a winwin for Essex County and Tappahannock.”
“If you want a project to go forward you will do what you need to make it go forward,” the Rev. Cornelius Holmes said.
“Where there’s a will, there’s a way,” Carole Harper remarked. “If we don’t keep up with what’s going on, we are going to be left behind.”
Others expressed concerns about potential water-runoff from the project and heights of the project’s buildings.
Some tenants of the LaGrange Industrial Park also voiced concerns about a residential community abutting an industrial zone.
Matthew Fleet, whose family owns a business in the industrial park, told the commissioners the project is not compatible with the surrounding area.
“There are just so many issues to overcome,” he stated. “If we ignore them, then what are we doing here?”
“There’s a lot of noise going on in there with trucks coming in and out at night,” Randy Whittaker said. “What would worry me is does the town or county have enough water or sewer and who’s going to pay for it.”
“I love this project, but it’s in the wrong place,” David Stokes said.
It was later noted that the project is expected to utilize up to 50,000 gallons of water daily, while the county’s agreement with the Town of Tappahannock affords up to 250,000 gallons per day.
Carter Ball, whose family owns Tidewater Lumber located across from the proposed site and is a former Planning Commission chairman, said the application is one of the best he has ever witnessed.
“My issue is not with the project, but with the placement,” Ball said.
He also said a traffic signal would be required if the project was approved.
Moreover, he said zoning is about “putting the right thing in the right place… seven to eight zoning exceptions to a new zoning ordinance is a question the community should ask. I think the reason you are seeing so many exceptions is because it’s the wrong site.”
During later discussions, Whitmore noted that the buffer between the project and LaGrange is 160-feet and 224- feet between the industrial park and the nearest residential units.
Project traffic consultant William F. Johnson told the commissioners that an original two-entrance plan was rejected by VDOT because it did not meet spacing requirements.
“There’s nothing that precludes us from seeking a second entrance,” he said.
Moreover, Johnson told the commissioners that a traffic impact analysis had been conducted for the development (with and without a second entrance).
“The results concluded that the access will operate acceptably according to VDOT standards,” he said.
“We need a project like this in Essex County,” Jones remarked. “But, there are some practical matters that need to be taken care of.”
The Planning Commission’s purpose is to serve the Board of Supervisors in an advisory capacity on matters of planning and zoning by preparing and recommending plans, ordinances, capital improvement programs and similar documents, and reviewing development proposals.
Comments