Have a voice in the future of Fauquier County, Join us ... CFFC is a non-profit, non-partisan organization whose mission is to preserve the natural, historic and agricultural resources of Fauquier County and to preserve the County's unique quality of life through education and leadership.
Make a Tax Deductible Donation or Renew Your Membership by clicking on the Donate Button
Click on this Mintbrook (Cheatam Farm) Plan to Download a Printable Copy
Mintbrook Project applications on Supervisors 8 December 2011 hearing agenda - This mixed use project includes 475 dwelling units and over 385,000 square feet of commercial uses in Bealeton. Another cash negative proposal for tax payers. This Public Hearing starts at 6:30 P.M. in the Warren Green Building, 10 Hotel Street, Warrenton.
CFFC's analysis of the 8 Dec 2011 application:
The proposal continues to not meet the vision set forth in the Bealeton Service District plan and the proffer statement submitted on November 18th, 2011 lacks the overall clarity and commitment that should be expected.
This development will not add to the Bealeton Service District or Fauquier County and will likely become a burden on county tax payers and the residents of Bealeton.
County Staff Report Fiscal Impact Study notes "the county model showed a deficit to the county of $2.7 million in 2020", while the applicants submission states a financial benefit to the County. You can download the Staff Report by clicking on the PDF document icon in the right hand column.
Additional analysis is provided below, copies of selected maps and the Proffer Statement can be downloaded using links in the right hand column.
Expansion of the Bealeton Service District
The Bealeton Service District plan calls for a “hard edge” to preserve the integrity of the service district. However, the applicants plan requests an arbitrary expansion of the service district size without any justification. Most of the additional land is then being proffered to the county for public service facilities that includes two schools, a recreational facility, and a fire station. Ironically if the applicant were to proffer this public service facility land within the current service district, the proposal would come closer to meeting the vision of a pedestrian friendly community set forth in the current service district plan.
Flooding ConcernsThe post development analysis showed that there would be no more than one foot increase in the 2 and 10 year flood plain. For down stream residents who have experienced flooding in the past, such findings are cause for concern. In recognition of the prevalence of high water tables throughout the site, and as is required by Fauquier County for properties constructed with basements in such areas, the developer includes the requirement that deeds to properties with high water tables include a disclosure regarding the potential negative impacts from post-development land disturbances. (Updated 6 Dec 2011)
Transportation Impact
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has stated that they have concerns about the traffic flow on Route 17. Because of this concern they denied the developer’s request for approval of a light at Jefferson Blvd. and Route 17. This is the East-West Connector that the applicant has said will be the primary entrance for the development and serves both the future middle and elementary schools, the recreational facility, the fire station, and will serve as a primary entrance for the future White Marsh subdivision. This raises a significant concern about the feasibility of that intersection effectively serving the proposed community.
The town center street design also raises concern about feasibility. The entrance to the commercial center only allows right turns and the boulevard they plan on Route 17 does not fit with VDOT’s stated concerns about traffic movement. With the high school being across from the commercial site it is important to note that the shopping center with a fast-food drive thru will likely encourage teenagers to want to cross over Route 17 after school potentially causes some pedestrian safety concerns.
Economic Losses for the County
Contrary to what the developer has stated the county is not guaranteed any fiscal benefit from this development. The profit expected from the commercial is highly questionable given the current vacancies and limited ability to absorb new retail in Bealeton. Given the phasing plan proposed by the developer, it is also unlikely that the commercial development can adequately offset the impacts of the residential development on the county.
There are several other fiscal issues that should be considered.
First, the applicant is proposing proffer escalation to only be calculated every three years instead of annually as is set forth in the county’s proffer policy. This undermines the county’s proffer policy and would not only affect this proposal but could be precedent setting for other developments.
Second, proffers for transportation impacts from this development are woefully lacking. They only commit to dedicating sufficient right-of-way for right turn lanes into the commercial core. The transportation proffers also seem to state that phase 1 of the project can be completed before any transportation improvements are even made.
Third, the cash proffers being contributed for schools is only $573,853 which creates a deficiency of $7,588,689 that the applicant asserts will be met by the dedication of school sites which values have been highly inflated. While the suggested proffer for multi-family units is $13,158, there are no proffers being offered for these freestanding multi-family units in the proposed mixed use core, under the assumption that there will be no children in these multi-family households.
Design Problems
Located at the corner of Route 17 and Route 28, this site is an important aspect of the gateway into Bealeton. Unfortunately this proposal does little to recognize that fact or to enhance Bealeton as a whole. Although the developer agrees to abide by the requirements set forth in their Code of Development (COD) plan, the actual requirements in the COD are unclear. Without these requirements there is little guarantee of aesthetically pleasing designs and variation throughout.
The commercial area, although being touted as mixed-use and pedestrian friendly, are indistinguishable from typical shopping centers found throughout suburbia. The proposal includes up to 3 drive-through facilities and a 50,000 to 75,000 sq ft big box store that are only required to be integrated architecturally. Only 100,000 sq ft of the commercial development proposed is actually guaranteed to accompany the residential homes at full build out. Virtually all of the residential development may be constructed with only the construction of the one 50,000 to 75,000 square foot proposed big-box retail store being required to accompany.
Two school sites are being offered in light of cash contributions for school facility sites. However the school sites are located outside of the community making it difficult for students within the nearby community to walk to school. The majority of the community would need to cross road bridges over streams to access the schools. The middle school will be located furthest outside of the community and across what is expected to be the main entrance to the development. It is a rather large site, 47.2 acres, which could not be incorporated into the proposed community as is.
However it has been demonstrated at places like T.C. Williams in Alexandria that a urban high school sites with full facilities can be constructed on a little over 20 acres. The developer could propose a more compact school design like this or a shared facilities site with the elementary school. The middle school could be incorporated into the existing service district to provide better access to future middle school students and reduce the transportation costs for those students.
The Mintbrook proposal also requests a reduction in the percentage of residential that is required in the Mixed Use zoned core from 5% to 1% residential. The county staff stated concern that this would not only affect this development but undermine the counties Mixed Use zoning policy.
Demand Better
The proposal falls short of meeting the county’s requirements, the proffers being offered are marginal, and the design contributes nothing to the community. All this development would do is add traffic, burden tax payers further, and hurt the value of homes and existing retail in Bealeton. Ask the Board to deny this application and demand better at the gateway to Bealeton.
The Supervisors full information packet for this application can be found at http://agenda.fauquiercounty.gov/ in the 12/08/11 BOS Regular Meeting html file.
The Contingent Plan Approved in 2009:
The Mintbrook/Cheatam Farm development received contingent Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval 13 August 2009. This application approval included adding 125 acres to the Bealeton Service district, limitation to 675 residential units, and a mixed-use commercial district.
Key elements of the August 2009 approval included the following:
" a complete rezoning application for Cheatham Farm must be submitted under the County‟s MU-Bealeton District within nine (9) months of approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPAM09-LE-001) by the Board of Supervisors. This Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall not be deemed to be effective, and the service district boundary and plan for the Bealeton Service District in effect immediately prior to approval of this amendment shall remain in effect, unless and until the Board approves a rezoning to the “MU-Bealeton” zoning category consistent with the terms of this amendment within two years of the date of this amendment."
"To pace the need for new public facilities in this area, residential development of this property will be contingent on a phasing plan for a period of not less than ten (10) years from the issuance of the first building permit, with the phasing linked to the provisions of infrastructure and facilities as well as the development of commercial uses."
"The plan presumes changes to the floodplain that are not currently allowed by the County’s Zoning Ordinance, but the Board may wish to consider changes to the floodplain regulations to allow such an approach, upon a demonstration by an applicant that the broader benefits to the community outweigh any potential impacts to the floodplain. Should provision of stormwater facilities within the floodplain prove to be impossible, the Illustrative Plan will need to be reconsidered by the Board of Supervisors."
"development of the Cheatham Farm shall include provisions to guarantee that the total number of residential units shall not exceed 400 units unless the applicant verifies for each unit over 400 that a bona fide development right (as determined by the County) in the Cedar Run or Lee Magisterial District has been extinguished at the expense of the applicant. Alternatively, at the discretion of the County, for each residential unit over 400, the applicant shall make a contribution to the Fauquier County Purchase of Development Rights Program."
On 11 May 2006 Fauquier's Board of Supervisors approved the Freedom Place Rezoning and Special Exceptions. The 358 dwelling Freedom Place development was on the exact same properties proposed for the originally proposed 700 to 1,000 dwelling Mintbrook Comprehensive Plan change. Unlike a rezoning, a Comprehensive Plan change does not lock a developer in to the concept they present. The Freedom Place development was abandoned by the builder when the housing market crashed in 2006 and 2007.
Compare Mintbrook concept with previously approved Freedom Place
Click on this Graphic to Down Load a Printable Copy
