Posted 6/27/2007

Second Thoughts on any new "Haven over the Hill"

 
I've written in the Harbour View about some concerns that came to mind regarding the proposed 55+ housing development we are voting on. I support the concept. But at the subsequent Town Hall meeting at the Harbour Inn to discuss the project, a couple of items came up that gave me pause.
 
One, from a new resident, was to the effect that if the vote is positive, then we are giving the AHPOA Board the approval to develop the property. In a sense, that's right in that the Board can spend some money to get consultants' input  and advice before proceeding. But it's not right that the Board gets a blank check. As we oldtimers well know, actions of the Board are subject to change. Remember, a majority of the Board wanted to assess property owners a special dues fee a couple years ago and nearly got run out of town. We residents have power to change things--and do.
 
Another concern from a resident and former builder focused on how severely a construction crew trying to clear and erect say 50 new homes on the site would damage Aquia Drive getting to and from work. Unless, he added, a second gate is opened to permit direct access.
 
Aha!  Shouldn't a second gate be a part of the new 55+ community's features anyhow?
Stafford County zoning people would certainly prefer such an arrangement. And the additional traffic the new entry generates when completed could spare Aquia Drive and perhaps be easier for future residents to navigate in bad weather, And I know some third section residents who would dearly love to see a second gate opened regardless of the fate of the 55+ project.
 
But a gate  would cost money.  Exactly. That's just one reason why a stated rationale for favoring the development--that it would help us pay off some existing projects that need attention--is pretty shaky, in my opinion, even without considering a second gate.
 
The whole project, especially while the area housing market is so lousy, needs much more deliberation, regardless of the outcome of the vote on the concept.
 

 

Posted 3/18/2007

 

To bring you up to date on efforts to stop the environmental damage done to Aquia Creek as it passes under Aquia Harbour's bridge, here's a brief summary: Nothing.

Correction: The developer did in fact shore up its sedimentation traps shortly after the community's December uproar over the damaging buildup of mud in the creek. That was due to Augustine Homes' denuding of its building site next to Aquia Harbour, following heavy rains.

Effect of those efforts, considering another damaging rain in early March:  Virtually nothing.

Let me rush to add "apparently," lest ace legal eagle Clark Leming lets fly with a lawsuit in behalf of Augustine.  So please cool it, Clark, since this stuff is only an opinion of a columnist and unlawyered resident who may sometimes be libelous, but not so's anyone would know it.

(Clark had engineered the threatening letter to the editor from Augustine about me and Dave Kerr.)

Yet, I did check out things near the bridge after a (flood-watched) rain March 2. I watched the muddy water spew (or at least cascade) from you-know-where, but I don't ask readers to trust my lying eyes.

Even so,  a few days earlier the sedimentation situation at the site in question had again drawn the scrutiny of some folks from Richmond, officials with the state Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Maybe this time they were just looking for a new upscale home to buy in Augustine's development in question, The Hills at Aquia. A model is going up there and flags are flying as we speak. Indeed, another prominent builder, NV Homes, has begun selling homes, starting north of $539,000, and after two days had already sold four.

However, the visiting government types might again have been checking out why the county-approved mitigation measures had failed to protect the historic creek from fouling.

In the recent past, the developer had assured worried folks that Augustine had done all that the county had wanted done to stay in compliance.

But what if the county itself had too easily been satisfied with its approved and inspected environmental measures? After all, following an earlier look at the situation back in December, a  state conservation official noted that "...when land disturbing activities are scheduled to begin in the spring, consider phasing the project in 25-acre maximum parcels.  A request to disturb more area at any one time would require a variance. More stringent review of land disturbance adjacent to critical areas is always prudent."

How's that for laying it on the line? Only it seems a year late.

Now, back to my "virtually nothing" assessment of progress in coping with the sedimentation problem, two facts regarding timeliness are relevant.

The county had promised to have a study done of the damage and what caused it.  Progress of study to date of this writing: Zero.

Also, Aquia Harbour has long had a request of the Corps of Engineers for a dredging permit so we could start right away to relieve the sediment buildup in the creek  and reduce the flooding danger for nearby low-lying homes, and prevent the community's vital bridge itself from being imperiled by coming storms. Well, it seems the permit request is in its final stages; dredging could begin this summer..

Hooray.