Local Government
‘SHAME!’ – Supervisors reverse course on Linden Sheetz rezoning
From a virtual viewing of the Tuesday, June 15 meeting of the Warren County Board of Supervisors, it appeared at least one member of the public while exiting yelled “Shame” at a majority of the county’s elected officials for their 3-1 vote, Mabe dissenting, Fox absent, reversing a 3-2 February decision to deny the Dudding Commercial Development LLC’s rezoning request to enable the construction of a Sheetz gas station/convenience store at the foot of the Apple Mountain neighborhood in Linden.
Despite a restating of the overwhelming (13 of 13 public speakers this time addressing the matter) neighborhood concerns about the project – public health: fuel oil leakage-contaminated groundwater feeding the subdivision water supply; public safety: children catching a school bus near a potential predator’s quick access to an Interstate escape route prominent among those – perhaps the writing was on the wall that a turn was coming from the February 10th, 3-2 vote denying the enabling rezoning. One of those original votes of denial, Archie Fox, was absent; and another, Tony Carter in whose district the rezoning is requested, had suggested the matter be reconsidered a bare three months after the initial vote.
Then, one of the two dissenting votes against the February rezoning denial, Delores Oates (along with board Chair Cheryl Cullers) seconded Carter’s motion to approve the rezoning.
File photo of Happy Creek Supervisor Tony Carter from earlier this year – could he have been pondering a change to his initial vote of denial of the Sheetz rezoning request? Perhaps. Royal Examiner Photos by Roger Bianchini
What does this political math add up to? A 3-1 vote, Oates and Cullers duplicating their February votes, and Carter, who appears to have abandoned any idea of a run for re-election in the Happy Creek District where the rezoning is proposed, joining them.
With the original decision based on the February Public Hearing at a joint County Planning Commission-Supervisors meeting up for “reconsideration”, there was no new public hearing scheduled to precede any action on that reconsideration.
So the 13 citizens addressing the matter spoke at the Public Comments portion of the meeting generally designed for input on non-agenda matters, or as in this case a matter for which there would be no other opportunity for public input.
Much of that comment was very pointed at the political process and the potential role of money above a public good in the board’s decision to reconsider.
Referencing earlier meetings on the matter she has attended, including a “five-hour meeting” where she noted, no parent had spoken in favor of the Dudding/Sheetz proffer of maintaining a school bus stop on the property adjacent to the proposed Sheetz, Felicity Smoot asked the board, “Given that, how is this even being brought back for reconsideration is just baffling to me. The people have spoken, you all have voted – why are we still talking about this? This feels like an underhanded attempt to tire people out, so this can quietly be passed when everyone stops paying attention.”
Felicity Smoot wondered at the political processes at work in such a quick turnaround to reconsideration of the split board decision of Feb. 10 denying the rezoning request.
Referencing the cancellation of a School Board-Transportation Office-neighborhood meeting scheduled for June 8, to discuss the public school bus stop situation – usage of the existing bus stop on the property in question was withdrawn by the property owner following the February vote blocking the rezoning and sale of a portion of the property to Sheetz – Smoot wondered why.
“It does not seem that this issue is being handled with transparency and honesty. Please do what you were voted into office to do: act in a trustworthy way, honor your word from February, and do not consider rezoning,” she concluded.
Francis Williams followed Smoot to the podium, noting he lived within 200-feet of the proposed Sheetz location. – “This has been an ongoing thing for almost a year now,” he began, calling the proposal “a threat” to the community.
“And I take it as a personal threat to my family. I’ve got a little boy that’s starting to walk. What happens if he wanders down there when he’s three or four and disappears? I’m sure these guys won’t care, Williams said gesturing to the trio of applicant representatives sitting two rows behind the podium, offering an unkind assessment: “All they care about is money.”
Nearby neighbor Francis Williams points to the trio of involved applicant representatives seated in the second row behind him, from left real estate attorney Joe Silek Jr., Jerime Dudding of Dudding Commercial Development LLC, and Sheetz rep Hank Slicker, with an unkind assessment of motivation grounded elsewhere than in the public good. From earlier meeting photos it appears that involved property owner Paul Lanier is seated behind Silek in the white shirt.
Williams even offered to dedicate a portion of his property to the County for a new school bus stop – “If it’s going to come down to building a Sheetz or having a school bus right in my front yard, I’d much rather have a school bus stop,” he told the supervisors. As to his level of commitment to the issue, Williams told the supervisors he bought his home property at Apple Mountain “a little over a year ago” adding, “And now I’m thinking about moving out – and I know a lot of people are.”
Williams, like others, wondered what had changed in such a short time span to mandate the board’s reconsideration of its initial 3-2 vote of denial. Representative local government, he reasoned, was in place in the interest of the citizens’ elected officials to represent, rather than “financial, personal interest, private-commercial – whatever” he broke off in frustration.
On the public safety end, he referenced another citizen’s research indicating that the Town had received 93 calls, apparently about suspicious activity at the new Sheetz location in town; and apparent issues with Emergency Services and county law enforcement understaffing.
“I really hope you guys are for us, not for them. They can find another place – we can’t or it’s not going to be as easy.
Another Apple Mountain resident, Sue Kenyon, followed Williams to the podium, noting she, like some others who had preceded her, had not intended to speak publicly to the issue. However, she pointed to a gap in one potential long-term consequence of approving the rezoning and the Sheetz project landing in eastern Warren County.
“Sheetz can build anywhere. They don’t have to build at the bottom of Apple Mountain. They could build at the northeast corner on (Routes) 79 and 55 – that’s been for sale forever,” Kenyon observed, becoming emotional as she noted her 33-year residency on Apple Mountain – “Raised my five children going down to that bus stop.”
She then theorized an endgame previously unmentioned by either side: “The long-term effect … I believe Sheetz wants a truck stop, I don’t know if you know it, but the property right across Apple Mountain Road on the other side, is also 15 acres. Once they get one side commercial, they’ll get the other side commercial. And then what will we look like?” Kenyon asked, her voice again quivering with emotion.
“So, please reconsider – think long term. They want a truck stop, that was their original intention,” Kenyon concluded of her perception of the company’s long-term design on the I-66 Linden Exit area at the foot of the rural mountain neighborhood.
Following two more speakers rising to object to the rezoning, Board Chair Cullers called the 60-minute time limit on the Public Comments portion of the meeting, which was already once divided to facilitate the 7:30 p.m.-scheduled Public Hearings. The final of the 17 total speakers, 13 addressing the Sheetz rezoning reconsideration, another Apple Mountain resident, Richard Frazier, posed a legal question to the board concerning the proffered school bus stop adjacent to the Sheetz location just off the Linden I-66 interchange: “I’m also concerned having the bus stop right at 66 – if a child was abducted, you’re right on the highway, you’re gone. And I’d like to ask, if the board forces us into having the bus stop there, are you going to be liable if that happens?”
Rezoning opponent and final speaker Richard Frazier raised the question of legal liability for elected officials who approve an applicant school bus stop proffer that someday might lead to a child abduction from a bus stop adjacent to the proposed Sheetz gas station/store. While unanswered directly, the odds in Vegas would seem slim on such municipal liability – probably.
Unfinished business: Sligo Estates & Sheetz
And on that unanswered note, the meeting moved on to board and staff reports. Thirteen minutes later the board reached the final agenda items, two of the three being the “Unfinished Business” of the Sheetz rezoning reconsideration, preceded by the other major Public Comments topic, the Sligo Estates Short-Term-Rental Conditional Use Permit request of Northern Virginia-based John and Anna Carpenter. Having reheard neighborhood opposition to that latter request from Sligo Estates POA President Caleb Johnson and two other residents, all who referenced that the Carpenters had signed off on the neighborhood covenants which prohibit such commercial or quasi-commercial uses, and had also promised to drop the request if the subdivision majority opposed it, the board approached this decision delayed from May 18th.
Speaking to another volatile neighborhood issue, Sligo Estates POA President Caleb Johnson and two other opponents of a neighbor’s Short-Term Tourist Rental permitting application, fared better than the 13 speakers against the Sheetz rezoning.
Walt Mabe made the motion to deny the request, seconded by Delores Oates, who earlier noted that the county board was not in the business of enforcement of neighborhood covenants. The motion to deny the Carpenter CUP request then passed by a 4-0 roll call vote, Fox absent. Could this be a positive sign for the Apple Mountain contingent, with only three Sligo Estates residents speaking in opposition to the Carpenter request, compared to the 13 in opposition to the Sheetz-enabling rezoning?
Planning Director Joe Petty summarized the background, including the joint February meeting at which the planning commission recommended approval of the rezoning by a 3-1 vote, which the supervisors reversed with the 3-2 vote to deny. Following Petty’s presentation, Cullers’ call for board discussion was met by about 10 seconds of silence. Culler’s then called for a motion.
Chairperson Cullers’ call for a board discussion of the Sheetz rezoning reconsideration was met by silence. So, a board majority, including the chair, moved to reverse the Feb. 10 denial of the rezoning without comment on reasons for their coming votes or reactions to what they’d heard from impacted citizens.
Tony Carter, in whose Happy Creek District the property at issue lies, responded by reading the motion to reconsider and approve the rezoning request into the record. Oates seconded the motion, which then passed by the 3-1 margin noted above, with only Mabe dissenting and Fox absent.
That led to the unhappy exit of the Apple Mountain contingent with shouts of “Shame, shame” directed at the board majority.
With the majority of the public gone from the room, the board then approved a 20-item Consent Agenda as presented under “New Business” as its final order of business for the evening. That vote of approval on a motion by Oates, was 4-0, as was the vote on Oates’ motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:28 p.m. the evening of June 15.
