From: karensheehan@verizon.net
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 9:36 AM
To: ‘riccar1110@aol.com’ <riccar1110@aol.com>; ‘windyknoll2@gmail.com’ <windyknoll2@gmail.com>; ‘colesplanning@gmail.com’ <colesplanning@gmail.com>; ‘neabscopc@gmail.com’ <neabscopc@gmail.com>; ‘planningwoodbridge@gmail.com’ <planningwoodbridge@gmail.com>; ‘pattimckay@msn.com’ <pattimckay@msn.com>; ‘jmcpwccommission@gmail.com’ <jmcpwccommission@gmail.com>; ‘occoquanplanning@gmail.com’ <occoquanplanning@gmail.com>
Cc: Pete Candland (pcandland@pwcgov.org) <pcandland@pwcgov.org>
Subject: A better plan for Centre at Haymarket
Dear Planning Commissioners –
Thank you for your dedication and your commitment to get the best possible solution for our community by unanimously demanding a better plan for the Centre at Haymarket application at your Feb. 3 meeting.
As your comprehensive discussion covered, there are many issues with the proposal as currently submitted.
There has to be a better and safer way to design ingress and egress from this site. Forcing intense traffic from this development to perform U-turns on Route 55 and Antioch Road in order to get to where they want to go is sheer insanity. There should only be Route 55 entrances, and they must somehow be engineered to enable exiting traffic to safely go either direction onto Route 55.
As the Planning Commission heard from numerous sources, there should absolutely not be an entrance of any sort onto Antioch Road. It is simply too dangerous to introduce dense traffic from this development directly onto that two lane rural scenic byway and residential road, between a busy intersection and a dangerous slope coming off the bridge over Interstate 66. An Antioch Road access point simply invites traffic back-ups and accidents, or even worse, fatalities.
Hearing the developer declare that a bridge to traverse over the site’s wetland is “cost prohibitive” sounds like a problem for the developer to absorb, in order for the plan to effectively serve the community which they want to attract to the investments on their property. The costs to raise the elevation of the west side of the site and to construct a dangerous entrance onto Antioch Road can be re-directed. For example, a pedestrian bridgeway over the wetland to a historic parkland amenity in the western parcel closest to Antioch Road would be a far cheaper cost to the developer, and a far more beneficial contribution to the county.
As I communicated previously, our Historical Commission representatives did a real dis-service to county residents by abdicating their responsibility to protect and save our historical lands when they reviewed this plan. They ignored the documented “adverse affect on the battlefield landscape (Staff Report, page 14),” and recommended mere signage, which would only document and commemorate paving over the land where the Battle of Thoroughfare Gap was fought. I am so very, very disappointed in our Historical Commission representatives for not making recommendations to require the protection of the historical and environmental resource land at this northwestern tip of our county, adjacent to the Rural Crescent, before sending the plan forward to the Planning Commission.
We lost historic Buckland Mills Battlefield land which was cleared for the Amazon Web Services data centers on the other side of Route 55 before the county got involved with that development. The Historical Commissioners told us then that all they could do was put up a commemorative sign. Signs and kiosks are an afterthought, marking something that is already lost.
As was discussed during your meeting, the topography of the land on this site remains intact, the developer has not grazed it. Thank goodness that you on the Planning Commission refused to advance the ineptitude of the Historical Commission, and did not approve this plan as currently presented. We have an opportunity to require, as part of a revised and improved plan, that some of the land remaining intact from the Battle of Thoroughfare Gap site is protected by the developer and commemorated in a parkland to incorporate into their site plan, which would then be a permanent amenity accessible to all county residents. At least now, due to your unanimous vote to defer, the Historical Commission and Planning Commission can work together with the developer to ensure that some of the historical land on this site is appropriately preserved and commemorated.
Finally, two hotels are not needed at this site, given that another hotel is already being built within the town of Haymarket. Our community will benefit from only one hotel here.
A less dense and well-planned site, with safe ingress and egress limited to Route 55, for only one hotel, plus an office building, a restaurant, sufficient parking, a protected wetland, and preserved parkland commemorating an historic Civil War battle would be a welcome plan. It would provide distinct, attractive and appropriate amenities for the Haymarket-Gainesville community.
I look forward to the developer being persuaded to take their next proposal in this direction.
Regards,
Karen Sheehan
Gainesville district