Response to the Crooked Run West Council presentation October 21

At the October 21 Town Council meeting, a presentation was made on the Crooked Run West, LLC (CRW) proposal for high density residential development to justify its request for public water service which violates existing Town policy. Since general public comments are not permitted at Council work sessions, I’m forced to respond here.

The property owner, Mr. Mercuro, indicated that in order to be able to afford ten million dollars for a required bridge, he needed income to secure a loan and the 750 apartments he proposed would provide that revenue. He stated that having a bridge would enable development of his remaining 147 Crooked Run acres and would generate “unlimited potential for growth” and millions of dollars of taxes/fees to the Town and County.

I’m confused though because on several occasions CRW has testified to the County BOS that the justification for his original request for the 750 apartments plus 275 townhouse/single family homes was that more commercial development on the original Crooked Run project wasn’t possible because people were shopping online more from entities such as Amazon rather than frequenting brick and mortar businesses. The Developer complained that it was increasingly difficult to even lease existing Crooked Run commercial space.

The reality is that CRW erred in projecting how much retail and business offerings the County’s population would support. It’s ridiculous to think that the public has drastically changed its shopping habits to favoring on-line versus in-person purchases. The market and shopping habits have not drastically changed since CRW’s previous testimony, and the County has been growing at only about 1% a year over the past 10 years, and thus, there is limited need for additional commercial development at that location now.

The true justification for the property owner wanting high density residential development at that location is in plain view in a letter from his attorney to the County’s Planning Director, dated August 28, 2019. It states, “My client felt that an emphasis on residential development would result in greater demand for the commercially zoned acreage”, and having residential development “will also make the commercially-zoned acreage more attractive for future commercial investment and development”. In essence, he wants to increase the County’s population so there are more wallets to patronize the existing and possible future brick and mortar businesses to get a better return on investment for the property he owns.

Focusing back to the Council presentation, Mr. Mercuro argued that the Town’s water usage estimates were not accurate. However, Council person Thompson pointed out that his figures were inconsistent with the US Geological Survey water usage guidelines, and the Town Manager commented that the Town’s estimates were derived from actual water system experience. While we can squabble over who’s estimates are more accurate, the proposed project’s water usage and existing water capacity is less consequential, because at the Council meeting October 1, Town staff reported that an analysis indicates that the proposed residential development would exceed the Town’s waste water treatment capacity, regardless of whose estimates are used. That would leave no reserve capacity for future commercial/industrial development in the 340/522 corridor which would be expected to benefit all citizens in the future. That fact alone should dictate a denial of public water to the CRW residential proposal. Surprisingly though, the Council has not acknowledged that critical factor and continues to consider approval of the property owner’s request!

Mr. Mercuro’s presentation also conveniently forgot to address some significant negative aspects of his proposed residential project as outlined here:

• Traffic congestion would increase at an already challenging intersection.
• Additional vehicle trips from housing residents would add to the burden on all other roadways in the Town and County.
• A significant impact would occur at the route 66 eastbound entrance ramp which has limited turn lane space from rt 340 south.
• A new, hazardous pedestrian element would further complicate that rt 340/522 intersection with cross-walk controls (Its a virtual certainty that accidents involving pedestrians would occur there because walkers and drivers don’t always pay attention.)
• A VDOT analysis has documented significant problems with the transportation plan for residential development at that location.
• While the development would contribute taxes and fees, the cost of public services would greatly exceed their contributions and be a net burden to existing tax payers when budgetary challenges already exist.
• The local elementary school is presently at capacity, and either a new school would be needed, or substantial expansion must occur at the existing school.

Also, how can an adequate bridge be built for only 10 million dollars when VDOT previously estimated bridge construction would cost $25 million?

It would be disastrous to ignore the precedent that would be set if the Town changed its existing policy now and began providing public water to residential development outside its boundaries. Other developers could use that as a basis for demanding public water for their residential projects outside the Town in the future, and the courts would almost certainly enforce that. Why unnecessarily entertain such a risk?

The most important element with this project is that the public has opposed it consistently. It takes nothing more than common sense to recognize all of the proposal’s shortcomings and how quality of life and budgets will forever be affected if this became a reality. Citizens object to this project being jammed down their throats so a real estate investor can benefit at their expense. In a short time frame, 521 signatures were obtained on a petition opposing their proposal. I believe in a referendum it would be defeated with a substantial majority.

Considering the overwhelming facts against this project, if any public representative was to support it, one would have to ask if some unknown, hidden political agenda existed rather than there simply being a flaw in their critical thinking ability. While that might seem paranoid to some, recent issues like the EDA fiasco justify a healthy dose of skepticism.

The bottom line here is that public water service for residential development at Crooked Run West should be denied and the sooner the better.

Gary Kushner
Bentonville, Virginia